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  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  Next

Comments 69601 to 69650:

  1. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    @Karl_from_Wylie Quotes have already been addressed, see here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
  2. Karl_from_Wylie at 16:27 PM on 23 November 2011
    Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    Attack the "whistle blowers". Don't address any of the quotes other than say their "out of context" It's time to admit that shoddy research reporting lessens the credibility of one's work.
    Response:

    [DB] Unless it is proven that "whistle blowers" were involved the skeptical thing to do would be to presume the emails were hacked, as no "whistle blowers" have come forward under the shield of whistle blower acts designed to protect them.

  3. Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
    As it happens, two-year-old, stale, reheated CRU conspiracy theory comes conveniently wrapped in tinfoil from which very fashionable and practical hats can be assembled.
  4. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    scaddenp$54: I guess it depends on who is doing the refining. Here's a USEIA database of US % refinery utilization that shows the peak was in 1998; 2010 was back to the same level as 1991. BP enjoys a considerable margin on refining: Global average refining margins improved to $10.0/bbl in 2010 from $9/bbl in 2009 with oil demand returning to growth. Chevron's not doing so badly either: Chevron, the second-largest American oil company, had a 43 percent jump in quarterly profit, beating estimates as high oil prices and increased refinery margins offset weaker output. Chevron’s profit rose to $7.7 billion, or $3.85 a share, from $5.4 billion, or $2.70 a share, a year earlier. Profits are indeed up; gasoline prices are just high enough to keep people driving - and finding costs, which spiked in 2008, are back down in the $15/bbl range. Last I checked, WTI was over $95. Like they used to say in Texas, "If you don't have an oil well, get one!"
  5. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Tom Curtis @ 122 Thank you for your very thoughtful and interesting post. Good ideas in there to consider. I do appreciate the effort.
  6. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    muon, I am in no position to assess the expertise of Consumer Union researchers but I do see some issues with that report. Firstly, if crude production is constrained while demand increases, then I cant see how profits can do anything except go up. The cost part of the production goes up only modestly while retail price goes up a lot. If refining capacity has been artificially limited, then surely someone can make a buck reopening a refinery or building a new one? The real issue with refining is that they cost a huge amount build and need to operate 20-30 years to return a profit to investors. But 30 year supply contracts are rather thin on the ground. Compare that article with this one "Many refiners struggle to make money currently as refining margins slide back to $2-5 per barrel. My own refinery model clearly demonstrates this phenomena and finished product prices will have to rise substantially"
  7. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Humor is obviously acceptable, there have been many good examples here. But the political humor in the last sentence in the OP should be removed and/or left out of future articles.
  8. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    I have commented on this particular issue over and over again, and hopefully we will start to wake up to the very simple fact that there are too many people in the world. Our use of resources is NOT sustainable, and there is zero doubt that we are heading for a population crash in the not too far distant future. Climate change is just one part of the jig-saw, and it isn't even really the problem - it is just a symptom of the real problem. Over-exploitation of resources, wildlife habitat fragmentation, climate change, pollution - these are all symptoms of there being too many people. I have seen it over and over again where a species undergoes exponential growth because of lack of predation, disease or competition. And in every single case such growth is simply unsustainable, and the population eventually crashes because of lack of resources and because their environment becomes virtually uninhabitable. Humans are not different. And the result WILL be inevitable unless we change our ways - which we won't or can't.
  9. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    pirate#47: "a product that you can offer and make a profit, would you limit yourself?" All corporations are expected to limit themselves - they must stay within the law. For the time being, the US still has a Clean Air Act and an EPA. How do your precious companies respond? They buy themselves enough representation in Congress to influence lawmaking. Since the 1990 election cycle, the oil and gas industry has contributed more than $270 million to political campaigns, committees and causes. Republicans received 76 percent of the total money. ... What companies are contributing the most? The people and PACs affiliated with Koch Industries, ExxonMobil and Chief Oil and Gas were the top three political donors during the 2010 election. How've the oils done during this time period? ... the U.S. oil industry made $100 billion in windfall profits since the late 1990s, largely by eliminating refining capacity that paved the way to drive up prices at the pump. Those price increases have added more than $1,000 a year to the average family’s gasoline bill. The analysis, entitled “Debunking Oil Company Myths and Deception: The $100 Billion Consumer Rip-Off,” found that the difference between the cost of crude oil, and the price at the pump (net of taxes) is now about 40 cents a gallon higher than historical averages. That spike comes as a small number of large oil companies control both oil production and refining in the United States. Great system; I was a part of it for 25 years (until I got a real job). No wonder Congressmen don't have to show up for briefings - or do anything that helps the people they were sent there to help fleece. Just "Drill, baby, drill."
  10. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    Thanks for your analysis of the science. It is most important. I humbly request you reconsider publishing my analogy: what if a scientist answers email questions from HS students about drinking and driving - and opines that a small amount of alcohol blood level is OK - imprecise science there would be harmful.
  11. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    DrTsk@1, 6 Your original comment was "Keep It Simple for the Stupid". My point is that most of the population are not scientists and, if intelligence distribution follows a Bell curve, most of the population is of average intelligence and not stupid. Thus, I was trying to show that we should keep things simple for the masses, in order to make our information accessible to and digestible by the greatest number of people. In my experience, we tend to gloss over the 'too hard' bits in information we process and only go back to try for a deeper understanding if the topic interests us, or if we need the knowledge for an exam . This has been an entertaining and informative thread of comments. I have certainly learned some useful tips.
  12. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    "I don't know of a better system worldwide" Apart from the specific issues noted by scaddenp, the glaring problem in democratic decision making in the USA from an Australian point of view would be voter registration. Here there's a neutral agency which handles voter registration, according to rules clearly set out in legislation and regulation. They apply equally to all Australian citizens, no variations state by state. Having an impartial, universal voter registration system would be a vast improvement for USA democracy. At least from the view on this side of the Pacific.
  13. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    @Pirate #47: You convenitnetly ignore the fact that the five companies listed have been in the vanguard of creating and perpetuating the Climate Denial Spin Machine. In addition, their environmental track records have been abysmal. BTW, Coca-Cola's environmental track record has also been abysmal.
  14. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    #47 pirate, if you think the US system is the best political system in the world, you haven't looked into other political systems. First, as scaddenp says, money utterly talks in US politics. You can't be a US candidate unless large sums of money are donated to you personally, allowing all manner of corruption from vested interests. It's all to easy for principles to take a back seat when an organisation comes up to a budding candidate and offers hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations, but might hint that taxes on rich/coporations might be best left low, and that it's not a great idea to act on climate change, for example. Secondly, due to the filibuster rules, US politics necessarily relies on compromise and discussion between the parties, something that just isn't happening at present with Republicans having sworn to make Obama a one-term president and oppose every single thing he does. So nothing gets agreed, even on debt or budget. Between these two facts, US democracy appears from the outside to be broken just now. You don't like the source of John's article. Do you have evidence that energy / FF companies are not using some of their profits to influence politicians in the USA? Here's some evidence in a Guardian article showing that even foreign FF companies got into the act before the US mid-term elections. I much prefer democratic systems like NZ or even the UK (and I think many European countries) where private funding of campaigns is much more limited, such as in scaddenp's post above. It doesn't prevent corruption, but it certainly doesn't aid it as in the US.
  15. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    @Kevin : Ultimately sustainability DOES equal austerity. But maybe austerity does NOT equal human unhappiness. I bet there are levels of material sufficiency that are lower than the developed world's current profligacy, but which could actually enrich us all in that most precious commodity - that of human happiness. We do need to reduce carbon intensity, and fast. But reducing GDP, however taboo, is both necessary, and potentially hugely rewarding. Necessary, because even if we 'solve' the carbon intensity issue, our endless striving for economic growth is exhausting most of the world's ecological resources. Hugely rewarding because, in a society where 30-50% of our labours is no longer required, just to fill the coffers of landowners; where the mass-consumer beast is finally dead and buried; where real needs are met, and false ones are no longer inflated -- in that society, we might all actually be able to achieve that fabled work/life/security balance. (And no I don't mean 'going back to the Stone Age'!)
  16. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    I recently reads that there has been a record increase in carbon consumption and I've also seen that we've added 2.3 ppm Co2 to the atmosphere. Is the 2.3 based on the record fossil fuel consumption or is that going to hit next year's figures ?
  17. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    "Sure, successful companies can hire lobbyists and influence decision making on the political level. I'm no fan of that either, but I don't know of a better system worldwide. " Hmm. Well here in NZ, we have: - public funds used for election campaigning. Each party gets a share based roughly on recent popularity. This is an anathema to many but it puts campaigning on an even footing. - limits on campaign expenditure - no anonymous advertising. - political donations over NZ$30,000 (from memory) must be declared. The idea is severely limit the power of money to influence policy. To me, the US democracy look corrupt. It offers a way to buy power and influence. The world needs US citizens to fix it. You know you have succeeded when you dont have lobbyists (in the sense of people hired to talk directly to politicians).
  18. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    I have described the problems associated with development of CCS technology and its use in CCS: Investment in Futility at http://www.onlineopinion.co.au/view.asp?article=8899&page=0 Since 2008, very large sums of money (public and coal industry) have been allocated to overcoming these problems. Progress has been made on capture of CO2 but not on reducing overall cost of using the technology. In Australia, the only attempt at commercial application ended in the 2010 bankruptcy of the proponent company. The exercise did at least confirm earlier expressed views that use of CCS technology was prohibitively expensive, preventing its commercial use. During the same period, the cost of RE has fallen and continues to fall as technological improvements in this area made by the private sector in Australia (with limited public funding) and overseas. In Australia, legislation pricing carbon establishes an independent statutory fund for development of RE technology (specifically excluding CCS) and a fund to assist in its commercial application. By imposing a price on carbon emissions, the legislation ensures (and is intended to ensure) that the price of FFE rises and continues to rise relative to the cost of RE producing base load power – geothermal, marine and solar. As the price of FFE rises commercial use of CCS technology also becomes more affordable but it still remains significantly more expensive than RE and seems destined to remain that way – at least that is my assessment. As adalady points out, RE is being deployed in Australia now. Five solar energy power stations have been approved for construction and the first geothermal (hot rocks) electricity is expected to come on line in March 2012. Meanwhile the domestic and global price of coal continues to rise while pricing carbon emissions gives certainty to investors that RE is the way to go and provides for billions to be available for its technological development. Rather than representing a biased (pessimistic) view of CCS v RE, I suggest it is a view based on current realities.
  19. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    adelady, this state? http://www.aemo.com.au/planning/0400-0031.pdf
  20. apiratelooksat50 at 11:18 AM on 23 November 2011
    Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    John at 46 If you have a product that you can offer and make a profit, would you limit yourself? You need to think about the multitude of people who profit from a company that makes money. Workers, shareholders and executives. That is what a well-run business does. That is who we invest in. Is Coca-Cola evil because they make massive profits? Sure, successful companies can hire lobbyists and influence decision making on the political level. I'm no fan of that either, but I don't know of a better system worldwide. Plus, anything coming from alternet.org should be considered extremely biased.
  21. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    Pielke is correct: "The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere from human activities is a warming influence in terms of reducing the magnitude of heat lost to space over time. However, it is just one of a number of warming influences including from soot (black carbon), ozone, and other aerosol effects." Where he fails (whether deliberately or stupidly) is in making explicit that the other warming influences are the result of the same processes of burning fuel. CO2 is the initial driver of climate change, but it is not the main tipping point. The main tipping point is the contributions of the effects of CO2 triggers, like melting ice and permafrost methane release. Most neglected is the effect of NOx precursors creating ozone, which is killing vegetation around the globe. The loss of the CO2 sink of plant live is already leading (anyone see it?) to the rise in the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/11/dodging-bullets.html
  22. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    I suppose I should add that I live in a state that gets 20% of its power from wind already.
  23. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    "...wind costs are not really reducing in the most recent years..." Well, according to this report the best windfarms are now competitive with coal, gas and nuclear. And they expect that by 2016 the average wind farm will be cost competitive. When we're looking at choices for investors, I'd not be putting my money into one that looks to be declining in competitiveness within the industry.
  24. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    adelady : "It's not arbitrary. The glaringly obvious difference between them is that RE is being deployed right now. And the costs are reducing all the time. Plummeting in the case of solar PV." Well, "all the time", it depends. I take this 2009 document from a wind energy association (so, at least, we can suppose that it should be fair to wind, not a competitor-funded critics). If you look at the figure 0.3 p. 10, you can observe that wind costs are not really reducing in the most recent years (example of Denmark, whose aggressive policy and reknown savoir-faire is leader in Europe). Note also the 7.5% discount rate. Same is true in this 2010 Wind Technologies Market Report from US Dept of Energy / Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Look at the figures of pp 45-47, particularly figure 28 : costs are up if anything from 2001-2003 to 2011. (In the previous 2009 report, they announced that costs could drop in 2010, but they don't. In this 2010 report, they say costs could drop in 2011... and we'll see). IPCC SRREN 2011, in the chapter 7 dedicated to wind energy, don't give a decade trend for wind cost. But it emphasis that a deeper penetration (20%) would imply higher balancing costs (see 7.17, figure and explanations), even if there is also a hope for further technological improvement downing costs (no estimation, no date, as far as remember). So this is not a "all-the-time decreasing cost" for wind energy, even if it is presently mature and competitive in many conditions. It would be better to document such assertions when firstly introduced in the discussion, if possible from serious sources. scaddenp : "I do not think that we know the answer to enough questions to say with any certainty whether CCS has a role to play or not" I agree with you. That's why IEA scenario, and all energy-economy models' scenarios, should be taken with some caution. Unbiased skepticism is healthy in the energy debate.
  25. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    rpauli @30, I understand that you must be vexed by this, but please do not go there. That is not what is going on here, period. Watts and his followers might be compelled to try and make the bizarre connection between Mann and what happened with the Penn State football coach. But we do not have to invent reasons to find fault, we have science and facts on our side. So please stick to the facts at hand. It was not a lecture, he was answering some questions emailed to him by high school students at a school in Colorado. We do not know in what capacity Pielke was acting when he chose to mislead the students, nor do we know which school he chose to mislead.
  26. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Never underestimate the ability of the fossil fuel industry to influence what happens in the Congress of the United States. Energy companies continue to rake in massive profits. They use this wealth to leverage elections, write legislation, scale back regulations and escape accountability. Source: “The 5 Most Toxic Energy Companies and How They Control Our (USA) Politics” by Tara Lohan, AlterNet, Nov 20, 2011 To access this in-depth and hard-hitting article, click here. PS: The five most toxic energy companies are per the article are: 1. Chevron, 2. Exxon Mobile, 3. BP, 4. Koch Industries, and 5. Massy Energy
  27. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    Thanks Bob Loblaw. I like your distinctions between observation, interpretation and conclusions and how you go about it. Based on your tip, I will attach John Cook's "Guide" to my brief introduction to the topic because it wraps up observations, interpretation and conclusions better than I can. My ability to articulate in such a reasoned way just flies out the window sometimes especially if someone tells me it is all rubbish. I will try to apply the distinctions you have made in the way I write and speak about the issue. I am hoping I might get better with practise. I see what you mean about where that quote could lead and plus I think it would place the listener in a defensive frame of mind possibly resulting in them not listening at all.
  28. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    -snip- I am concerned more about the -snip- spirit of this lecture. "Don't you kids worry about your CO2 emissions" harms their future to be mislead about potential danger.
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] Inflammatory text removed.
  29. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    28, Steve, How can you not see his response to #1 as misleading? He clearly is saying, by nuanced implication, that there are so many factors in warming that CO2 is minor and nothing to really worry about. How can that not be seen as misleading?
  30. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    re Albatross, #27 Question #1, not misleading IMHO. Questions 2, 3 and 4, probably misleading. Question 5, too nuanced, possibly misleading, but in some ways not too much different from what Bill McKibben is saying--we are in for a time of global wierding, which in some places will be manifested as cold, heavy precipitation.
    Response:

    [DB] The prudent reader would be wise to see Bob Loblaw's response to this here for deeper insight to question #2.

  31. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    adelady, in fairness, you also need to note that CCS has only just started to have serious research. RE has been around for a long time. Disclaimer: my department (though not me personally) is involved in CCS research. I do not think that we know the answer to enough questions to say with any certainty whether CCS has a role to play or not. Hence the research.
  32. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    "You can’t be arbitrarily optimistic with RE and pessimistic with CCS: at least, you must explain why there would be progress in one field and stagnation in another." It's not arbitrary. The glaringly obvious difference between them is that RE is being deployed right now. And the costs are reducing all the time. Plummeting in the case of solar PV. CCS has not yet been shown to produce CO2 free power at commercial scale. There's a lot of R&D still to be done. And the costs are not yet known, especially for a complete rather than partial sequestering process.
  33. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    "... to halt population growth quickly it would be necessary to initially restrict fertility rates to well below two, which is a difficult policy to enforce." It's not just the number of children that needs to be the focus. It's the age of first-time mothers and spacing bitrhs thereafter. In many countries, and in some areas within many more countries, this age is far too low. There would be a huge impact on population numbers worldwide if age of first child bearing were increased by 5 or even 10 years. This is also related to longevity. The biggest population challenge is to reduce the number of years of generations overlapping alive at the same time. China is a classic example of restricting the number of children born without attending to a cultural preference for 4 generation families among significant parts of the population. There's no need to say that 4 generations is bad. It's perfectly OK for grandpa to see a great-grandchild born. The big issue is how many years of life of the oldest and youngest generations overlap. Increasing average age of first mothers .... by encouraging education and paid work (or at least work other than simple housework) .... can bring a population down quite quickly in areas where the average is currently below say 22, 24, 26.
  34. Newcomers, Start Here
    imthedragn, where'd you get the 1.5% water vapor statistic? I think I've usually seen around 0.4%. In any case, all greenhouse gases are not created equal. You also say that 0.9% of 33 C is only 0.3 C... but what logic underlies the assumption of a Celsius scale for this 'analysis'? If we switch to Fahrenheit then 33 C becomes 59 F... or if we go over to Kelvin it is 306 K. 0.9% of 306 K is 2.75 K... which is also 2.75 C. :] In short, your underlying calculation (and most of the values) is clearly incorrect.
  35. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
    Unfortunately, this proposition creates confusion -- sustainability does not equal austerity. Reducing CO2 emissions does not equal austerity. Setting up this sort of frame creates a huge block to moving forward and lower emissions. The energy system can be modified to nearly eliminate CO2 emissions -- it does not halt economic growth (again, the wrong frame), it merely delays by a few months acheiving the same level of wealth as would have been met had we done nothing. Policies which try to do this that are non-market or don't put a price on CO2 emissions will however be much more expensive and will delay achieving the same level of wealth noticably further out in time.
  36. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    FAO Daniel Bailey, Thanks for the comment at my blog. I'm not really finished on that matter, I'm now looking into what might be causing the positive skew, I have an idea but need to see if there's research that substantiates it. Furthermore as you can see I've done half the usual number of posts - that's due to work pressure (and anyway my ratio of posts to papers read is normally low). I will try to make the time over the weekend (barring the risk of forced overtime), but can't guarantee a rapid turnaround. Please feel free to email me: chris886222 at btinternet dot com Regards Chris R.
  37. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    Steve @2 and 22, You seem confused regarding the context in which the relative radiative forcing of the agents is being discussed (one can look at the relative contribution of CO2 to all positive forcings, or as Shindell et al. did, the relative contribution of CO2 to forcing from LLGHGs, CH4 and BC, or the relative contribution of CO2 to the net anthropogenic forcings etc.). I would suggest reading Skeie et al. (2011) and this post here at SkS. Can you please state if you agree or disagree with Pielke's misinforming these students. I get the impression that you are not concerned that he misled students. Thanks.
  38. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    SteveFunk: I was looking at page 47 of "Our Choice." The sources of Global warming are given as 43.1% CO2, 26.7% methane, 7.8% halocarbons, 6.7% CO & VOC's, 3.8% nitrous oxide, and 11.9% black carbon. Gore's book identifies these compounds as "the six kinds of air pollution that trap heat and raise temperatures." As such, the figures seem to refer to the volume of emissions. It would be a mistake to conclude from this that CO2 is responsible for roughly 40 percent of observed warming, as though every 1 percent of CO2 accounted for an equivalent 1 percent of warming. You may want to read CO2 is not the only driver of climate.
  39. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    tmac57 @21 - aerosols have both warming and cooling effects, but you're correct that the net effect is in the cooling direction. That's why I don't particularly like parsing out just the positive radiative forcings, because it ignores the fact that although aerosols and black carbon have a significant positive forcing, it's smaller than their combined negative forcing, so on the whole they actually have a cooling effect. Frankly it just serves to downplay the magnitude of the warming effects of greenhouse gases. And yet even through this arguably flawed methodology, as Albatross notes @24, greenhouse gases are still responsible for well over 50% of the net positive forcing.
  40. Newcomers, Start Here
    Help me with this one. The greenhouse effect if roughly 33 degrees centigrade which is the result of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The planet has warmed from an increase in greehouse gas concentrations from roughly 15,250ppm before human influence to about 15,385ppm today. (water vapor is in the neighborhood of 1.5%) That is an increase of 0.9%. So the planet should be roughly 0.3 degrees warmer as a result than it would be otherwise. Because there is a "human fingerprint" we have to assume that carbon dioxide traps more heat than an equal amount of water vapor. Has this ratio been determined scientifically or is it based on observed warming?
    Response:

    [DB] Thanks for taking the time to post a question/comment!

    "The planet has warmed from an increase in greehouse gas concentrations from roughly 15,250ppm before human influence to about 15,385ppm today."

    Umm, no.  The current atmospheric CO2 levelsfor October 2011 are 388.92 pp.  Pre-industrial concentrations were about 38% below that. Also, the planet has warmed due to a number of combining factors, just one of which is the rising CO2 levels.  It is fair to say, however, that the majority of the warming experienced globally over the past 40 years is largely due to GHG's, of which CO2 is the chief.

    "So the planet should be roughly 0.3 degrees warmer as a result than it would be otherwise."

    You assume an instaneous, or linear response.  There is a 30-40 year lag in effects, largely due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, but also due to the effects of aerosols, which act to delay the onset of the warming effects of rising levels of CO2.  And actually, the planet has warmed some 0.6 degrees since pre-industrial (with another 1.x something "in the pipeline").

    "Because there is a "human fingerprint" we have to assume that carbon dioxide traps more heat than an equal amount of water vapor."

    Umm, you need to remember that rising CO2 levels cause warming, a forcing, which then act to increase water vapor levels (warmer air holds more moisture) which then act to also raise temperature levels (a feedback).  Further feedbacks (melting permafrost and changing land/use patterns due to human factors and drought) can also release more CO2 yet, further amplifying the warming.  Think of CO2 as the temperature control knob of planetary temperatures.

    I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history and reading The Big Picture.

  41. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    Dana, What I find particularly disingenuous on Pielke's part is that in discussion here with SkS, we demonstrated (with links to the scientific literature) that "CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases" account for 72.3% of the positive forcing in 2010 (Skeie et al. 2011), with 47% of the positive radiative forcing from CO2 alone and well over 50% of the observed warming from CO2 alone. Even Dr. Pielke's own calculations, when corrected for arithmetic and double accounting errors, show that CO2, CH4 and other long-lived GHGs accounted for 56% of the positive radiative forcing back in 2001. So yes, "CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases" are indeed currently the dominant positive radiative forcing. Somerville and Hassol are correct, and Pielke is wrong. Unfortunately, that has not stopped Dr. Pielke is still propagating an error that he is well aware is wrong and using it to imply that Somerville and Hassol are lying. He owes them an apology for slandering them and should remove that post.
  42. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    Pirate: On the first read-through, Question #2 is adequately answered. Interesting comment. The phrase "first read-though" implies that others are forthcoming, which in turn implies that your viewpoint may change as you learn or understand more. Which makes me wonder: If your first read-through doesn't represent your final, informed take on Pielke's answer, why waste your time and ours by reporting it here? Especially given that you could've done a second read-through in the time it took you to post your comment? Better yet, you could have researched his outrageous claim that "the global average temperature anomalies are cooling." Wouldn't that have been a better use of your time? As a science teacher, you should know that "sounds good to me!" isn't a legitimate argument.
  43. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
    What a distraction from the real issues; just what the deniers needed. But there's a bit of good news in the Guardian article: Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is "of interest" to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified. Wasn't there a self-proclaimed major news outlet recently involved in an email hack scandal in the UK? Seems like a trend developing ...
  44. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    Dana1981@ #6 and Albatross at #7. I was looking at page 47 of "Our Choice." The sources of Global warming are given as 43.1% CO2, 26.7% methane, 7.8% halocarbons, 6.7% CO & VOC's, 3.8% nitrous oxide, and 11.9% black carbon. Original source was Drew T. Shindell etc in Science magazine.
  45. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    Pielke said
    However, it is just one of a number of warming influences including from soot (black carbon), ozone, and other aerosol effects.
    I thought that the net effect of aerosols was that of cooling.Also a recent study by Natalie Mahowald,suggests that we may be underestimating the cooling effect of those aersols: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov11/mahowaldClimate.html
  46. Newcomers, Start Here
    Here we go again :-( More hacked emails released
  47. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    Pielke's comments in the blog post Albatross links @19 are classic psychological projection. I particularly liked this part:
    "The fundamental error made by the authors (as with the Sherwood article that I posted on last week), is their assumption of the dominance of added CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases in climate change."
    Ironic since one of the fundamental errors made by Pielke is his assumption that greenhouse gases don't have a dominant influence over climate change.
  48. Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
    Readers, Dr. Pielke just does not get it, period. He seems unable to differentiate between what he perceives to be disinformation, and truth and facts. Only today Dr. Pielke has posted a defamatory and disparaging article on his blog on an article written by respected scientist (Dr. Somerville) and lauded writer (Ms. Hassol). Perhaps he is trying to distract people from the main post above? Who know the best form of defence is offence? Pielke writes: "The authors use a disinformation approach to present their view" Absolute nonsense. First, they are not using "disinformation" (i.e., deliberately spreading intentionally false or inaccurate information). Second, he provides no evidence whatsoever other than his own opinion to substantiate that assertion. Third, Dr. Pielke is accusing them of "disinformation" when Dr. Pielke is in fact the one who has been shown yet again in the main post above to be guilty of misrepresenting/distorting facts and data. It is abundantly clear who is really engaging in disinformation.... He also essentially accuses Somerville and Hassol of lying when he says: "They deliberately confuse this statement." Dr. Pielke concludes: "It is an example of a set of individuals using an article (not an op-ed) in a professional science journal to promote their particular views on policy" Somerville and Hassol are speaking to the problem of communicating climate science, their piece is titled "Communicating the science of climate change". Dr. Pielke likes to pay the game of falsely accusing others who do not agree with his views as being disparaging towards him. Well that is exactly what Dr. Pielke is doing to Somerville and Hassol-- a clear double standard on Dr. Pielke's part. Additionally, Dr. Pielke is the one touting an opinion piece in the EOS newspaper as a peer-reviewed paper to the house of Representatives to push his own agenda; so another double standard by Dr. Pielke. This is enough, Dr. Pielke cannot expect to go around ridiculing his colleagues at will and now making unsubstantiated and defamatory accusations against his colleagues without being held accountable. Whose server does Dr. Pielke's blog reside on? I certainly hope that he is not launching these attacks from a server residing at a respected institution such as CIRES. PS: This is not the first time that the Pielkes have had a go at Ms. Hassol, the last time it was Pielke's son.
  49. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
    "Apparently there has been a fresh batch of emails release from CRU." Hmmm. The perpetrator claims to be deeply deeply concerned about transparency and openness... and is therefor anonymous.
  50. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 03:31 AM on 23 November 2011
    Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
    Apparently there has been a fresh batch of emails release from CRU. Fresh round of hacked emails

Prev  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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