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  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  1424  Next

Comments 70801 to 70850:

  1. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    86 JMurphy: "Curry seems to have started channelling" But she's supposed to be a peacemaker!
  2. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    21 Jsquared: "Why isn't minimizing the squared error (least squares) an acceptable way of getting at this?" To a degree, it is the acceptable way. All 'best fit' trend lines and curves should be calculated from linear least squares. However, you can always decrease root-mean-squared error (RMSE) by simply adding additional powers to a best fit polynomial; the problem is then: what physical model justifies higher order curves? So the physics isn't 'biasing' the choice of curves, the physics is a prime control over the choice of curves. The step function is a not a best fit unless one makes an ad hoc chopped salad out up the time interval and then presumes that each section is flat. How physical is that model? And why doesn't anyone on the 'steptic' side ever ask these questions?
  3. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    102 MAR: Have you looked here for conversion factors? 1 g C = 0.083 mole CO2 = 3.664 g CO2 1 ppm by volume of atmosphere CO2 = 2.13 Gt C
  4. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    Regarding step vs linear: seems to me this is basically a mathematical argument about what curve best fits the data. Why isn't minimizing the squared error (least squares) an acceptable way of getting at this? The physics may bias your choice of functions to consider, of course.
  5. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    Curry seems to have started channelling Monckton by referring to "CAGW idealogues". Maybe that nice meal she had with him recently turned her around to his way of thinking...
  6. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Michael Sweet wrote: "Pielke Sr advocated using satelite data as the primary metric of AGW during this time, perhaps this relates to his current proposal to use ocean heat" Hi Michael. Do you have a link or citation for Pielke's advocacy of the satellite data? If he really claimed that should be taken as 'the primary metric' and has now switched to advocating for the 'top 700 meter OHC' it really seems like he is just latching on to any metric which doesn't show continuous warming IF you accept non statistically significant trends as valid.
  7. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Re @80 (& @68, @74, & @76) above. It's good to definitively sort out what these gigatons are and what the year was. Then it is sad that the answer brings a concept of increased complexity down from the sky into 'emissions' and with it the latitude for more unwanted argument & dissembling. And that in an issue already complicated enough. It's also bad because reducing emissions significantly below 2010 levels will require more emission cutting than 'peaking before 2020' which was my previous understanding of the required global emissions goal. That said, is it possible to be more exact about GtCO2e? I'm hoping the conversion from GtCO2e emissions to atmospheric ppmCO2e is the simpler one (ie the same calculation used to convert GtCO2 to ppmCO2 or x40%/2.13). The 2010 emissions 48 GtCO2e being 25% higher than 2010 emissions 38 GtCO2 looks about right for such an assumption. Then my assumptions have failed me on this already. And the paper linked @74 above gives 2005 emissions 45 GtCO2e which is 50% higher than the 30.7 GtCO2 2005 emissions. (The 45 GtCO2e is referenced to this UNEP paper but I do not see the number there! I do see its Note 12 suggesting my assumption of a simple GtCO2e is wrong! Although Fig 1 strongly suggests less that careful authorship.) With methane concentrations flat in 2005, 50% is surely impossibly high if the conversion is the simple one I assume. Then the 2005 50% multiplier could have been borrowed from the 1990s.
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed links.

  8. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    100 - adelady "(I expect there were other groups on other islands who probably turned them into some kind of worship-worthy tribal symbol and maintained their populations.)" not this particular case, but for those interested in that kind of thing may I recommend the fabulous Roy Rappaport and his "Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People"
  9. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    chriskoz "The mentality of other cultures, i.e. Pacific Islanders, Aboriginals are different as you noted." Even there we find huge variations. Saw an item on teev recently about at least one Pacific Island and their turtle population a century or so ago. They just kept eating eggs and turtles until there were no more. (I expect there were other groups on other islands who probably turned them into some kind of worship-worthy tribal symbol and maintained their populations.) Culture and religion can be important influences for both good and bad outcomes.
  10. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Ger, Lovelock was talking about "tribal mentality" in European sense, wherein selfish "people-first-and-only" attitude always prevailed. Nature/land was always considered an infinite resource. Such culture led to the concept of exponontial growth economy that is still deeply engraved in most minds, especially right wing politicians, in EU, NAmerica, Australia, China. That conservative thinking persists despite the clear evidence that we are hitting the limits of "exponential growth". The mentality of other cultures, i.e. Pacific Islanders, Aboriginals are different as you noted. Unfortunately those were swamped and almost anihilated by white man as was the case in OZ. Now it the best time to say pardon (I was said in OZ some 3y ago) and learn something about the way of living sustainable and respectful to the land. Incidently, the first step has just been made in OZ itself: they've just approved the emmission trading scheme in Canberra today. The first time white man recognised the land and air has value Down Under!
  11. SkS Weekly Digest #23
    DMarshall@5 I can feel a "snow job" coming on.
  12. SkS Weekly Digest #23
    DMarshall : "...they've been cranking up the "another Little Ice Age is coming" publicity machine. If this is a bad winter and if next year is significantly cooler than the last few, expect them to shout victory from the rooftops." I'm lost now : are they saying that the earth is warming (and they have all been saying that all along, apparently) or are they saying that the earth is cooling ? Or is it both, depending on how they feel each day ?! Anyway, there was a programme on the BBC recently (Will it Snow ? - although probably only accessible within the UK) which had the Met Office reckoning that this Winter in the UK shouldn't be as bad as the last couple. Fingers crossed...
  13. SkS Weekly Digest #23
    DMarshall @8 Political polarisation strikes again it would seem.
  14. SkS Weekly Digest #23
    @Stevo Romney seems to have been steadily shifting towards denial as the leadership race progresses, despite having nearly implemented a cap-and-trade program in his days as governor. His most recent statements are that America shouldn't waste trillions of dollars on reducing emissions because polluters will just move elsewhere and he's been calling for aggressive use and development of domestic fossil fuel and nuclear.
  15. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    Err Steve @19, who are you arguing with? Right now it seems like you are arguing mostly with yourself. Your original question regarding the warming in the top 700 m was and is off topic. It seems that you are talking about oceanic heat content. Please take that to the appropriate thread. Try here. Regarding sea level might I suggest posting here. And regarding the loss of ice from Antarctica might I suggest posting here.
  16. SkS Weekly Digest #23
    DMarshall and Albatross, I'm not quite keeping up with developments in the GOP. Does Romney still maintain AGW is real or has he changed horses?
  17. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    Response: [to my post #6] [DB] "I see that the Church & White source you list shows the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets contributing to sea level with the same sign." Nice goalpost shift. Actually [DB}, I originally put up a question about ocean heat. I said: (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] We are all well-aware of what you said.  My purpose in posting what I did in response to you was to illustrate the fact that ample data - including the "skeptics" favorite toy: error bars & error data - exist extant of the graph depicted and also extant of the IPCC's summary.  All that remains is for an interested individual to actually look for it, instead of carping about a graph's supposed lack of whatever-their-point-of-interest is.

    If you cannot locate what you are looking for, asking politely without insinuations of conspiracy, fraud or malfeasance on the part of, well, anyone, works best.

    Please make a greater effort to remain on-topic, also.  Off-topic snipped.

  18. citizenschallenge at 16:01 PM on 8 November 2011
    Eschenbach and McIntyre's BEST Shot at the Surface Temperature Record
    From the final paragraph: "Based on the analyses of Fu, V&G, and Zou, an unbiased assessment would indicate the far more plausible explanation is that RSS and UAH are biased low, particularly since the accuracy of the >>> surface temperature record has been confirmed time and time again, even by those (i.e. Anthony Watts)<<< who have been disputing its accuracy for years. " ~ ~ ~ It would be very cool if you had a link here going to more details about how Watts weather station study actually turned out to support the consensus.
  19. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    chriskoz #97, I do not get tribal mentality. as one tribal leader spoke (in connection with land rights/land use) " we do not own the land, the land owns us. How can we decide to sell it for a purpose not knowing what the effect will be on the land and its inhabitants". Will look up which chief spoke those words, was on the island of Mindanao, Philippines.
  20. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    jyyh @17 Thanks for the Tamino article. Solidly argued and delightfully written.
  21. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    Tamino gets 70.9 years as the lenght for the best statistical fit for a single longer cycle, it doesn't fit. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/berkeley-and-the-long-term-trend/ 'Electron walks in a bar and stops to say to the bartender, "You haven't seen me here"'
    Response:

    [DB] Hot-linked URL.

  22. SkS Weekly Digest #23
    Hello DMarshall @5, I share your concerns, trust me. I and other are still fighting tooth and nail, here, behind the scenes, whenever and wherever we can...it is exhausting. But now and again we do earn "small victories" as I noted above and it recharges my batteries :) No need to worry, "complacent" is not in my vocabulary, and probably not in John Cook's either. Yes, Obama is having a hard time of it, but a lot can change in a year, hopefully he can pull some magic, but I fear at this point it is going to take some "magic".
  23. SkS Weekly Digest #23
    @Albatross #4 Don't be complacent; a setback is not a loss and they've been cranking up the "another Little Ice Age is coming" publicity machine. If this is a bad winter and if next year is significantly cooler than the last few, expect them to shout victory from the rooftops. I trust it hasn't been lost on you that ALL but one of the original entrants in the US Republican leadership race switched from supporting to denying global warming?
  24. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    funglestrumpet @95: James Lovelock, the inventor of Gaia hypothesis, in his recent book "The revenge of Gaia", claims that overpopulation and tribal mentality of homo sapiens are the key causes of current "Gaia crisis". Further, James is a big proponent of nuclear energy, and asserts that if we don't re-embrace it, rather than burning fossils until exhaustion which is expected given "tribal nature", then Gaia will get rid of us. According to James, nucs and radiation is not a problem for nature (nuclear waste sites, AWA Chernobyl area, are beaming with plant and animal life) it is just human fear. So people got scared enough not to use nucs (yet) so they are still proliferating and killing Gaia's diversity. In that context, one could deduce an opinion that it's very bad your generation did prevent nuc war... BTW, that's not my opinion, but it can be the Lovelock's, although he didn't state it explicitly. However, tribal, selfish mentality of man seems to be correct assessment by Lovelock. And, as he argues, most of the past global problems (DDT poisoning, ozone hole, threat of nuc war) were resolved by people due to the fear the effects (loss of bald eagle - national emblem - Amer pride etc, skin cancer, radiation) that started to (or would) affect themselves rather than future generation or environment. The latest AGW problem is different: less tangible, and does not exist for selfish, tribal mentality. What we need IMO, is a big shakeup that changes that mentality. Otherwise, I can bet on BAU until fossils run out and PETM is in the tipping.
  25. Bert from Eltham at 12:22 PM on 8 November 2011
    Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    I thought that I understood climate science as I have a degree in Physics and worked in science for forty years. It was not until I carefully read all the information available on this site over a few weeks that I realised how many misconceptions and just plain ignorance I had on many aspects of climate science. It is difficult to comprehend the full picture even with an open mind. Coming armed with the half truths or completely erroneous information peddled by deniers would make this task almost impossible. My advice would be to ignore any information that is not attributable to the original published refereed science and start with a clean slate. Otherwise it all keeps going in confused circles which is what the purveyors of FUD want. It all reminds me of the old fable of the blind men who each attempted to describe an elephant by the bit they could each feel. Bert
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Typo fixed.

    Thanks for the rational and useful perspective.

    So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween,
    Rail on in utter ignorance
    Of what each other mean,
    And prate about an Elephant
    Not one of them has seen!
  26. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    Sphaerica - I'm not sure that grayman's issues are so much scientific as number related. One thing that some people seem to have trouble getting their heads around is the genuinely gigantic quantities involved. May not be true for him, but often is for people with these kinds of complaints about 'the science'. We talk often in percentages and trends and anomalies. The fact that the actual numbers themselves for the atmosphere, the oceans, the biosphere and the impacts of 7 billion humans are literally unimaginable for some people - and talking in numbers derived from numbers obscures that even further. grayman. The things that concern you should come down to 2 issues, one simple, one not. One. Physics may be a hard science in more ways than one, but the physics of the atmosphere are straightforward. Same energy in, less energy out, means more energy accumulating. You may want to spend some time sifting through radiative transfer equations and the like, but you don't have to. Most people don't. Two. Not so simple. Given that energy is accumulating, you're now down to measuring how much, where, when is it showing up. Or is it steadily changing the temperature of ice which might not reach melting point for a number of years yet. Is it warming in places we can't measure as well as we do our backyard temperature yet, like the deep oceans. Are we looking at the right things in the right places at the right times? How much more do we need to know to be sure we're on the right track - scientifically speaking. The result is down to you, me and everyone else to decide. In my view what we've got is good enough - in some respects absolutely astounding, others a bit marginal as yet. I don't send back a meal because the cauliflower's a bit pedestrian today when the rest of the plate is near perfect. I doubt you do either.
  27. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    @ funglestrumpet Nice one (see this version here). Dylan was a master ahead of his time. The theme song for this generation now raised up could be this song, as the times they indeed are a-changin'. The task we now set to those who come after us may well be difficult, but it is not for us to decide that it is impossible.
  28. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    10, grayman, Let me adjust my tone some, because you did say that Dana had helped you out. I'd like to do the same. But you need to give me something specific that is causing you problems. A general feeling on your part that climate science is just too immature to tackle our current situation is just too vague. There's no way to correct that misconception except to get you to learn every single thing there is to know about climate science, so that you then understand how much we do know, rather than how much you think we don't know.
  29. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    @ Sphaerica Hey, I just try to table-set/recenter the focus appropriately. You guys are the big hitters doing the heavy lifting. :) Anyway, if you review grayman's previous comments you will note someone trying to extrciate themselves from the fog of "skeptic disinformation" as best they can. It is therefore incumbent upon us to provide a beacon of truth to pierce that fog. Something that you and the other regulars here do very well, I might add.
  30. funglestrumpet at 11:17 AM on 8 November 2011
    Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Of the many tipping points to be found as the Climate inexorably Changes surely the most important one is that where the youth of today decide that enough is enough and rise up to demand action. It may be that some reading this article might actually believe that we as a species will manage to reduce our GHG emissions to such an extent that the warming will be limited to the stated goal of 2oC. I don’t think that there is a hope in hell of that happening without more than the resolution of the science, excellent as this site is at doing just that. Let’s face it, the most important aspects of the science have been resolved for some considerable time, yet are perversely denied. I have been following Climate Change since it first gained public prominence more years ago than I care to remember and all I seem to have seen is articles such as this one, each more pessimistic than its predecessors, at least articles by people with a brain between their ears that is. Such is the mindset of the powers that be and, of course, the money they can make from business as usual that the chances of them changing their ways are almost as remote as the chances of finding the droppings from a rocking horse. Bull droppings, however, are to be found a plenty. In my youth we fought to rid the world of nuclear weapons. We lost, and live on a knife edge still. Like Climate Change, great swathes of the population are fat, dumb and happy thinking that all is well. The campaign to fight Climate Change needs its own CND (with as memorable a logo) and its own Bob Dylan. We had very public campaigns in the form of marches and demonstrations. The equivalent for combating Climate Change is very subdued in comparison. Can it really be because nuclear war is acute and Climate Change chronic? Heaven forfend that my generation’s failure to rid the world of nuclear weapons should ever lead to the solving of overpopulation and Climate Change in one fell and violent swoop. Unfortunately, the problems that Climate Change might heap upon the world could have exactly that outcome. The following words of Bob Dylan from Masters of War are as relevant today as they were relevant in a different era and a different topic: Let me ask you one question Is your money that good Will it buy you forgiveness Do you think that it could I think you will find When your death takes its toll All the money you made Will never buy back your soul. Those words need ramming down the throats of the fossil fuel industry executives, some scientists and a couple of Lords I can think of. However, to achieve that, something stronger than the current limp-wristed direct action is essential.
  31. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    10, grayman, Daniel summed it up, piece by piece, but as a whole, your paragraph contains a large number of unsupported and vague assertions. There's no meat to it, so it's impossible to argue against. You discuss other greenhouse gases and I have no idea what you're talking about. You talk about something being decided -- excuse me, "decided" -- to try to portray the current state of science as something arbitrary and ill-conceived, and yet again you provide no support for this position (nor is it in any way defensible). Then you lapse into the implication that an understanding of climate science is a religion ("true" believer). All in all, your comment says nothing except that you are angry at being taken to task and asked to clarify an otherwise vague and meaningless statement about how much or how little scientists currently understand. Your position is one of ignorance pronouncing ignorance on others.
  32. Renewables can't provide baseload power
    And just in time for this discussion, Climate Crocks has this item on storage because renewables produce too much power sometimes.
  33. Michael Hauber at 10:34 AM on 8 November 2011
    Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    I think it is often wise to look for step functions in a process measurement environment (such as I've been trained in). In many corporate processes performance tends to be relatively flat with random noise until someone makes a change to the system (i.e. introduces a new machine, or changes the standard procedure) which produces a step function. So much confusion in climate science (and indeed other spheres) is causes by people learning rules that work very well in one context, and trying to apply them to a different context. I do come from a context were step functions are a very useful tool, and I can't help but be attracted to the idea that there is a step function in climate. One intriguing possible explanation is to consider a recharge oscillator type mechanism. Perhaps over a period of 10 or so years the climate works in such a way that it is typically losing heat at a slow rate until a threshold is reached and the climate 'jumps' into a new state of higher heat for some reason. This would produce a sawtooth type effect with short steep up-slopes and slow gentle downslopes that cancel out to create no trend. Then if you add a Co2 warming trend on top of this, then the gentle downslopes become close enough to flat that you can't spot the difference and you get a series of up-wards steps.
  34. Renewables can't provide baseload power
    Thank you KR for this post. The above link to Archer and Jacobson isn't working for me, but the paper can be found here: Archer and Jacobson 2007
  35. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    "My issue is with dependability based on current technology. It is not there yet" and not so long ago we couldn't access email on our phones. Dependability requires two things. Better management of your own demand. Having just recently installed solar here I can assure you that it focuses the mind tremendously. (Especially in this between times season, neither heating nor cooling required, we ensure we generate more than we use. A bit of pocket money will come in very handy.) The other thing is storage and transmission. To get back to the phone example, there are industrial products, flow batteries are my favourite du jour, that just need scaling down to domestic consumer size. Just as phone function has improved to allow email and similar applications at the personal consumer product level. I'll be there when they're available - so our daily solar 'excess' would first be retained to run our home at night on our own stored power. I expect fancy transmission software would be required to draw domestically stored power at times of high demand rather than just having to accept it when we now generate it (or release storage in my future scenario). And then there are newer, not-quite-commercial things in the offing. I'm hanging on to our current car until I see something better matching my own notions of technical improvement in that area. The more demand, the sooner we'll get there.
  36. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sasquatch - I've replied to your comment on Can renewables provide baseload power
  37. Renewables can't provide baseload power
    Sasquatch - As I stated on the earlier thread, renewables can be reliable sources of baseload power. The big misperception that I see is that most people look at renewable power units (single sites), rather than systems. Archer & Jacobson 2007, as I pointed you to earlier, examined wind systems with 19-20 sites, and found that 33-47% of the average output was reliable as baseload power by current availability standards. Extending that, an overbuild of 2.5-3x capacity would be required to provide baseload, with the remainder perhaps available for biofuels, direct CO2->liquid fuel production (net carbon impact of zero), desalination, or other more intermittent uses. Solar, in particular solar thermal, offers the possibility of multiple day backups at individual units with molten salt or other heat storage mechanisms - increasing unit up-time, and adding those benefits to the system support shown in the wind study. The reason a system becomes an order of magnitude more dependable than individual units is because a reasonably sized system extends over more than a single weather pattern - meaning the entire network can't be downed by a single cloudy low pressure system or locally dead air. I would be interested in your reactions to the Archer & Jacobson paper - if you have a chance to read it, please comment on this (on-topic) thread. Solar PV power, incidentally, is on a Moore's Law cost curve, and should soon be cheaper than coal on a per kW basis - even without externalized costs of coal burning accounted for. The same goes for wind power as production ramps up. And renewables are currently the fastest growing sector of power production: solar alone is estimated to provide 50% of the worlds electricity within 50 years - we could likely do it faster if we tried.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Link fixed per request.
  38. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Not sure if this is OT or not. In reply to several of the comments above about the viability of renewables. It is critical to distinguish between whether renewables are viable as a mainstream baseload power generating system toay, at current levels of penetration into the market and whether a virtually 100% renewables based system is viable are two very different questions. Its a bit of a chicken and egg question. Basically a 100% renewables solution is technically viable today. However, during the transition from a few% to 100% there is a big hole. Renewables become highly technical viable when you have diverse generation systems, including a good proportion of Solar Thermal with storage, widely geographically separated generation with a a smart load balancing grid that uses High Voltage DC for efficient long distance transmission. Add some hydro, geothermal etc which can be base load, some grid connected energy storage - battery farms basically such as Vanadium Flow Batteries etc. Then look at what constitutes true base-load as distinct from policy generated base-load. Electricity tariff schemes that seek to transfer as much load as possible to low demand periods - night-time - through lower rates are based on the need to keep as much demand as possible for the big coal plants that can't easily be ramped up and down. With a renewables system we need different tariff policies that focus demand in daytime when the sun is shining. Put those components together and a renewables system is totally viable. However we have a 'how do we get there from here?' problem. And the transition has a cost thatneeds to be born - it is simply what the cost is of making an absolutely necessary transition. We need to redesign our energy systems, not just our energy generation system. Ideally the key legacy role of FF is to provide the generation backup needed as we transition to the new system. However with current economic policy, I don't believe designing/building the new system is actually the central policy focus. Rather we are trying to use the manipulation of markets through Carbon Pricing to get the markets to bring about the changes we actually need as an indirect by-product of their pursuit of profits. Personally I don't think that relying on indirect methods of achieving the change needed is really treating the problem with the urgency it requires. As to Nuclear, I look on it as the lesser of two evils. To be avoided if we could, but use it if we must. My larger problem with Nuclear is that unless we use older reactor designs then nuclear is coming from much the same low base as Renewables. And I think many folks underestimate the huge engineering demands on an entire country needed to support a nuclear power program. Nuclear is so hard to progress at a meaningful scale and rate that it isn't actually a very good answer anyway. Far better to proceed with renewables at a massively higher pace than now, and also address the transitional technical challenges at the same time. And I don't think this whole of system redesign can be done effectively by market mechanisms. Markets can achieve some progress but they are to slow and haphazard. We certainly can't afford the equivalent of the VHS vs Beta wars over renewables. It will waste too much time.
  39. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    I'd be interested which "projections from the models" have the globe staying as cool as the Holocene Optimum. I'm not sure that even the ones where emissions are magically set to zero from now have us staying that cool... Switching to renewables is a very positive move for society - the technology development, infrastructure development, manufacturing and maintenance has real potential to provide a large economic boost. Hands up which economies would like one of those?
  40. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sphaerica @ 88: It is not peak availability that I was referring to. But, since you brought it up, it really is an issue. My issue is with dependability based on current technology. It is not there yet. One day I hope it is. In the meantime (KR@87) we can use our existing infrastructure and burn cleaner sources of fuels (natural gas) until the technology catches up and we can have dependable power. Sphaerica, I know the drawbacks can be overcome, and I believe they will be within our lifetimes. But, until then they are inferior products that can at best augment our current methods of producing power.
  41. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    Sphaerica @6. Thank you for the correction, I did mean "much", but yes i did mean "unknown" Call me what you wish, Does CO2 effect temps, yes, but not as much as has been "decided" it does. Considering that there other GHGs that have a bigger effect. And no i do not think there is some mysterious, magical forces that are the problem, on the contrary, it is a mixture of so many things that are at work to pretend that we know that Y problem will be fixed by X solution. There are so many "what ifs" in play that i do find it hard to justify some of the "could be" fixes. I do not denie that the globe has warmed some and i do not reject science, though some of it is quite iffy at best no matter which side of the argument it comes from, i surely do not refuse all of the solutions, suggestions or wish to ignore what is happening! Dana has taught me a few things that i used to denie, reject or refused to beleive. Does this mean i am a "true" beleiver now, no, i still see things different than him and you, but now with my eyes and ears open wider. Dana is one of many i can thank for that, from this site and others i go to that do offer many compelling views.
    Response:

    [DB] One of the primary things to learn about this website is the need to be able to substantiate a postion.  For example:

    "Does CO2 effect temps, yes, but not as much as has been "decided" it does."

    Based on what, exactly?  Source citation, please.

    "Considering that there other GHGs that have a bigger effect."

    Again, what do you base this on?  Source citation, please.

    "some of it is quite iffy at best"

    Which parts?  There is actually quite little I find "iffy" but maybe that's just me.

    "Does this mean i am a "true" beleiver now, no, i still see things different than him and you, but now with my eyes and ears open wider."

    To be honest, it's not a question of what one "believes".  Nor is it about "sides" or "tribes".  It is about science.  Observable, testable science that best explains what we can see and measure.  It's not called climate beliefs nor climate faiths.  It's called climate science. 

    Every post here at SkS contains links to the peer-reviewed, published research so that readers can check things out for themselves.  So no one has to take things on faith here.

    So please take the time to tell us where you got the ideas for your assertions I noted above.  For they are not supported by the literature and the science.

  42. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    Muoncounter @84, Yes, I too thought at first that he was contradicting himself, but I think that he was trying to say that temps. had (allegedly) neither gone up or down. So no cooling, no warming, no change. And the models are wrong, inadequate and misleading and useless, of course, unless they support Pielke's personal point of view :) But that is how subtle his messaging is. Things are worded so that it is easy for those in denial about AGW to read into it what they want, ideally that warming has stopped and that "CAGW" is not a concern. Either that or he is very confused. These word games and cherry-picking games that people of Pielke's and Curry's stature play are not only incredibly annoying, and they betray their bias. They are no longer in pursuit of knowledge and truth, but ever more creative was to feed the doubt and uncertainty monsters. Those are pretty much the only options they have now... To answer Pielke and Curry's own question. The statisticians were correct, the warming has not stalled or stopped, it has not cooled and Pielke's pet metric contradicts his own claims (at least when one looks at all the data).
  43. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    88 Sphaerica: Here's a good one: “A consensus of my friends who are scientists believe that a wind farm of this scale will shift the earth off its rotational axis and send it hurtling toward the sun in a matter of decades” The response? I think if you check carefully you’ll find that either a) your friends are not actually scientists b) they are pulling your leg Learn some physics. Maybe some maths. Hell, just learn something based on facts. Don't you just love that reply?
  44. There's no empirical evidence
    The latest preliminary estimates of global CO2 emissions for 2009 and 2010 has been released by the CDIAC "These estimates show that 2010 was by far a record year for CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and cement manufacture. Globally 9,139 Teragrams of oxidized carbon (Tg-C) were emitted from these sources. A teragram is a million metric tons. Converted to carbon dioxide, so as to include the mass of the oxygen molecules, this amounts to over 33.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. The increase alone is about 512 Tg-C, or 5.9%, over the 2009 global estimate. The previous record year was 2008, with 8,749 Tg-C emitted; the 2010 estimate is about 104.5% of that, or 391 Tg-C more." I found this graph interesting at the least for the breakdown of sources:
  45. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    It's funny how often the "natural variability" meme is popping up these days. Basically, deniers refuseniks science-rejectionists are waving the white flag on "the globe isn't warming", "greenhouse gases can't effect temperatures" and "global warming is a good thing." They're down to claiming that everything we know is overwhelmed by mysterious, magical forces that we don't understand ("natural variability"), and therefore we can simply ignore what is happening, and what we do know, because the ship will right itself.
  46. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    5, grayman,
    considering that so little is still unkown about the climate and its variables.
    False. [I'm presuming you meant "much" instead of "little", or else "known" instead of "still unknown."] Which "natural cycles" do you believe are not understood and are capable of actually adding energy to the system and increasing its overall heat content?
  47. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Can anyone imagine a world which runs on wind or solar power, where some unexpected downside is uncovered (let's pretend that harnessing solar power leads to global cooling, or that the use of massive wind farms is altering the rotation of the Earth)? And the solution is to switch to fossil fuels? Imagine, then, that that entire power grid -- electric transmission lines, elaborate power-storage facilities using massive flywheels or molten salts or hydroelectric storage of some sort -- then needs to be replaced with the infrastructure needed to harness fossil fuels: oil wells, coal mines, methods of transporting the raw fuel, refineries and processing plants, methods of transporting the refined fuels (gas, coal, oil, LNG), the dangers of explosions, methods of distribution, the creation of coal and gas powered electrical power plants, and a whole, global fleet of vehicles (cars, trucks, ships, planes) that must be transitioned from electric power to internal combustion engines. Sasquatch finds seeming insurmountable problems in wind and solar power, because of very simple storage and peak availability issues. Can you imagine if that same logic were applied to a migration to fossil fuels instead of away from them?
  48. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    83 Albatross: So Pielke says: a. the statistician's report is not valid because it uses an incorrect metric, b. the article is correct and the system "has not cooled" and c. the "warming temporarily halted". That's not even a cherry-pick; it's blatant contradiction. Are there choices d. None of the above and e. All of the above?
  49. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    Muoncounter @82, That is interesting, because in the 2009 article by Pielke that you linked us to he says: "Nonetheless, the article is correct that the climate system has not cooled even in the last 6 years." But then a couple of sentences later he claims: Perhaps the current absence of warming is a shorter term natural feature of the climate system. However, to state that the “[t]he Earth is still warming” is in error. The warming has, at least temporarily halted." We now know that his claim about the earth system not warming is demonstrably false. Pielke saying "temporarily halted" sounds like an oxymoron to me. Sadly Pielke and Curry and others can keep playing this game ad infinitum. But their game has been outed here and elsewhere (by Tamino, for example), they can no longer claim ignorance. They can choose to keep cherry picking and cherry picking those data that and metrics of subsets of metrics (e.g., 0-700 OHC) that conform to their preconceived notions, but in doing so they lose all credibility and fool only themselves. Now what trick/s will they use next I wonder? ;)
  50. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sasquatch - Yes, 50% is an improvement. But natural gas is still a CO2 source, still leads to increasing temperatures, and should be avoided if possible. All of the externalized costs discussions regarding coal apply as well to natural gas - the CO2 production is a societal cost not currently accounted for in natural gas prices, making it artificially cheap. In regards to the OP - the only gain from switching from coal to natural gas will be a few years (at most a decade or two) delay in reaching a two degree Celsius temperature rise. Fossil fuels are just a bad idea. All that aside - it appears quite possible to produce dependable baseload power with renewables.

Prev  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  1424  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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