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  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  1424  1425  Next

Comments 70851 to 70900:

  1. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    Steve Case, the IPCC AR4 report was based on science which is now about six years old. The Church & White research was published this year... and is consistent with several other studies which have found that Antarctica is now contributing to sea level rise. Basically, AR4 is out of date.
  2. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    [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. If you take a look at table 10.7 in the IPCC's AR4: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html Antarctica is projected to contribute negatively to sea level. It would follow that the current contribution must be negative as well. Who am I to believe?
    Response:

    [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.  At least you could acknowledge that you were wrong.

    "Antarctica is projected to contribute negatively to sea level."

    Based on what?

    "It would follow that the current contribution must be negative as well."

    Does not parse/your logic doesn't hold.  Actually, Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate.  Antarctic sea ice is neutral wrt sea level change.

    "Who am I to believe?"

    What does belief have to do with science?  Formulating hypothesis', testing them to build an evidenciary chain strong enough to eventually form the basis for theory is the goal.  Peer-reviewed science published in reputable journals are best.  Assertions without evidence tend to get ignored.  FYI.

    But by all means, don't take my word on things.  Look them up for yourself.

  3. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    Hi Dana, good article. We differ over causes of warming, and i still believe that the trend may or not continue, that is still something to see. Not giving enough credence to natural varability, considering that so little is still unkown about the climate and its variables., much less the effects of this solar system on it. The records that we do have, and i mean temp wise only go back so far and the coverage is spotty at best the farther back we go. We can agree that climate change is a slow process. I still beleive that to much emphasis is being made on CO2 with so many other unknowns. But still a good article and you have good reason to be proud of it. Well done.
  4. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    KR at 85: From a recent paper published by the University of Maryland, natural gas has about half the GHG impact of coal. That is more than slightly better. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044008/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044008.pdf
  5. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Jeremy Hance @74 - Thankyou for the links, that is exactly what I was hoping for. Ashley
  6. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sasquatch - I believe questions about dependable power should go to the Can renewables provide baseload power thread. That said, there's a very interesting paper from Stanford, Archer & Jacobson 2007, indicating that with wind farms alone, using 19 interconnected sites in the western US, that: "It was found that an average of 33% and a maximum of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric power." (emphasis added) The multiple sites lead to some portion of the collection area receiving significant power at almost every moment. Adding solar into the mix, particularly thermal solar with thermal storage backup, should only improve those numbers. Natural gas, which you seem to prefer, is only slightly better than coal - it still leaves us in the hole, increasing greenhouse gases, and would be a foolish choice of direction.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Link fixed per request.
  7. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Camburn - "We have had periods within the Holocene as warm as the projections from the models and survived quit well. In fact, one period was called the Holocene Optimum." Camburn, whether a warmer world is better or worse is not the point. The point is rate of change. The solar forcing producing the HCO was slow. Note also the lack of complex agriculture and a world of 7 billion.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] World population corrected by 3 orders of magnitude. :)
  8. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    Regarding Figure 5 Ocean heat content may be a big number in terms of joules but it's low density, Chapter five of the IPCC's AR4 tells us that "Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-es.html That 0.1°C is presented without error bars. If error bars were included, it may very well be that there was no heating at all and no change in heat content.
    Response:

    [DB] "That 0.1°C is presented without error bars.  If error bars were included, it may very well be that there was no heating at all and no change in heat content."

    The paramount word in your phrase is "if".  How about less unsupported assertion and actually reading all of the sources available instead of just a hand-picked few?  From Church & White, the source for Fig 5.:

    Table 1 (click to enlarge)

     

    Fig 3

    I would posit that if "skeptics" read more with the intent to understand than there would be less of a heightened clamor about "error bars"; really, that becomes a dead giveaway (as seen above).

  9. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    Very well put, Dana. One could go even farther and argue that the temperature data indicate rises much steeper than 0.2C/decade, interspersed with “shifts” downward. It might even be a fun exercise for Tamino to try: choose 0.4C/decade, and as Jensen, fit 3 breakpoints and their 4 levels between 1960 and 2010; that’s a total of 7 parameters to cover 50 noisy data points. Should be easy as the standard is not high: the deviations in the Jensen fit are hardly smaller than the noise fluctuations. Or choose a more limited range per Rapp (30 years, 2 levels and one shift year for 3 parameters, oh wait, I’m cherry-picking a starting point, so let that vary as well, that’s 4 parameters...) That’s right, Rapp’s fit is really 4 parameters. To claim as he does that the shift of 0.3C (at 1998 in data that clearly fluctuates by +/- 0.2C) is “obvious” makes obvious only one thing, namely, that he has lost his objectivity. This disqualifies him from doing any science.
  10. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sphaerica @ 73: From a site promoting the development of wind energy, wind turbines generate electricity 70-85% of the time, but not always at full output. That leaves 15-30% of the time that power has to come from somewhere else. Currently, the generated electricity is fed directly into the grid and there are not any viable methods for storing it. From Renewable UK (http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html) the following is found: "Wind energy can be relied upon, even though the wind is not available 100% of the time. Wind turbines generate electricity for 70-85% of the time, but not always at full output. Most wind turbines start generating power at wind speeds of around 3 or 4 m/s (when the output is a few kilowatts), generate maximum ("rated") power at around 15 m/s and shut down to prevent storm damage at 25 m/s or above. The proportion of time that wind turbine is generating between these wind speeds depends on the average wind speed at the site. Most sites where wind turbines are installed in the UK have wind speeds in the range 7.5 - 9 m/s and so generate for 70-85% of the time." Solar dependability is obviously impacted by lack of direct, consistent sunlight. Also, the size of installations required to generate an appreciable amount of power can be prohibitive. From solarhome.org (http://www.solarhome.org/infoalternativeenergy.html) "Disadvantages: •Solar radiation may only be collected during the daytime •Such things as weather, location, and seasons may affect sunlight availability •Solar technology is still too costly for most people •A lot of surface area is currently required for strong power, which means many, space-taking installations are needed"
  11. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    muon @1 - thanks, and yes that should say Figure 6 (updated now). It really is a bizarre argument because of the implicit acknowledgment that the planet is just going to keep warming as it keeps stepping upwards. I guess interminable warming is okay with "skeptics" as long as it's naturally caused.
  12. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    Nice job. A great follow-up to part 1. Small nit: In the next to last paragraph, you say "until we get the radiative forcing in Figure 5 under control," do you mean Figure 6? Notice that these 'steptics' only work with a few decades of data. Good luck finding steps over the long term: I suppose any 'steptic' is tacitly admitting that the climate is indeed warming as each successive step is a jump up. No doubt they expect the same unknown and unexplained mechanism that mysteriously causes these steps to suddenly switch to a negative any day now. One could also argue that a step response requires a system that can pass high frequencies. --source High pass requires low inertia; how can the 'steptics' justify that?
  13. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    The need for power is the root of the problem. Unless we're all prepared to return to living as in the middle ages i.e. with virtually no power needs other than to keep warm, we have to find and implement non-fossil fuel power generation immediately. Solar and wind are excellent green alternatives, but I wonder whether they can be deployed quickly in sufficiently large numbers to make any difference. I believe the time has come for a serious, Manhattan style public/privately funded project to develop and commercialise fusion reactors. Generating electricty using non-fossil fuels is the only real solution. Fossil fuel use should be restricted solely for air travel.
  14. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    81 dmyerson: Here is one such report. Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press. Of course, the usual characters deny the validity of this because it is "not based on the much more robust metric assessment of global warming as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content." Moral of story: When you don't like the answer, change the metric.
  15. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    @renewable guy #68, Sphaerica #75, and MA Rodger #78: When all else fails, read the source paper, i.e., Joeri Rogelj, William Hare, Jason Lowe, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Ben Matthews, Tatsuya Hanaoka, Kejun Jiang and Malte Meinshausen. Emission pathways consistent with a 2 C global temperature limit. Nature Climate Change. DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1258. 2011. To access a free PDF of this paper, click. here.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Thank you! I had hunted all over looking for a copy that I could download.
  16. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    79, CBDunkerson, Not to mention the fact that improved efficiency in things like building insulation, actual use of transportation (i.e. using more locally grown goods rather than transporting locally available items across continents) and other behavioral changes would also help. The solution entails a lot of changes, each done in considered moderation, as each makes sense, but without hesitation. The last part is the thing. Hesitating. Waiting. BAU. If we keep waiting until the situation is a nightmare, then it will be as dark and difficult as those like Sasquatch paint the situation to be.
  17. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sasquatch, the statement that renewable power sources are "not capable of adequately supplying our energy needs" is just ridiculous. Available solar power is greater than all other sources combined, and available wind power is greater than all other sources except solar. As to 'dependability'... if we ever run out of sunlight we'll have much bigger problems to worry about. You are presumably referring to the fact that the amount of sunlight / wind in a given area varies. Which is true... but hardly an insurmountable problem. Build a large and efficient enough grid and you can always transmit power from areas where the sun is shining / the wind blowing to areas where they are not. Build power storage and you can 'stockpile' energy for later use. Build high altitude wind or space solar facilities and the supply IS constant. As to environmental impact... miniscule in comparison to fossil fuels and potentially near zero if sited carefully. Distributed solar power is particularly promising... put solar power generators on building roofs, utility poles, parking lots, sidewalks, and possibly even roads (if durability issues can be worked out) and you'd be able to generate vastly more power than we currently use while taking up no additional land.
  18. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    When ever this topic comes up (has warming stopped?), it's useful to point to the AP study where they hired a group of statisticians and gave them climate data without telling them what it was and asked them to characterize the trends, if any. They clearly came to the conclusion that the recent decade was noise and not a change in the trend. Could there be a better "blinded" study? The link I had to that has died - wasn't a permalink - but there are many reports of it that are easy to find.
  19. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    renewable guy @68 To clarify the numbers. You give 30.6 gtCO2 as 2010 emissions. This is likely a provisional figure for emissions CO2 from fossil fuel & cement production. Also provisional, CDIAC give this same figure as 9.139 gtC or about 34 gtCO2 which is higher although saying that, all the figures I have seen for 2010 have been 9.0+ gtC (or higher than 33 gtCO2) It is now necessary to add the emissions from land use change. Latest data I have seen is for 2005 but it had been 1.4 - 1.5 gtC for the preceding years. So a figure of 1.35 gtC is quite conservative. This yields a total 2010 figure of 10.5 gtC = 38.5 gtCO2. The 48 gtCO2 figure comes from "...would need to peak during the decade and fall to 44 gigatons by 2020. Emissions this year are expected to hit 48 gigatons." I would suggest the "this year" referred to is 2020. (I was always warned about using the word "this" in academic writing and here we find a good example of how not to use "this".) This is but my interpretation of the numbers used. If you are fussed to nail it down, the man to ask is the author wot wrote the lines, Jeremy Nance.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] No, "this year" does refer to the current year. The difference lies in CO2 versus CO2-equivalent emissions. See the previous comments by John Hartz and myself.
  20. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    @renewable guy #68: You cite the following statement from the OP. “How do we stay below a global rise of two degrees Celsius? According to a new study involving researchers various climate institutes, greenhouse gas emissions would need to peak during the decade and fall to 44 gigatons by 2020. Emissions this year are expected to hit 48 gigatons.” The figures in this statement are gigatons of annual greenhouse gas emissions expressed in CO2 equivalent. Fossil fuel emissions are a subset of these numbers.
  21. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    73, Sasquatch, Please support your assertion that alternative energy forms are not dependable. [My personal thoughts on nuclear energy are that they are like every other energy form... they have their drawbacks, so we can't afford to go "all in" but we also can't afford to ignore them. There are some nuclear solutions that work in some situations, and for which the repercussions will be less than that of continued FF use. Nuclear energy does offer an alternative that in the short term is probably almost required to keep emissions below the 2˚C danger level. But going happily down the nuclear road without giving other solutions serious consideration and effort can ultimately be almost as bad as BAU FF use.]
  22. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    68, renewable guy, I'm a little confused, but not entirely. I traced the 48Gt statement to section 3.2 of an advance copy of "The Emissions Gap Report" (final copy available here). That in turn attributed the number to "Misrepresentation of the IPCC CO2 emission scenarios" (Manning et al, 2010) available here. But I find no reference to the stated numbers, or any specific numbers, in the Manning remarks. I also find that that particular original statement has been dropped from the final copy of "The Emissions Gap Report" as far as I can see. But related material in the final report says this related to one of the figures:
    All emissions in this figure and chapter refer to GtCO2e (gigatonnes or billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent)—the global warming potential-weighted sum of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases, that is, CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6, including LULUCF CO2 emissions.
    So I think the difference is that the lower number represents actual CO2 emissions, while the higher represents all GHG emissions stated as CO2 equivalents (CO2e).
  23. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    @ AusseinUSA As stated in the article that data is based on a comprehensive analysis published in the journal Energy Policy. You can read an article with more detail here: http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0126-hance_cleanenergy.html OR Links to the paper itself can be found here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20029784-54.html
  24. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sphaerica @ 72: You are avoiding the elephant sitting in the room. Dependability. Power has to be dependable. Right now, and for the near future, alternative energy is not dependable. It is also not capable of adequately supplying our energy needs. The technology is improving, and I hope to see it get to the point some day that we can depend on it. What are your personal thoughts on nuclear energy?
  25. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    69, Sasquatch, Every energy form considered is going to have drawbacks (obviously). Human existence and civilization destroys ecosystems. But to compare the potential for destruction represented by FF use to the damage caused by the rational and considered use of other energy forms is an unfair misdirection. Also, all energy sources other than FF will be considered expensive simply due to volumes (i.e. it's cheaper per unit to do a lot more of something). That is, an existing global infrastructure currently based on FF makes continued FF use cheap, while a dearth of working applications and demand for other sources make them comparatively expensive. If solar and wind power were used in greater volume then they would be cheap and FF use would be more expensive. So it's a catch-22. You don't want to extensively try other energy sources because FF is cheap because you aren't trying other energy sources. As long as we simply find reasons to avoid switching and putting effort into alternative energy sources we are on the road to perdition.
  26. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    67, Tom Curtis, No argument here. There are four behaviors I find utterly unacceptable:
    • Ignoring valid questions and arguments and just moving on to other points, or repeating the same thing over and over in complete oblivion to evidence presented to the contrary
    • Distracting readers with accurate information but with an invalid interpretation or only conveniently partial presentation of that information (like appinsys does)
    • Refusal to provide the sources for stated assertions so that their accuracy can be tested
    • Providing patently false information
    Of these, the last is the most reprehensible and easily, clearly and unarguably identified, and should not be tolerated in any fashion. At a minimum, a time-out is in order.
  27. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sphaerica @ 65: Perhaps I should have used the word dependable. Right now neither wind nor solar sources are very effective in providing dependable power on a large scale. I hope that changes. And, don't be naive in assuming that the alternative forms of energy don't have ecosystem impact. Whether it is the impact to airborne wildlife, groundwater impact in the mining of rare metals, massive concrete bases, noise pollution, structural footprints, etc..., there is impact beyond that of greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas is a very good intermediate solution. And, for the life of me, I do not understand why nuclear power is not considered feasible. Now, I am going to ride my bike home to eat lunch.
  28. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    {How do we stay below a global rise of two degrees Celsius? According to a new study involving researchers various climate institutes, greenhouse gas emissions would need to peak during the decade and fall to 44 gigatons by 2020. Emissions this year are expected to hit 48 gigatons.} My interest is in clarification. http://www.skepticalscience.com/iea-co2-emissions-update-2010.html However, despite the slow global economic recovery, 2010 saw the largest single year increase in global human CO2 emissions from energy (fossil fuels), growing a whopping 1.6 Gt from 2009, to 30.6 Gt (the previous record annual increase was 1.2 Gt from 2003 to 2004). I see two different numbers here. Is there a mistake or do I need to learn something here. I see 30.6 gigatons co2 for 2010 and yet I see 48 gigatons ghg's for 2011. This difference stuck out to me like a sore thumb. I see an 18 gigaton difference here.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] These are references to two different measures. The first is actual CO2 emissions, while the latter is CO2e -- CO2 equivalents of all anthropogenic GHG emissions. See my comment below for more information.
  29. SkS Weekly Digest #23
    Great cartoons, both (the OP cartoon and @1) really do highlight the games being played by the "skeptics" and deniers of AGW. Encouraging that the media are picking up on the denial and highlighting it. The contrarians, "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW have taken quite a beating the last two weeks, and are spinning their wheels. They have lost control of their message/misinformation. A small victory.
  30. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sphaerica @65 it appears that you have correctly identified the source of Arkadiusz' quote. Never-the-less, he clearly identifies the quote as being from Hansen, and indeed as the conclusion of a paper by Hansen. In fact it is neither. Therefore he has misrepresented Hansen and based his argument on a clear falsehood. That some other person with a different name on a different continent actually said the words makes the quote no less fictitious when ascribed to Hansen. While it is possible that he made a sincere error, that error shows at the minimum that his understanding of the science of AGW is poor. He clearly relies on extensive reading of papers in English to understand the the theory; but equally clearly his English is so bad that what he understands shows greater resemblance to what he desires to believe rather than what was actually written.
  31. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    In the above article it stated....... Avoiding rising above two degrees Celsius is entirely possible: a recent study in Energy Policy found that fossil fuels could be wholly abandoned by 2050 with the world's energy needs met by electricity produced 90 percent from wind and solar sources alone. The final 10 percent could be generated by geothermal, hydro, wave, and tidal power. Ground transportation would be run by electricity or hydrogen fuel cells, and planes would be powered by liquid hydrogen. Is there a reference for that statement at all?
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] I will ask the author of the article to provide a reference.
  32. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    63, Sasqiatch, Until irrational resistance to forms of clean power (there's no reason to put "clean" in quotes) ceases, and until people stop ignoring the hidden costs of fossil fuel use, we'll be stuck where we are. And the hidden costs of FF use go beyond GHGs, pollution and ecosystem damage. The plain fact is that it is unsustainable in the long term, it is becoming increasingly expensive to find and recover, and it will never, ever provide enough energy for a continually growing and developing world. Sticking to fossil fuel use because it's cheap and easy (because we currently have an infrastructure that is 100% focused on FF energy) is a recipe for disaster. It's the modern, global equivalent of the Grasshopper and the Ants. Winter is coming, and instead of developing alternative forms of energy, the grasshopper is driving back and forth to the mall in his SUV.
  33. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    61, Tom, The actual quote can be traced to a widely circulated and re-blogged article about the paper "Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change" by Robert Fildes and Nikolaos Kourentzes. That article says:
    But new research from the Lancaster Centre for Forecasting at Lancaster University Management School (LUMS) does suggest that current forecasts can be made more accurate. Report co-author Robert Fildes, a forecast researcher...
    (i.e. not a climate scientist, not even close, and from a school of management to boot) and
    He stresses that his work should not be misinterpreted as being negative about climate modelling...
    The quote in question, in context says:
    Fildes argues that policymakers need to be responding to a wide range of other climate forcings – not simply greenhouse gases – and considering their effects regionally as well as globally. The IPCC climate modelling process is unreliable because it does not do so, he says, adding that the focus on greenhouse gases has been driven by a priori assumptions in the models themselves. This will have to change in the future, he adds.
    But that last bit is unsupported by any factual data. That's just his opinion. And a seriously poorly educated one at that.
  34. Springs aren't advancing
    Are there any other such studies being done elsewhere at the moment?
  35. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    @Tom Curtis #61: I completely agree with you. Arkadiusz Semczyszak has sunk to a new low by manufacturing a bogus quote. I believe he should be permnanently banned from posting comments on SkS.
  36. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Developed countries and developing countries require access to power. China and India are showing dramatic increases in their GHG emissions. Other nations are rising, too. The US actually decreased last year, partially due to the economic downturn and partially due to using more natural gas in place of coal. Until other forms of "clean" power (dependable = nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc...) (not-so dependable (yet) wind, solar, etc...) are available, GHG emissions are going to go up. The best immediate response where combustion is required is to replace coal and oil with cleaner burning natural gas.
  37. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    renewable guy @8 Your assumption that 48 gigatons is the figure for all GHG's combined is wrong. 2010 CO2 emissions = 10.5gtC = 38.5gtCO2. To achieve 48gtCO2 by 2020 would require a 25% increase over the decade. Over the last decade we mamanged a 29% increase. Some numbers I bashed off in a letter to my local paper a while ago was that we have emitted 2.4 trillion tons of CO2 in the last 150 years & emitting 1.2 trillion more would be seriously bad news, yet if we continue as we are we will achieve that extra 1.2 trillion in the next 20 to 30 years. There have been no skeptical letters in that paper since so perhaps its an effective message.
  38. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak @58, although you quote Hansen et al, 2011 as saying:
    "The IPCC climate modelling process is unreliable ..."
    those words appear nowhere in either the paper or the abstract. That you must resort to manufacturing quotes means you have sunk to a new low. There is no excuse for this, not even your fractured English. What is more, not only are you employing a fictional quote, you employ it in direct contradiction to Hansen's very considered opinion on the future trajectory of climate change. Those opinions are worth quoting rather fully:
    "Milankovic climate oscillations help define climate sensitivity and assess potential human-made climate effects. We conclude that Earth in the warmest interglacial periods was less than 1°C warmer than in the Holocene and that goals of limiting human-made warming to 2°C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster. Polar warmth in prior interglacials and the Pliocene does not imply that a significant cushion remains between today's climate and dangerous warming, rather that Earth today is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate additional warming. Deglaciation, disintegration of ice sheets, is nonlinear, spurred by amplifying feedbacks. If warming reaches a level that forces deglaciation, the rate of sea level rise will depend on the doubling time for ice sheet mass loss. Gravity satellite data, although too brief to be conclusive, are consistent with a doubling time of 10 years or less, implying the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise this century. The emerging shift to accelerating ice sheet mass loss supports our conclusion that Earth's temperature has returned to at least the Holocene maximum. Rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions is required for humanity to succeed in preserving a planet resembling the one on which civilization developed."
    So contrary to your fictitious quote which makes Hansen into a skeptic about predictions of future events, Hansen is far from skeptical, and differs from the author of the above article only in being far more pessimistic about our future.
  39. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:36 AM on 8 November 2011
    Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    And since Camburn, (-Snip-) to write about drought is that my post please treat - in this case - in addition to His comments. “ Western states happened to build dams and water systems during a period that was unusually wet compared to the past 6,000 years,” he said. “Now the cycle has changed and is trending drier, which is actually normal. It will shift back to wet eventually, but probably not to the extremes seen during most of the 20th century.”, “The change in cycle regularity Abbott and his colleagues found correlates with documented activity of El Niño/La Niña. When the patterns became more intense, wet and dry cycles in the Pacific Northwest became more erratic and lasted longer, Abbott said.”
    Response:

    [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  40. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:36 AM on 8 November 2011
    Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    I do not understand ... That Hansen corresponds best to the question - is it: “ ... world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating.” - whether we use the "draconian" cutting in A. CO2 emissions in 10 years? I think the article about the interview with Hansen perfectly complements the work Hansen et al. 2011. (this was already cited earlier on this blog). The authors completely agree with the AGW theory, but one of their conclusions, however, is this: “THE IPCC CLIMATE MODELLING PROCESS IS UNRELIABLE ...” This can not be changed! If so ... then all time periods calculated in the above-cited works here are too short - is a simple (and only possible!) proposal - no other interpretation is possible. The authors of the work cited above (and author of the post) should take into account the conclusions of Hansen's prior to the publication of their work and fasting. The same applies to the huge doubts about the carbon cycle - should be included in the forecasts. Both works have “nothing in common” with the correct process of estimation and quantification of risk - should be withdrawn in the process of reviewing - to fundamentally rework and essential additions. Permafrost shows us that (under the assumptions of the theory of AGW) we have no chance to avoid "doubling of CO2," even if we have already reduced their emissions today to 90 or even 100%! (since the publication of the fourth IPCC report concluded that the amount of C in the permafrost is not about 750 and at least 1,670 Pg). As we can see, the vast majority of other comments here is "off topic" but certainly not mine.
    Moderator Response:

    [John Hartz] Your use of all caps violates SkS posting policy. Please cease and desist.

  41. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    @Dikran 50- Brilliant...finally a distillation of what it's really all about.... natural variation/noise swamping the AGW signal vs the AGW signal disappearing. Making that explicit is really important...because I think Curry et al are blurring that distinction, perhaps on purpose to "feed the uncertainty monster". I can see a cartoon based on "little shop of horrors"...with Audrey II being labled "The Uncertainty Monster"...and Prof. Curry scurring around in response to its demands "Feeeeeeeeeed me!"
  42. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    54 Camburn: "drought of 2011 in Texas is not the most extreme drought" Not the worst in history perhaps, just the worst since 1789. Texas’ average PDSI this past summer (June through August) was -5.37 – the lowest, indicating the most severe drought conditions, since the start of the instrumental record in 1895. ... Going back to 1550, the tree-ring reconstructions reveal that only in 1789 was Texas’ PDSI number so low But you can believe that it's all just chaos if you want.
  43. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Earlier, I took a look at two suggestions made above. 1) Compare the numbers of papers these skeptics have written that deny human-caused global warming or call it into question with the numbers for a mainstream climate scientist like Hansen, say. I did not find a way to make the comparison meaningful. I am not counting all the papers that Lindzen has written that are not directly about global warming, so what is the parallel for Hansen? If the point is how many total papers someone has written, it would be a rare scientist who has more than Lindzen. 2) Take a look at the citations to see who cited the papers in these new databases. Again, I did not find this to be practical. One of Lindzen's papers has 300 cites. The citations for some others seem to be a mixed bag, with some cites from other skeptics on the list but also other cites by people who seem not to be skeptics.
  44. Eric (skeptic) at 22:13 PM on 7 November 2011
    Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating

    There is a missing close quote in Camburn's post above....

    Response:

    [DB] Fixed, thanks!

  45. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Camburn : "We have had periods within the Holocene as warm as the projections from the models and survived quit well. In fact, one period was called the Holocene Optimum." As usual, things are not quite as simplistic as some would like them to be. From Wikipedia :

    ...increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole. Northwestern Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south [Central Europe was in between] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average which comprised an average global temperature still overall lower than present day temperatures Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3C warmer than present. Research indicates that the Arctic had substantially less sea ice during this period compared to present Current desert regions of Central Asia were extensively forested due to higher rainfall, and the warm temperate forest belts in China and Japan were extended northwards West African sediments additionally record the "African Humid Period", an interval between 16,000 and 6,000 years ago when Africa was much wetter due to a strengthening of the African monsoon While there do not appear to have been significant temperature changes at most low latitude sites, other climate changes have been reported. These include significantly wetter conditions in Africa, Australia and Japan, and desert-like conditions in the Midwestern United States. Areas around the Amazon in South America show temperature increases and drier conditions

    Bit of a mixed bag there, especially with the ice-melt and extra rain, although I suppose that would be simplistically looked at as being good for plants, etc. And the human population then ? About 10 million people, going by estimates I have seen. Compare that to the 7 billion around today, all within national boundaries; many on land which will be under water. Will we still survive "quite well" ? In a simplistic, ideal world : perhaps. In the real world : only if you exist in a state of denial.
  46. SkS Weekly Digest #23
    Actually, I liked the last panel best, but I agree panel 2 is pretty good.
  47. Sudden_Disillusion at 19:43 PM on 7 November 2011
    Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    It seems that Camburn ran out of arguments as he completely vanished after having been sooo disproven it hurts! Classic skeptic behavior: misinform and vanish. Damage done!
  48. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Skywatcher: The drought of 2011 in Texas is not the most extreme drought. Did you read the climate history of Texas? Mississippi floods. History of Mississippi floods Yes, there have been extreme events in the past throughout the world. That is part of life and a chaotic climate. Will there continue to be extreme events in the future? Of course there will be. (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed bad URL.  Inflammatory snipped.  Hand-waving noted.

  49. Sea level fell in 2010
    Post updated to include figure 5. Some extraneous text snipped.
  50. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Post updated to include figure 5. Some extraneous text snipped.

Prev  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  1423  1424  1425  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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