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  1452  1453  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  Next

Comments 72951 to 73000:

  1. Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
    NASA videos here.
  2. Understanding climate denial
    Good points Lloyd. The screams that climate change shows capitalism past its use-by date would be one common example. There are many times when I think the requirements of adjusting to climate change are being used to push other agendas.
  3. Understanding climate denial
    Lloyd Flack - Agreed, it's important to not drop to the gutter when arguing with the denialists (but the gutter is so warm and inviting!). And the best motivator is self-interest - the challenge is in framing the issues so that those blocking action see reasonable change is in their interests too. Still, how can one treat with respect those who post several completely bogus arguments per day (I can think of several candidates there), who flatly lie to Congress, who repeat the same canards over and over after being presented with the data, all with complete disregard for logic, evidence, or anything aside from rhetorical distortions to support their ideology? I wish I had an answer to that...
  4. Understanding climate denial
    People on all sides of politics tend to attribute to opponents motives that they find comfortable to oppose. And there is a tendency to see any perceived harm from opponents policies as something intended rather than as a result of different priorities and values. I'm trying to get people here to watch out for such tendencies in themselves as well as in denialists. I'm trying to you to try to see what the denialists are seeing when they look at you. And ask yourselves whether there is a grain of truth in the denialist's picture or whether there are errors that you have contributed to. This is not letting denialists off the hook. The vast majority of their irresponsibility is their fault. But cavalier dismissal of their values is not the way to deal with them. We do face an emergency. It is counterproductive to let yourselves be seen as trying to use the emergency to gain other goals. Engage those conservative values that support doing something effective. And identify what their fears are and try to avoid unnecessarily triggering them.
  5. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee#124: The paper you linked (Lockwood et al) is from 1999, prior to these measurements: In 2008, the sun set the following records: A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. In addition, there's this report: "The solar wind isn't inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to," says McComas. "That means less shielding against cosmic rays." In addition to weakened solar wind, "Ulysses also finds that the sun's underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s," says Posner. "This reduces natural shielding even more." Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%. So, no, the sun is not more magnetically active; shielding from the dreaded GCRs is down, not up. This is not a mechanism to explain most of the observed warming. Further comments specific to the sun should go to the thread 'its the sun.'
  6. Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
    Young and thin instead of old and bulky is Science Daily's report from the return of the Polarstern after its summer expedition. Basically, the central Arctic is now covered in thin, 1 year-old floes. They found bulky multiyear ice only in the Canadian Basin and the Severnaya Zemlya areas had any of the 2-5 metre thick ice. We'll probably have to wait a fair while for any papers or detailed analyses.
  7. The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
    Thanks Rob, that's pretty much what I was thinking you were saying, my expression of it may be lacking though. It will be very interesting to see how our understanding evolves of how these moderately shallow to deep shifts might occur. Thanks for your great work in these posts!
  8. Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
    Jonathon: I can see how you would read that into it (wanting change in costs as percent), but my brain doesn't look at my bank balance and think in %, I think in $. You appear to be mis-reading what I've said about things being misleading: the dollar values are clear, but keeping the % part in just adds confusion. I explicitly said that at the start of comment 38: "The part that isn't clear is why you keep putting percentages in." Your scenario of different people spending different amounts and having different percentage changes is why using percentages in this case causes problems. When you ask the question of whether the average Canadian is spending more or less on energy in a warmer world, those people will be spending dollars, not percent. Re: moderators comment. Jonathon's 90%/10% heating/cooling costs ratio doesn't even explicitly say "% of what?". I think we can safely assume that he means "% of total heating/cooling costs", as that would be a difficult phrase to interpret otherwise. I assume that you are questioning Jonathon's dollar values ($900/$100), and those would certainly be too high on a per person basis, but are more reasonable on a per household basis. Even so, I think Jonathon just took those as easy numbers to work with, not an indication of real average household costs. They might actually be right in a ballpark-ish sort of way (per household), but I expect that would be a coincidence. Still, if Jonathon has a link to the report he has mentioned, it would be polite to provide it.
  9. Understanding climate denial
    Same old story - the risks associated with climate change might require a market intervention, ergo, climate change is not happening or its not bad.
  10. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    KR " there has been no appreciable change in cosmic ray amounts over the last 100 years" That is not true. Please look at this paper in Nature: "The solar wind, because it is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun, thereby filling the heliosphere with the weak interplanetary magnetic field 7, 24. Magnetic reconnection - the merging of oppositely-directed magnetic fields such that they become connected to each other - between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field, allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, though the connections are as yet not well understood 15, 16. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate change 17. Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964. Using surrogate interplanetary measurements, we find that the rise since 1901 is by a factor of 2.3. This change may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field." By changing cloud formation this field can account for most of the observed global warming. http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html
  11. Understanding climate denial
    Suggested reading: “Attention climate wonks: you can’t take the politics out of politics,” by David Roberts, Grist, Oct 6, 2011 To access this thought provoking article, click here.
  12. Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
    Bob, I only used percentage because I thought that was what you wanted when you requested change in costs. In my last post, I used dollar values for change in costs, but you still say that is not clear. I can think of all sorts of individual scenarios, whereby some people will be spending more or less than others (and hence will have different percentage changes). That is why I used an average value. Isn't that the ultimate question, will the average Canadian be spending more or less on energy in a warmer world? John, Bob mentioned in his last post that the numbers came from the Ontario Ministry on Energy as referenced in #26. Other publications use the same 90:10 ratio.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Is the percentage per person or per household?
  13. Understanding climate denial
    As detailed in this informative article, not all Republicans have gone over the cliff of climate change denial. “Retired Republicans Quietly Try to Shift GOP Climate-Change Focus,” National Journal, Oct 3, 2011-10-06 To access this article, click here.
  14. Understanding climate denial
    A few excerpts from the article: "It's a political thing." Liberal white males are more accepting of government regulations and challenges to the status quo because it fits in their political ideology," "the study also found that conservative white men who self-report a high understanding of global warming -- dubbed "confident" conservative males -- are even more likely to express climate change denial." The original paper can be found here: http://ireswb.cc.ku.edu/~crgc/NSFWorkshop/Readings/Challenging%20Global%20Warming.pdf
  15. Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
    Jonathon@37: Clear?
    The part that isn't clear is why you keep putting percentages in. To me, they are misleading. Although saying "saves 10% on heating" may be convenient in your mind, the issue is "saves $90". Likewise "90% summertime increase" doesn't mean a lot, but "pays $90 more" is. The part that needs communicating is the -$90/+$90, and putting percentages in does not help. Let's take your numbers, and vary them slightly. The person next door likes a slightly warmer house (winter and summer), and spends $950 on heating, and $50 on cooling. The same shift in climate reduces heating costs and increases cooling costs by $90 each way. If focused on percentages, this new homeowner is only saving 9.5% in heating costs, but her cooling costs have gone up by 180%, almost tripling! Compared to the first homeowner, this person doesn't save as much on heating, and is looking at skyrocketing costs for cooling, if you are looking at the percentage change in each. Yet each person's bank manager sees an identical change in payments to utility companies. ...and let's think of a third neighbour, who really likes a warm house. Spends $1000 on heating, and doesn't run the AC (although it is installed). Climate warms up. Spends $90 less on heating - saves only 9%. Turns on AC and spends $90 running it. What is the percent increase in this person's cooling costs? OMG! Small increases in temperature lead to infinitely large increases in cooling costs! Off the scale! What a catastrophe! So, I repeat my question from before: is there a reason why you thought that percentages was a better measurement? There are times where percentages are useful, but I don't think this is one of them. P.S. to John Hartz. Jonathon did refer to an Ontario Ministry of Energy comaprison in #26, but didn't give a link. The 9:1 ratio is probably not unreasonable, although the $900:$100 costs are higher than I pay to heat/cool a house in the (cold) prairies. But, these $ numbers are arbitrary, as Jonathon said. And, more importantly, they are irrelevant. Even if it were 1:9, so that $100 was spent on heating, and $900 on cooling, if a warmer climate reduces heating costs and increases warming costs, it is the absolute changes that matter (-$90/+$90), not the original values, the ratio of the original values, or the percentage of the original values.
    Moderator Response: I'd still like to see the source of Jonathan's statement. I find it hard to believe that the measure is per person rather than per household.
  16. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Neven - yes, I'm glad you saved the video too. Thanks! Djon - I changed the section heading to simply "Ice Age/Thickness/Volume".
  17. Understanding climate denial
    Suggested reading: “Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics: Sociologists attempt to pin down what causes some to question the science behind global warming” by Julia Pyper, ClimateWire/Scientific American, Oct 5, 2011 To access this timely article, click here.
  18. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Tom Curtis, Your pixel measuring agrees with mine, though you appear to have gone for more precision in your measurements than I did. For the rest, my "defend Goddard" was a poor choice of words. My objection is not that he's being done an injustice but that he's being handed an opportunity to say "Skeptical Science said I was wrong but the data from NSIDC backs me up". Goddard doesn't deserve even so minor a propaganda victory as that so I'd like to see the necessary level of care taken not to hand it to him.
  19. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    I did well to save that Bastardi video to my hard drive last year, as AccuWeather has removed all his video blogs. :-) Like I said in my post: "One down, zero to go. Extent didn't set a new record low, but the credibility of pseudo-skeptics did." They're a lot more quiet now, but haven't given up yet. Maybe next melting season will give them another 'recovery'.
  20. The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
    Utahn - once heat is buried into the very deep ocean it stays there for hundreds to thousands of years, before it can be recycled back to the surface. Think of those orange-coloured ocean areas in figure 4 acting as funnels taking heat down to the deep. Once the heat is way down deep, it isn't coming back out anytime soon. Meehl (2011) suggest that natural variability, which affects the ocean surface layers especially, is what causes the hiatus periods. During the La Nina-like phase (or negative Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) more cool water upwells to the surface (particularly in the tropical Eastern Pacific), and because the ocean surface is so large and responsible for much of the heating of the atmosphere, this cools the surface temperature on a global scale. At the same time, because the ocean is heated by sunlight and, due to the funneling of heat down to the depths in those mid-latitude regions, the oceans as a whole accumulate heat during these La Nina-like hiatus phases. Although Meehl (2011) doesn't dwell on the opposing phase of this natural cycle, figure 2 shows that they are times of sharp rises in global surface temperature - which suggests a more El Nino-like response from the ocean. Just for clarification: during El Nino the upwelling of cold water in the tropical Eastern Pacific shuts off and the surface layers warm. It's this shuffling of heat between the surface and subsurface ocean layers (in the top 500 metres of ocean) which directly affects global surface temperatures, not heat from the deep ocean. As for OHC and climate sensitivity, that's a discussion for another day. I'll get around to that. In the meantime, I hope this is all a little bit clearer. We'll have to wait and see if the climate modeling-based mechanism in this paper is supported by the observations.
  21. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    I am a Certified College Dropout and I don't find this concept all that hard to grasp. It goes something like this: All objects above 0K radiate energy (photons) in all directions. When one of these photons intercepts another another object that photon's energy is transferred to the object regardless of the objects temperature. The fact that more photons might be moving in the other direction has no bearing on this initial interaction. Are there any important points I am missing?
    Moderator Response: [Not Dikran] If I were the Wizard of Oz, I would bestow upon you your Bachelor of Science degree!
  22. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Dikran, thank you for your patience. This has been the most entertaining, easy to follow, and ultimately hilarious and educational thread in ages. It's been so hard to avoid interjecting, but the step-by-step flow was so undeniable and relentlessly predictable that it was perfect. It's particularly educational not in terms of the science (which is pretty trivially simple, and should never have required this), but rather of being able to actually watch cognitive dissonance in action, down to identifying the exact point at which logic and reality break down into a swarm of conflicting, illogical thoughts. If you put your ear up to the computer monitor, you can almost hear the limbs thrashing, the teeth gnashing and the gears grinding on the other end.
  23. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    As if there are not enough papers on extremes already, here are some more: Christidis et al. (2011) Anderson (2011) With apologies to Walt Kelly: "We have met the enemy and he is us"
  24. Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
    Suggested reading: “Stamp out anti-science in US politics,” Op-ed by Paul Nurse, New Scientist, Sep 14, 2011 To access this thought provoking essay, click here.
  25. Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
    "The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton. He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign. Source: “The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?,” AP, Sep 26, 2011 To access this in-depth and timely article, click here.
  26. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #311 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] you wrote:- "so there is no difficulty in "measuring" the energy of the photon." Well, please explain the significance of a single photon. What has a single photon to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy and temeprature? My problem is that all thermal science such as the '2nd Law' is based on statistical analysis, photons included. I do not know of any thermal science that deals with single photons. [snip]
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Blatant trolling deleted. The remainder is merely prevarication to avoid answering the question posed to you. Please DNFTT.
  27. Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    Hi Kevin, No worries, sorry about the dud link. Tks for fixing it.
  28. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Albatross#198: "decline in net primary production between 2000 and 2009 on account of an increase in droughts" This is a trend, confirmed by Potter et al 2011: Results indicated that net primary production in Amazon forest areas declined by an average of 7% in 2010 compared to 2008. This represented a loss of vegetation CO2 uptake and potential Amazon rainforest growth of nearly 0.5 Pg C in 2010. If I calculate correctly, 0.5 Pg C = half a gigaton (metric); that's 1.8 Gtons CO2 or roughly the 2008 annual emissions of Russia or India. And that was the result of a single drought season. You know what they say: Half a petagram here, half a petagram there, pretty soon you're talking some serious carbon.
  29. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Suggested reading: “Arctic Sea Ice Continues Decline, Hits Second-Lowest Level,” Science Daily, Oct 4, 2011 To access this article, click here
  30. Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
    Suggested reading: “Arctic Sea Ice Continues Decline, Hits Second-Lowest Level,” Science Daily, Oct 4, 2011 To access this article, click here
  31. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman - "...but I have experienced no changes on notice as the weather in Omaha is already more extreme than many other locations. As I stated the purpose of the data I posted was not an attempt to prove or disprove the content of James Powell ebook." Then the question is: Why are you posting it? Why post iteration after iteration (and so on) of anecdotal evidence? Because it certainly looks like you are arguing that increasing extreme weather cannot be proven - with lots of cherry-picked incidents, but no statistical or trend analysis. You have repeatedly denied making such an argument - but you repeatedly keep on doing so. If you aren't seeing changes in extremes in your locale, That's great, and I wish you continued good fortune in that as long as possible. I would not, however, have high confidence in such luck. Local weather is not a good prognosticator. Do rates of extreme events show statistically significant changes? Powell seems to feel so, based upon a great deal of experience and extended global data, which he carefully examines. You seem not to, based upon personal experience and some limited, selected data (which appear, quite frankly, to show confirmation bias on your part). Personally, I think Powell's case is a heck of a lot stronger than yours. You can certainly continue to hold to your position. But until and unless you address the limits of the data you are selecting from, you're not proving anything. If you are arguing against evidence for increased extreme events, you are doing a poor job of it. If you are not, you are giving a strangely consistent impression of someone arguing just that... --- As a Nebraska resident, you might be interested in this 1998 EPA paper (a bit dated, but...) on Climate Change and Nebraska: "...based on projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and results from the United Kingdom Hadley Centre’s climate model (HadCM2), a model that accounts for both greenhouse gases and aerosols, by 2100 temperatures in Nebraska could increase by 3°F in spring and summer (with a range of 1-6°F) and 4°F in fall and winter (with a range of 2-7°F). Precipitation is estimated to increase by 10% (with a range of 5-20%) in spring, summer, and fall, and 15% in winter (with a range of 5-30%). The amount of precipitation on extreme wet or snowy days in winter is likely to increase."
  32. Understanding climate denial
    Lloyd Flack: "Conservatives should value such things as responsibility, prudence and a sense of proportion. They should seek to ensure the survival and stability of their societies. They are supposed to be anti-utopian, willing to face up to unpleasant facts. Willfully ignoring the dangers of climate change is to go against these values. So why are so many conservatives engaging in willful blindness?" I know many liberals and leftists who fit that description. Marx was not a utopian, as Engels points out in "Socialism: Scientific and Utopian." The problem is that conservatism also describes the beliefs/actions of anyone who wants to conserve a particular way of life or (and this can be quite different) the fundamental elements of a way of life. Capitalism was quite a radical notion--quite liberal--at one point in history (and people believe in spreading the relations of capital under the guise of 'democracy' are still called 'neo-liberals'). People who support capitalism are now called "economic conservatives." The Christian socialist movement in the 19th century was huge, and that seems like an unbelievable paradox to many (certainly not all) Christians today. Environmental conservatives are not religious conservatives are not economic conservatives are not social conservatives are not political conservatives. Environmental conservatives may have religious, economic, and/or political reasons for rejecting the theory of AGW. I've never actually met a political, social, environmental, economic, and religious conservative. If one wants to address conservatives, each type of conservatism must be addressed. I would argue that we are not currently creating a human-centered world. We are creating a world in the interests of the current economic mode, a mode that has no built-in concern for human or environmental interests.
  33. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Sorry, #310 should have read "Re #308" not "Re #309" Now as regards #309 Tom Dayton you wrote :- "For this portion of the thought experiment, focus on only a single photon emitted by Object A and absorbed by Object B. That situation is a completely sensible, logical, and reasonable isolation of a portion of the total situation of objects A and B" What energy of photon did you have in mind? Did you consider that, because of the limited speed of light, it might not be possible to make a measurement for only one photon? You refer to a "situation". Fair enough, but what kind of situation, wold this be a cosmic ray photon with perhaps KE of 50J? I am having difficulty in imagining just what is the point of departure of the thought experiment and what kind result it will deliver in terms of energy transfer. Can you help? Perhaps I'm just being a bit thick today, trying to imagine the effect of a single photon.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The energy of the photon is entirely irrelevant, likewise this is a thought experiment, so there is no difficulty in "measuring" the energy of the photon. This is blatant trolling.
  34. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #309 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You wrote:- " The reason we are having this discussion is precisely because you don't know of any other kind of energy transfer than net transfer and I am trying to explain how there can be a bidirectional transfer" I really do think there is no problem here. Let us try it this way:- I believe that there is a bidirectional photon transfer; from A to B simultaneously with photon transfer from B to A. (As long as both A and B are above 0 Kelvin) OK?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] There certainly is a problem as the issue of bidirectional flow of energy has repeatedly been a sticking point in your contribution to the discussion on these threads. Starting up your own step by step discussion is merely prevarication and strongly suggests that your interest on this thread is trolling rather than legitimate discussion. It is only sensible to have one step-by-step discussion, so please stick to the one already in progress.
  35. The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
    FundME, if I ask you what Earth's gravitational force will be 10,000 years from now, will you answer with a precise measurement, or will you answer with a likely range? Your argument can be made about sociology and economics as well, and the same criticisms can be leveled against it. Can studying the European economy of the 19th century tell us anything useful about the European economy of the 21st century? The two periods are quite different. However, there are fundamental elements that are effectively the same in both situations. By recognizing the fundamental elements and carefully analyzing how they played out in their historical and material contexts, we can determine the likely outcome of those elements placed in some future historical and material context (model). A "likely range" is all you're going to get if you or anyone else uses the past in any way to make a prediction for complex phenomena, and that includes your own life from week to week and year to year (and yet, despite the uncertainty, you still plan your life based what has happened in the past, and most of this planning is intuitive rather than scientific, and it all gives at best a "likely range"). You make the determination of when the past is no longer useful for understanding the future. That determination is not an absolute. And it's not the paleo record that tells us that a "runaway greenhouse" effect is unlikely. See the "Positive feedback means runaway warming" argument thread. I also note that you, FundME, have not yet taken your lack of concern to the "It's not bad" thread.
  36. The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
    Fundme#22: "If we used terms such as "likely range" for the speed of light or to describe the earths gravitational force we would be back in the 17th or 18th century." So your conclusion is 'we can't know exactly, so we know nothing.' Based on that kind of thinking, the 17th and 18th centuries look like a time of terrific enlightenment. Oh wait, they were. "I will stick with the Past is another planet at least for now." Terrific: You came in with a preconceived idea based on factual error, you rejected all science contradicting you and now you are sticking to your original, unsupported (and unsupportable) claim. There are words to describe that thinking process, but I won't list them here. Hint: They are not read, listen, learn, understand.
  37. Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
    OK Bob, Since the average Canadian spends 90% annually on heating costs, and 10% on colling, lets arbitrarily assign $900 to heating and $100 to cooling. Let us say that this winter will be milder than average, such that the average Canadian saves 10% on heating; that equates to $90. Let us also suppose that the summer is hotter, and he spends that same $90 on cooling. The 10% wintertime decrease equals a 90% (almost double) summertime increase. Clear?
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] What is the source of your assertion that "the average Canadian spends 90% annually on heating costs, and 10% on cooling"?
  38. Understanding climate denial
    Conservatives should value such things as responsibility, prudence and a sense of proportion. They should seek to ensure the survival and stability of their societies. They are supposed to be anti-utopian, willing to face up to unpleasant facts. Willfully ignoring the dangers of climate change is to go against these values. So why are so many conservatives engaging in willful blindness? Too many are motivated more by antipathy towards the left than they are by support for their own principles. And too many see environmentalists as being part of the left and automatically oppose them. But there is more to the antipathy many feel towards environmentalists than this. Many see environmentalism as anti-human. They see it as an attack on modernity and prosperity. They talk about attempts to send us back to the stone age. So what is behind this? Is it just paranoia and a distorted picture of their opponents? Or have environmentalists contributed to this picture of them? While it is a distorted picture of most environmentalists some environmentalists have contributed towards this image. I have heard environmentalism described by opponents as a religion. And those that do so often see any religion as irrational. I have heard people sneeringly talk about Gaia worship. Environmentalism is often seen as a put down of humanity and human accomplishment. Environmentalists are often seen as ascetics who want a return to a rustic lifestyle. People who are proud of what they have done see this as an affront. We will certainly have to make some sacrifices to mitigate climate change. But you have people asking others to make sacrifices and describing the desire for prosperity as greed and talking as if there was some virtue to making do with less. Should you be surprised if this led to some hostility? This does not justify the willful blindness of denialists, nothing can. But there are those who wish to hang on to as much as possible of what they have and make only those sacrifices that they see as necessary. There are people whose prudence and sense of responsibility to the next generation can be appealed to. But if you try to use necessary responses to climate dangers to accomplish other goals don't be surprised if there is opposition. John Cook, in your book Climate Change Denial you talk about a need to change from a human-centered to an eco-centered worldview. Many will see such a change as evil. And that will include people whose prudence could be appealed to. We have an emergency. Consider that you might be alienating those whose support you need.
  39. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    Thanks for an excellent informative article. Tanker Manhattan in 1969 was a potential trial run for servicing Prudhoe Bay Oilfield Alaska before Trans Alaska Pipeline to Valdez was proposed. In view of the oil shale excavations in Northern Canada, potential expansion into Alaska Arctic Wildlife Refuge and McKenzie Delta and opposition to pipelines to Kitimat BC or Texas now proposed, will the oil companies now turn to Arctic passages as the easy route in future? Surely the joint Russian-US developments will use these tanker routes. It all suggests a very bleak outlook for global warming.
  40. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Suggested reading: "Climate change eradicating Arctic's oldest ice," The Vancouver Sun, Oct 5, 2011 To access this article, click here
  41. Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
    Suggested reading: "Climate change eradicating Arctic's oldest ice," The Vancouver Sun, Oct 5, 2011 To access this article, click here
  42. The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
    Rob, I'm reposting a query I put it RC here as you may not have seen there. I'm just trying to make sure I understand the thought behind periods of greater warming occurring roughly equally often to periods of "deep ocean heat burial." If you or anyone else could comment as to whether this is close to what people are thinking I'd appreciate it. "At times, more heat than previously expected is buried in the deep ocean. This heat will not return literally to the surface, but periods of greater “shallow” ocean heating will be expected, because sometimes, much less of the heat is transported deeply (due to the natural variability in whatever mechanism is driving heat deeper than expected some of the time). Relatedly, since we have some expectation that this deep ocean heat transfer has always been occurring, and since our climate models have a decent handle on the sensitivity of the climate, past and present, one might expect the ebbs and flows of deep heating to even out to the expected trend based on knowledge of climate sensitivity. How’s that for a run-on sentence? Does this (esp the first part) represent correctly what you mean?"
  43. The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
    muoncounter Thanks for the read (your link). It increased my doubts about our ability to use the past (paleoclimate) as a predictive tool for the future. As G Schmidt says. Simulations of climate over the Last Millennium (850–1850 CE) have been incorporated into the third phase of the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP3). The drivers of climate over this period are chiefly orbital, solar, volcanic, changes in land use/land cover and some variation in greenhouse gas levels. While some of these effects can be easily defined, the reconstructions of solar, volcanic and land use-related forcing are more uncertain. You say, "paleo data is quite useful in determining a likely range of sensitivity" If we used terms such as "likely range" for the speed of light or to describe the earths gravitational force we would be back in the 17th or 18th century. Thanks all the same but I think for now I will file my concerns regarding the runaway greenhouse effect or global cooling in the "do nothing but keep monitoring file". The science of predicting from a known state to a known state has to move on a little before we can predict from a known state to an unknown state. I will stick with the Past is another planet at least for now. cheers
    Response:

    [DB] "Thanks all the same but I think for now I will file my concerns regarding the runaway greenhouse effect or global cooling in the "do nothing but keep monitoring file"."

    This ranks right up there with:

    • Continuing to smoke despite the accumulated weight of evidence against it AND all those hot spots on your last MRI...
    • Continuing to eat those potato chips and bacon you favor despite your most recent cholesterol measurments show LDL levels above 250, Trig's over 1,000 and functional HDL of less than 20%...
    • Continuing to ignore the doctor's advice on doing something about your blood pressure despite continued measurements of 180/110, failing vision and multiple sustained headaches...
    • Continuing to exceed the speed limit despite having to repeatedly pump your brakes to build up pressure and even having to use the parking brake to slow yourself down...

    So by all means, continue on your course of "do nothing" du jour...

  44. Eric (skeptic) at 00:33 AM on 7 October 2011
    Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    #188, Norman, the jury is out on whether blocking will be increased by global warming. It is the primarily the uneven nature of natural factors like low solar UV that make them more prone to enable blocking. The blocking phenomenon itself is weather. Both Trenberth and Lindzen among many others studied it early in their careers with Trenberth focusing on differential heating and Lindzen on resonanace. It is certainly plausible as Albatross points out in 193 that global warming will enhance differential heating although the opposite is also plausible. Looking at it top down, some solar variations like low solar UV have a significant association with blocking mainly due to differential heating of the stratosphere. The tie to extreme weather seems to be at least twofold. First the heating from CO2 will exacerbate hot weather and droughts. Second the CO2 will also increase differential heating since it has more effect in hotter, drier than in cooler, wetter areas. That in turn causes an enhancement of the blocking as the troposphere resonates with the stratosphere. Lindzen: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/85thst~1.pdf
    Trenberth: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/i1520-0469-042-22-2415.pdf
  45. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel wrote "What kind of 'energy transfer' do you have in mind? I do think this is a reasonable question." For this portion of the thought experiment, focus on only a single photon emitted by Object A and absorbed by Object B. That situation is a completely sensible, logical, and reasonable isolation of a portion of the total situation of objects A and B, no different in method from isolation done in scientific or engineering analysis of any other situation. That photon carried energy out of Object A and into Object B. Object A no longer had that energy as soon as the photon emitted it, and Object B now had that energy as soon as the photon was absorbed by it. The photon was the vehicle that conveyed that energy from A to B; in other words, that photon "transferred" that energy from A to B. Do you agree?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Considering a single photon is indeed a useful simplification.
  46. Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
    Galileo also made the tactical error of lampooning the views of the pope, through his character Simplicio: not a good move. (For somebody who was pretty smart, Galileo could be pretty stupid.)
  47. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #306 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You wrote:- "We will get onto net transfer later." I don't know of any other kind of energy transfer other than net transfer. What kind of 'energy transfer' do you have in mind? I do think this is a reasonable question.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The reason we are having this discussion is precisely because you don't know of any other kind of energy transfer than net transfer and I am trying to explain how there can be a bidirectional transfer. Sadly continual prevarication means that going through the argument laboriously, step-by-step seems the only way in which progress seems possible, so I will answer your (perfectly reasonable) question, provided you agree to the intermediate steps.
  48. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman#199: " I have experienced no changes on notice " You do realize that with that statement, your position is reduced to the equivalent of 'if I can't see it from my window, it's not happening'? Further discussion of 'if its not happening to me, its not happening' is irrelevant.
  49. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #306 You wrote:- "If theremal energy has been taken from A and added to B via radiation and absorption of a photon, then there has been a transfer of energy, regardless of what else is ocurring." I wonder if it is really irrelevant? I has been said elsewhere that we should consider NET energy transfer. Now imagine your A and B were 100% symmetrical, both radiating photons and intercepting each other's photons, the photons of each containing energy from their source either A or B. Now what would your estimate energy transfer be in this situation?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] We will get onto net transfer later. Please give a direct answer to the question. Note it is exactly this sort of prevarication that has made it necessary to conduct this discussion in such small steps. For convenience, I'll repeat the question:
    If thermal energy has been taken from A and added to B via radiation and absorption of a photon, then there has been a transfer of energy, regardless of what else is ocurring. This seems pretty much the dictionary definition of "transfer"

    The conveyance or removal of something from one place, person, or thing to another.

    In this case thermal energy (the "something") has been conveyed from A (the "place") to B (the "another [place]"), via radiation and absorption of a photon. Do you agree that this has happened and that it falls within common usage of the word "transfer", as explained above?
  50. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    Doug. I suspect that most people, even lay folk, would probably easily appreciate that neutrality is the point of hydronium/hydroxide equivalence, and certainly it complicates a discussion by venturing away from standard conditions. I do think however that there is value in pointing out to those who might otherwise take it for granted that pH 7 (and its reflection of negative log of hydronium ion concentration) only coincides with neutrality under certain conditions. What I probably didn't make as clear as I could have in post #11 is that under other conditions it is quite possible to have a pH value greater than 7, and yet have a solution that has a surfeit of hydronium ions over hydroxide ions. Such a solution will thus technically be 'acidic', and this even with a pH greater than the abritrary 7 that ocean-acidification deniers claim is required to be passed before the solution can be defined as being "acid" or "acidifying". The overall thrust was to attempt to emphasise that the notions of acidity and acidification are in certain ways contextual, both with respect to the overall chemical conditions involved, and to changes relative to starting conditions. The number "7" is, in and of itself, not an absolute landmark in acid chemistry. As I said, the point is largely a semantic one, but it does underscore how the whole idea of acidification is abused by those people who find the particular idea of ocean acidification inconvenient. Perhaps my pedantry stems from the fact that I have dealt with too many chemistry distorters in the past, who have attempted to claim that the oceans aren't becoming more acid, but simply less basic - as if there is a fundamental difference in the context of the changing hydronium ion concentration of seawater...

Prev  1452  1453  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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