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  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  Next

Comments 76251 to 76300:

  1. Sea level rise is decelerating
    Steve Case @13, on the contrary, Tamino carries his data through to 2009, which considering that the data comes from a 2008 paper clearly shows a commitment to using all the available data. The first graph only goes to 1990 because it graphs from the indicated year to the present (2009). 1990 represents the most recent year on that basis for which the data supports a trend of at least 20 years. Short term trends, in climate science, are almost all noise and so of no interest.
  2. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    scaddenp: I did propose a solution. There is money available to build nuclear/thorium reactors. The hold up is the regulatory process. Ok....if I were elected President tomorrow: 1. I would streamline the regulatory process immediately. That is all it would take. There would be immediate lawsuits, but by the time they got through court the plants would be built. I would get a law passed that the 1st organization to develop a useable battery for transportation that had a range of 400 miles in a functional 5 passenger vehicle would recieve a 10 billion dollar reward. Takes care of most of the problem of co2 emissions in the USA with little government involvement but tremendous rewards for all.
  3. Arctic Ice March 2011
    For those in denial of the ongoing demise of the Arctic Sea Ice cover, please take a look at the second graphic I posted in response to whsmith at 252 above. Upon examination you will note that the 16 M mark went extinct 13 years ago, and the 15 M mark, about 8 years ago (H/T to Andrew Xnn for pointing that out). Given the committed warming in the pipeline, many more levels of extent will follow in the coming years.
  4. Sea level rise is decelerating
    Tamino did not address the totality of the data, he left off the last 20 years. He used 1880 to present for his calculations, but only graphed them up to 1990. Had he actually addressed the totality of the data in his graph it would have had a time line up to the present and the distortions would have been plainly obvious.
  5. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
    Charlie: If you rescale figure 4 to be 712 pixels high and superpose it on figure 3, you'll see that the projections are identical. I presume therefore that the calculation here is just a simple rescaling to fit the current GHG levels, without redoing the whole calculation. As you've obviously realised, that's a very crude approximation, since it changes the hindcast values, and in reality the forecast values will also be slightly out because of the lagged effects of the rescaled earlier emissions. And I'm guessing you're already thinking about the following: If the forcings and projections are both available, then we can deduce the response function of the IPCC model and redo the calculation properly. That would be an interesting exercise. I see a problem however - the curves are not very featureful, and so the response function may be ill determined.
  6. Sea level rise is decelerating
    I posted the full satellite record.
    Response:

    [DB] In your desire to prosecute your agenda, you continue to cherry-pick by only using a small portion of the data available. 

    That is muoncounter & Tom Curtis' point, and the entire point of this post you are commenting on.

    If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to rectify that & address the totality of the data, as Tamino did.

  7. Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
    Badgersouth #5 If the current drought in the horn of Africa was attributable to climate change, would not any drought in the last 30 years of official human induced global warming also qualify? ENSO - La Nina cycles play large part in the drought/flood story on either side of the Pacific so also affecting world climate.
  8. Sea level rise is decelerating
    Steve Case @9, congratulations. You have taken a curve bracketed by the Mount Pinatubo eruption at one end, a cluster of strong La Nina's a the other, and with a number of strong El Nino's in the middle. Unsurprisingly the rate of sea level rise from the Pinatubo low to the El Nino highs is slightly greater than the rate from the El Nino highs to the La Nina lows. If you take a longer data set, as Tamino did you find that sea level rise is accelerating, just as Tamino shows. Now you may insist that we should pay more attention to the shorter trend. However, the shorter trend shows a strong dependence between mean sea temperatures and sea level heights. That is not a comforting thought for the future.
  9. Sea level rise is decelerating
    Steve Case#9: "add a second order polynomial Trend Line" Add all the higher orders you like, but be sure to check if they are statistically significant add-ons. That's exactly what was done by tamino; apparently you still have not read that post in full. That would be far more conducive to a rational discussion than any further announcements of your intent to ignore relevant critiques. In the quest for significance, you would do well to consider the work of Kemp et al 2011: Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia. I'd suggest, as others threads already have, that long-term pattern is described accurately as 'accelerating.' And that does not even reflect the 3.2 mm/yr from the graph you posted above.
  10. Sea level rise is decelerating
    Ok, if you want to discuss things that are not, the title of this discussion is: Is sea level rise accelerating? If you go to the CU Sea Level Research Group you will find this chart: and a link to the data: Raw data (ASCII) If you plot that data out in Excel with 60 day smoothing just like Colorado Research Group's chart and add a second order polynomial Trend Line instead of a linear trend, it will look like this: I would say that according to that sea level is not accelerating.
    Moderator Response: [mc] Reset image width to 450
  11. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
    Ken, The link to the IPCC model description is highlighted in blue in the second paragraph of the lead post. In 1990 it was not the custom to post the algorithms and source code, but a detailed description of the models exists so that you can reproduce their data if you wish. Unfortunately, in the past 5 years once the algorithms were posted online skeptics have chosen not to examine them. The answers to your second post would be in the IPCC FAR report if you read it. Complaining that you do not understand how the data was graphed when you have not read the original report does not make a very convincing argument. Since the graph is of projections made in 1990 they are probably centered on the 1960-1990 time period, but they might be centered 1950-1980. The projection is below the measured line at the start of the graph because they do not perfectly model the data. Using my eyecrometer it seems that they are pretty close to the measured data. We are now seeing how well they projected into the future.
  12. Sea level rise is decelerating
    Steve Case @7: 1) You say:
    "What about disputing the use of ever shorter trends as a means of establishing that change? That's what Tamino has done when he computed the linear trend rate for all possible starting years from 1880 to 1990, up to the present."
    That is not what Tamino has done. Tamino is testing a particular claim, ie, that the rate of change in global sea level has decelerated over the course of the twentieth century (or at least since 1930). Plotting the trend to end point for each year in succession will, as you suggest, exagerate the magnitude of more recent trends relative to older trends. It will show greater variability in the more recent trend. But it will not determine whether the recent trends are larger than the long term trend, or smaller. If in fact the rate of change of sea level was decelerating as is claimed by Houston and Dean, then the most recent trends would be smaller than the long term trends, and plotting a graph such as Tamino's third figure will show a steady line falling away towards zero at the end. So if that is your point, you have no point. You would do well to reread Tamino's post and pay attention to the other more important statistical techniques Tamino applies to determine the evolution of the rate of change of sea level over the 20th century. 2) If you want to introduce your chart as evidence, you need to defend its construction. If you don't want to defend its construction, you ought to withdraw it. As it stands, however, it appears you want to make use of a graph in which artifacts of the data will introduce a very large amount of noise. If you are simply trying to make a logical point about Tamino's analysis, I do not understand why you insist on the accuracy of your graph when you could make the same points using the graph provided by DB inline @1. You, however, insist on sticking with your graph, which makes me suspect some feature of that graph is important to the point you are trying to make. But to the extent that your graph differs from that supplied by DB, there is very good reason to think that the difference is due to noise introduced by your methods.
  13. Sea level rise is decelerating
    #6 Tom Curtis. Tom, Thank you for not disputing the use of twenty year trends as a means of establishing the change in global trends. What about disputing the use of ever shorter trends as a means of establishing that change? That's what Tamino has done when he computed the linear trend rate for all possible starting years from 1880 to 1990, up to the present. The resulting graphic effectively ignores any changes in global trends early in the century and magnifies more recent changes. Had the graphic included points derived in that manner since 1990 the magnification and distortion would been gross and apparent. The PSMSL data is arranged by coast line and geographic coordinates which allows the user to perform more than a simple mean. There are 167 coastlines reported. Coast lines have anywhere from one to 77 reporting stations. For each coast line for each year I took the average. The geographic coordinates allow an estimate of each coastline size and application of an appropriate weight for each. For each year I took the median of all 167 coast line averages. That's not to use your assessment, a simple average. I also applied the Peltier GIA adjustment to the GLOSS stations. I found out that it increases the slope by about 0.5 mm/yr but does not otherwise change the shape of the timeline. I would like to analyze the Domingues et al data of those around 500 tide gages. But as is the case in many data files, special programs are needed to unlock them. And so far they are unavailable to me. By the way, the PSMSL data is over 1200 tide gages. I intend to ignore any further critiques you have about the PSMSL data as it's not the issue. And the issue is method. Using unequal sample sizes as Tamino did that magnify recent changes and ignore earlier ones results in a gross distortion.
  14. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    Hansen and Sato's paper was excellent and Hansen writes in a very straight forward way with no need to impress. He uses technical terms only when they are appropriate and this makes his papers very readable. While the sceptics go crazy about the models, they tend to forget that the predictions of AGW are based more on the temperature response to delta CO2 in the past. To disprove climate change, you have to show why this is no longer valid in today's world. The only difference is the speed of the change which the models can be very helpful in deducing. In short, the physics says what the physics says.
  15. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Camburn - no you didnt propose a solution. You mentioned one of the technologies that could be a solution, but you failed repeated requests to explain the political side of the equation that would result in nuclear being built instead of coal. "I would support" doesnt cut it. I would support a crimeless society too but first you actually have to explain how you get there. Stations are not built because someone in government thinks its a good idea. You have to explain how you break the barriers that currently restrict nuclear. If you were elected tomorrow, how would you do it? I cant take your idea seriously till you say that and address some of the questions that you have ignored in earlier posts.
  16. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    121, Camburn,
    I proposed a very effective solution. ... met with so much resistance. Mindless....and by doing so it makes any problem with co2 seem irrelevant.
    This is false. First, you didn't propose an effective solution, you proposed one single technological option -- Thorium reactors. That this one, single solution can't possibly work all by itself doesn't seem to matter to you. But beyond this, you were asked for further aspects of this... how do you implement this? The government does it and raises taxes to cover it? You just suggest it be done? How does this translate into vehicles? What do you do about the nuclear waste? Is the technology absolutely proven? Or is more research (and therefore delay) required? Your last statement... which basically amounts to the feeling that since people don't agree with you, it therefore means their concern about CO2 is disingenuous... is insulting and offensive. Or did I misunderstand what you meant by that?
  17. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Camburn "...because of the resistance of numerous groups that only want wind/solar/thermal to be used for energy..." I'm not a group, not even a member of a group, but my 'resistance' may be very similar to others. I see fast, anywhere & everywhere rollout of renewables as the 'low-hanging fruit' of getting emissions down as quickly and as cheaply as possible. If we do it as fast as possible, that's an incentive for entrepreneurs to get in on the act and help drive costs down even faster with their own innovations. Like others I believe that it's possible to go entirely renewable across the world. But I also think it's worth keeping nuclear development going at the same time - to slot into the system in countries/areas where renewables are difficult to build or it's way too expensive to transmit renewable power generated elsewhere. (And it's worth keeping the peace at home with a man obsessed by the wondrous possibilities of salt-cooled thorium reactors.)
  18. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    DB, "It is rather simplistic thinking to compare the Arctic, a maritime region largely comprised of ocean, with the Antarctic, a glaciated plateau, and expect them to react similarly to this early phase of AGW." Sorry, I mean Antarctic sea ice extent.
    Response:

    [DB]

    Try Is Antarctica gaining or losing ice? for a discussion on Antarctic sea ice changes and the causes of the same.

    BTW, Antarctic Sea Ice now (when it should be at maximum) is currently at a low point:

    AASI

    [Source]

    Let us get back to the topic of this thread, Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?.

  19. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    RW1#8: "calculate the increase in absorbed solar energy" You might consider a different strategy on this question this time around. Rather than your calculation-based approach -- which is, in all reality, just a model with its own simplifying assumptions -- take a look at what has actually happened. Perovich et al 2008 There was an extraordinarily large amount of ice bottom melting in the Beaufort Sea region in the summer of 2007. Solar radiation absorbed in the upper ocean provided more than adequate heat for this melting. An increase in the open water fraction resulted in a 500% positive anomaly in solar heat input to the upper ocean, triggering an ice–albedo feedback and contributing to the accelerating ice retreat. The melting in the Beaufort Sea has elements of a classic ice–albedo feedback signature: more open water leads to more solar heat absorbed, which results in more melting and more open water. The positive ice–albedo feedback can accelerate the observed reduction in Arctic sea ice. This is what is happening: No models needed. The feedback is there; a baseline sensitivity already exists. Have a good long listen to Denning's video: Arguing about a few decimals of sensitivity almost seems silly at this point.
  20. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    I proposed a very effective solution. However, because of the resistance of numerous groups that only want wind/solar/thermal to be used for energy, it may not be possible. Such a simple solution met with so much resistance. Mindless....and by doing so it makes any problem with co2 seem irrelevant.
  21. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    DB, "Tell that to the Arctic Sea Ice, which has lost more than 50% of its thickness in the past decade alone, or to the GIS which continues to lose mass at an accelerating rate." OK, calculate the increase in absorbed solar energy from the melting Artic ice that has occurred and explain how the 'feedback' caused this much melting occur, and then show how this effect is proportional to that which occurs when the planet leaves maximum ice. You should also explain why the 'feedback' hasn't caused any melting in Antarctica.
    Response:

    [DB] It is rather simplistic thinking to compare the Arctic, a maritime region largely comprised of ocean, with the Antarctic, a glaciated plateau, and expect them to react similarly to this early phase of AGW.  And you wrong in implying that Antarctica is losing ice (hint: both the WAIS and the EAIS are losing mass).

    So for starters, try reading these: Ice isn't melting and What causes Arctic amplification?

    An attitude of actually trying to learn about things and asking questions instead of speaking negatively about subjects that it is apparent you lack full understanding about will get better results.  But that would imply that you are here to learn, which is something that you have already stated that you are not here to do...

  22. Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
    daisey "There's no connection between Al Gore, climate science, and morality/ethics (except in the minds of propagandists and the naive)." I don't understand your logic. Upon what "connection" would you need? Gore was the first to get people in the wider community discussing climate change as an ethics issue. Anybody can discuss the ethics of climate or the science. Could you please make your argument follow logically before accusing many people of being "propagandists"?
  23. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
    In Figure 5, why is the IPCC projection linear with slope changes in 2000 and around 2008? Also, why does the IPCC projection after 1880 have two sharp linear slope changes when actual data in this time period was nowhere as complete or accurate as today? How did the IPCC have data to use energy balance/upwelling diffusion ocean models to make projections in this time period? For scientific accuracy, I believe all these charts should show the key years when data collection methods and quality of data changed. After all, science is supposed to be about the data and vetting that data, not who is stating conclusions about the data. In Figure 4, how can a projection be below the actual at the starting point of the projection? There has to be a known starting point where both values were equal.
  24. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    "Model estimates come with large error bars that have proven difficult to reduce as climate models have become more realistic over the decades, because modeling all the positive and negative feedbacks is so complicated. However, the paleoclimate record allows us to circumvent that problem, as past climate changes obviously included all existing feedbacks." I really doesn't, as I've illustrated in comment #6.
    Response:

    [DB] "I really doesn't, as I've illustrated in comment #6."

    Not hardly.

  25. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    With regard to the glacial to interglacial sensitivity, one can’t equate the positive feedback effect of melting ice from that of leaving maximum ice to that of minimum ice where the climate is now. There just isn’t much ice left, and what is left would be very hard to melt, as most of is located at high latitudes around the poles which are mostly dark 6 months out the year with way below freezing temperatures. A lot of the ice is thousands of feet above sea level too where the air is significantly colder too. Unless you wait a few 10s of millions of years for plate tectonics to move Antarctica and Greenland to lower latitudes (if they are even moving in that direction), no significant amount of ice is going to melt from just a 1 C rise in temperature. Furthermore, the high sensitivity from glacial to interglacial is largely driven by the change in the orbit relative to the Sun, which changes the angle of the incident energy into the system quite dramatically. This combined with positive feedback effect of melting surface ice is enough to overcome the strong net negative feedback and cause the 5-6 C rise. But we are very nearing the end of this interglacial period, so if anything the orbit has already flipped back in the direction of glaciation and cooling.
    Response:

    [DB] "There just isn’t much ice left, and what is left would be very hard to melt, as most of is located at high latitudes around the poles which are mostly dark 6 months out the year with way below freezing temperatures."

    Tell that to the Arctic Sea Ice, which has lost more than 50% of its thickness in the past decade alone, or to the GIS which continues to lose mass at an accelerating rate.

    "But we are very nearing the end of this interglacial period, so if anything the orbit has already flipped back in the direction of glaciation and cooling."

    Unsupported assertion (prove it).  By all means, show us where in the past where there has been a CO2 excursion such as mankind has introduced into the carbon cycle in the past 150 years (at a rate 10 times higher than occurred during the PETM).

    Furthermore, evidence is already accumulating that we not only have already skipped the next glacial cycle, but will soon have managed to prevent the next 5 glacial cycles.

    So much for the "cooling" direction.

  26. Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
    daisym "The Bad News: Because immorality IS sustainable, it will forever be with us." And so will intelligence, cooperation, foresight, common sense, organisation, kindness, curiosity, generosity, selfishness, foolishness ...... Just because we're not perfect doesn't mean we can't meet a challenge. Someone I know had very good advice for his employees ... "It doesn't have to be perfect. It does have to be done." Same goes for our response to the challenge of climate change. We have to do it. If we make mistakes along the way, we acknowledge it and get on with it anyway.
  27. Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
    daisym @8 makes an impassioned plea against deficit spending. I have no problem with that, by why is she fixated on monetary deficits. Money is after all just a marker for the real elements of the economy, productive work, resources and goods. A long term deficit in any of these will have long term adverse impacts in the future. So, if we rip iron out of the Earth and sell it, unless the resultant economic growth in assets compensates for the value of the Iron, we are deficit spending. Without that increase in economic assets, our descendants will be in the same position we are, but without the iron to sell. That is, they will be poorer because we have payed for our consumption with long term assets. The same problem arises with environmental issues. A farmer who raises a crop with practices that result in his fields being contaminated with salt is deficit spending. It does not matter if he makes a temporary monetary profit, his assets are eroded and his long term financial prospects are bleak. And if we, by emissions of GHG destroy acidify the oceans, destroy the great tropical rain forests, and make large areas of the Earth seasonally uninhabitable, we are deficit spending - like it or not. What puzzles me is, why does Daisym think we can't afford to tackle the real deficits based on her monetary fetish?
  28. Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
    daisym#8: "spend even more money it doesn't have for switching to more costly alternative fuels it doesn't want." I don't know about you, but the power I want has to be on. That's not an ethical concern. Its hot here in Texas (I measured 109F in my backyard today). Oddly enough, it seems to be alternatives that are keeping the power on when conventional power sources can't cope with the heat. "the money just isn't there" That's like saying the money isn't there for weather satellites and hurricane warning systems. Until there's a big enough crisis; then you'll be crying 'why didn't you warn us?'
  29. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    @muoncounter#79 Yes, the paragraph that I excerpted from Parker's column are her words, not Perry's.
  30. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    This was an excellent post, thanks for the summary of the Hansen & Sato paper. I have thought about this issue of forcings vs. feedbacks for quite some time, and especially in the case of CO2, it seems the distinction as the whether it is a forcing or a "hyper" positive feedback in the case of anthropogenic release of CO2 seems not to really matter. One could argue, for example, that the rise of human civilization was a result of this particular interglacial, and as such, our release of extra CO2, is simple a biogenic effect on climate not unlike the relationship between plankton and DMS, but simply a positive rather than negative feedback. Homo sapiens, during this particular interglacial, as a biological entity on earth, were primed for civilization to arise. Had the interglacial never occurred, with the subsequent rise in farming and agriculture, it is doubtful that we would have gotten to the point of being able to advance our civilization enough to have the ability to release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. In this sense, with the climate as a system on the edge of chaos, some little change from one interglacial to another (like a species being ready for the advance of civilization) is simply a outlier, or black-swan event that takes this particular interglacial in an entirely different direction. In a very real sense then, the Milankovitch cycle leading to this interglacial, was the trigger that brought about the initial conditions, which through initial positive feedbacks of CO2, ice cover reduction, etc. lead to a "hyper" positive feedback situation which seems to be entirely changing the nature of this particular interglacial.
  31. Sea level rise is decelerating
    Steve Case @3, even if the method were appropriate, the fact that you use unrepresentative data both in time and space means your analysis is not indicative of global twenty year trends in sea level rise. Go to the PSMSL page on relative trends, and use the slider on the bottom and you will see what I mean. Take on example. In 1930, East Asia is represented by just six gauges, all in Japan. By 1970 it is represented 88, mostly in Japan and South Korea. At no time is a simple mean representative of East Asia geographically, and the weight assigned to East Asia (or more particularly Japan) in a global average changes continuously over the period 1930 to 1970. So, while I am not disputing your use of successive 20 year trends as a means of establishing the change in global trends, I am disputing your use of a data set which is never geographically representative, and which changes the representation of various regions over time in order to determine those trends. As ever, DB provides the best information, and you would do well to look carefully at the second figure (fig 8) in his inline comment. Applying 16 year trends on a consistent and representative data set shows a very distinct pattern to that shown from your simple mean of the PSMSL data set.
  32. Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
    8, daisym,
    ...no matter how righteous is the need to "save the planet", the money just isn't there.
    Except we're not talking about saving the planet, we're talking about saving millions (hundreds of millions?) of people, and the way of life we've developed, and civilization as we've defined it. At the same time, the expense is no where near what you imply, and it is less than what it will cost to ignore the problem for now and pay later. To completely ignore the problem now is to guarantee that the problem grows to unacceptably costly proportions. Your entire position is based on a series of faulty premises. You need to rethink things. The Good News: Ignoring climate change isn't sustainable, so it will eventually stop. The Bad News: If people (and societies and governments) wait until it's too late to take action, the cost may exceed what we are capable of paying, and the very things that you believe you are protecting now are exactly what you will lose.
  33. Arctic Ice March 2011
    Whsmith Here is the data for Arctic sea ice back to about 1900. I see a consistent decrease from about 1950. You claim in 252 that "The 70's were a time of HIGH arctic ice expansion and coverage". Can you point out on the graph where your supposed high point is? If you do not look at the data you can believe anything. Perhaps if you were more informed you would be more concerned.
  34. Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
    What a strange way to begin this article. There's no connection between Al Gore, climate science, and morality/ethics (except in the minds of propagandists and the naive). However: Isn't it also immoral and unethical for western democracies to expand their people's current life styles by borrowing against the earnings of future generations? Western democracies are already bankrupt... economically AND morally/ethically. I repeat... the World's great democracies have no more money to sustain today's current social welfare benefits, and there's certainly no more money available to stop future manmade climate change. The Good News: Deficit spending isn't sustainable, so it will eventually stop. The Bad News: Because immorality IS sustainable, it will forever be with us. The real point of this article seems to be that morality/ethics is becoming "code speak" for forcing an imperative upon society to spend even more money it doesn't have for switching to more costly alternative fuels it doesn't want. The Bottom Line: Moral or not, no matter how righteous is the need to "save the planet", the money just isn't there.
  35. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    For the last 5,000 years (or more) the Arctic sea ice has been a constant ice sheet over most of the Arctic Ocean. We can see by the current sea surface temperature in the Arctic that this sheet is melting and the temperature is rising rapidly, as Hansen and Sato predict. We do not need to wait for Greenland and the Antarctic to melt for this effect. The Arctic sea ice melt is already decreasing the albedo of the Earth (in addition to the decrease in snow cover in summer). In the fall of 2010 the increase in Arctic temperatures from this effect raised the average temperature of the Earth and contributed to the record temperature for that year. As the Arctic continues to melt this effect will grow.
  36. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Badgersouth: The results of this survey (yes, another survey) may help explain Perry's position on science. - Most of the Texans in the survey — 51 percent — disagree with the statement, "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." Thirty-five percent agreed with that statement, and 15 percent said they don't know. - Did humans live at the same time as the dinosaurs? Three in ten Texas voters agree with that statement; 41 percent disagree, and 30 percent don't know. Texas is near the bottom of the class in high school graduation percentage; Guvna P is a product of that system.
  37. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Badgersouth#78: Just to be clear, you are quoting from Parker's piece, not directly from Perry. I have no trouble believing that's likely to be his position, but he hasn't said it (yet).
  38. CO2 was higher in the past
    "I am not specialist in the field, and yet according to Craeme Lloyd, Natural History Museum, London, UK more than 99% of all species ever lived on the Earth are extinct at present ... by one reason or another." And that is true, except it says nothing at all about CO2 levels.
  39. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    More on Rick Perry's beliefs... "If we are descended of some blend of apes, then we can’t have been created in God’s image. If we establish Earth’s age at 4.5 billion years, then we contradict the biblical view that God created the world just 6,500 years ago. And finally, if we say that climate change is partly the result of man’s actions, then God can’t be the One who punishes man’s sins with floods, droughts, earthquakes and hurricanes. If He wants the climate to change, then He will so ordain, and we’ll pray more." Source: "Rick Perry, the Republicans’ Messiah?" by Kathleen Parker, Washington Post, Aug 26, 2011 To access this insightful op-ed, click here.
  40. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    Kooita Masuda, I'm not sure you're understanding the distinction between a forcing and a feedback well, so I in turn am unsure how to evaluate your logic. A feedback is something that responds to a forcing. A forcing is initiated outside of the climate system. That CO2 can be a forcing and a feedback, under different circumstances, is in no way inconsistent. What matters in the distinction is not the mechanism, but how the mechanism is initiated. Clearly, human burning of long sequestered and naturally unreachable fossil fuels is a forcing, as is (in the broadest sense) the addition of massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere through weathering or extremely active volcanic activity. Conversely, CO2 changes that are themselves a response to temperature changes are clearly a feedback, and not a forcing. On your own recommendation, I do not see that your logic follows. Hansen and Sato's comparisons to the current climate system, and warnings of the implications that past climate changes imply, are to me all valid points worth serious consideration. You have not in anyway established a valid basis behind your contention that you "do not recommend following it as if it were a standard of how the climate system (including slow component) is sensitive to forced alteration of the atmospheric CO2 concentration." I think the paper stands well as it is, and needs to be taken very, very seriously by anyone who doesn't want to simply deny any unsettling conclusions.
  41. CO2 was higher in the past
    Carbonado#44: "they are presented all over the Internet as 'Evidence No.1'" That should tell you a lot about the quality of those arguments -- and the folks that present them. I'd say the science of using cartoon graphs in place of real data and observation is the real 'climastrology.'
  42. Arctic Ice March 2011
    And, whsmith, what do you mean when you say "HIGH"? Do you mean the rate of expansion was as high as the rate of retreat in the last 15 years? A source and a little more precision would be good for your claim re the 1970s. You might also check out sea ice volume rather than extent. From Macias et al. 2009: "The 20th century sustained the lowest sea ice extent values since A.D. 1200: low sea ice extent also occurred before (mid 17th and mid 18th centuries, early 15th and late 13th centuries), but these periods were in no case as persistent as in the 20th century."
  43. Sea level rise is decelerating
    Steve Case: You have fallen into the usual trap of looking first for correlation, and then assuming there must be some mystical if undefined causation behind it. The better approach is to anticipate a cause, through an understanding of the mechanics and physics of the system, and to make a hypothesis, and then to either confirm or refute that hypothesis through correlation (or lack of correlation) in observations. The distinction between the two methods is dramatic, necessary, and where so many denial efforts fail before they even get out of the gate, because the former methodology is founded on ignorance and superstition rather than education and logic like the latter.
  44. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
    Where is the algorithm and source code for the IPCC model published?
  45. Arctic Ice March 2011
    whsmith#252: "the 2010 and now 2011 ice coverage should be compared with the 30-year running average, 1979-2009." The nice thing about our world is that such data are readily available. Looking at the September minimum extent, the 30 year mean you requested is 6.63 million sq km, with a standard deviation of 0.88. For 2010, the extent was 4.9 or two std devs below the mean. This year's minimum will likely be in the neighborhood of 4.5, flirting with the record low of 2007. Many people are alarmed at that.
  46. CO2 was higher in the past
    RE: The species I am not specialist in the field, and yet according to Craeme Lloyd, Natural History Museum, London, UK more than 99% of all species ever lived on the Earth are extinct at present ... by one reason or another. RE: The two versions of the Graph I cannot dispute that both of the versions are absolute cartoons, but they are presented all over the Internet as 'Evidence No.1' that the CO2 and the global temperature 'are falling'.
  47. Arctic Ice March 2011
    The 70's were a time of HIGH arctic ice expansion and coverage. Perhaps this was unusual, perhaps not. The time period (2000-2011) has seen a reduction in arctic ice. Perhaps this is unusual, perhaps not. Ice coverage has stabilized for the past four years. The running average for climate variables is 30 years (today’s “normal” temperature is a 30-year running average), so 1979-2009 should be the time base for space-based ice comparisons, not 1979-2000. The space-based observations NOW include one 30 year period, plus two years. To be consistent, the 2010 and now 2011 ice coverage should be compared with the 30-year running average, 1979-2009. Perhaps the present situation does not seem, then, so alarming.
    Response:

    [DB] "Ice coverage has stabilized for the past four years."

    The actual data shows clearly that you are wrong:

    Piomas Volume

    [Source]

    Arctic Sea Ice Volume is falling faster than property values on the North Carolina coast...

    We could, of course, take a look at extent melt (H/T to Seke Rob):

    Melt

    Or just ice extent over a longer period of time (like you wanted):

    53-10

    "Perhaps the present situation does not seem, then, so alarming."

    Not if you live in a war zone.  People who have actually taken the time to learn the science and read the literature know differently.

  48. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    An implication of my previous comment: While the new paper by Hansen and Sato contains good points internal to science, I do not recommend following it as if it were a standard of how the climate system (including slow component) is sensitive to forced alteration of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
  49. Sea level rise is decelerating
    Steve Case: Did you read the original post? This is a repost of one written by tamino; it is used here as a rebuttal of work by Houston and Dean. Tamino is simply (and quite effectively) making the point that the authors' conclusions - that sea level rise is linear - are unjustified. The key point is in his last paragraph: the forecasts we should attend to are not from statistics but from physics.
  50. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Yet another reason why Patrick Michaels has to be included in the top tier of climate deniers… "Get Real: Hurricane Irene Should Be Renamed "Hurricane Hype'” by Patrick Michaels, Forbes, Climate of Fear Blog, Forbes, Aug 26, 2011 To access this inane article, click here. How many pounds of crow does Michaels eat during the course of a year?

Prev  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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