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  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  Next

Comments 76301 to 76350:

  1. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    muoncounter #various Not being familiar with Dr Curry, I had a look at her publications. They seem far from the efforts of a fringe scientist. To say that her conversion from warmist to 'luke warmer' - to chronicler of the crisis of confidence in the 'standard theory of AGW' is somehow invalid is to miss the point. Climategate and Copehnhagen were gamechangers for the interested members of the lay public. Recent differences between Drs Trenberth and Hansen about the measured energy imbalances in recent years adds further uncertainty to the debate. "Motivated reasoning" is another term for 'advocacy science'. Cool rational apolitical thought and expression is the ideal to which a scientist should aspire - but such sights as Dr Hansen being arrested in a demo outside the White House would moreso read 'advocacy scientist' in the public mind and weaken the case for an overwhelming concensus which is required for effective action on climate change.
  2. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Skeptical Wombat, Apologies. Re-reading your words, I realized that I misinterpreted them, and you were stating that an additional source (beyond anthropogenic) was not possible. I was, I think, confused by your later use of the term "negative feedback" "soaking up" vast amounts of anthropogenic CO2. Again, apologies. I must have been in cranky-old-man mode.
  3. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    Despite the agendas evident, the climate obviously responds to forcings, of which that due to the CO2 bolus mankind has injected into the atmosphere over the past 40 years is paramount. As the planet's climate changes towards a new equilibria with the new CO2 levels, the floating ice cap that is the Arctic Sea Ice has been responding as if the proverbial "canary in the coal mine". Since 2001 alone, median ice thicknesses in the Central Arctic Basin, including the ice at the North Pole, have dwindled from approximately 2.0 meters thickness to about 0.9 meters thickness currently (from the Polarstern press release, also well-discussed here). For a good visual of what that looks like, here's a graphical depiction of ice melt and regrowth from 7 mass-balance buoys monitoring sea ice conditions in the Arctic over a recent 2-year period: [Source] So don't be taken in by our resident merchants of doubt and the hand-waving "There's no problem! The climates changed before!" routine that they do. The Northern Hemisphere's refrigeration system is failing in response to the forcing initiated by mankind. Despite the obvious dissembling of some.
  4. CO2 is just a trace gas
    There is approximately 1 kilogram per square centimeter of atmosphere sitting above us. In comparison to that, a minuscule smear of sunburn cream is remarkably effective at stopping the UV light that was not stopped by all that gas.
  5. It's the sun
    The 0.2 - 0.3C drop that occurred from 1880 - 1910. Sorry if I should have said late 19th / early 20th century, but I thought it would have been evident to anyone reading. See Tom's post of 899.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The point is that you need to show the data that demonstrates your point, in this case how solar forcing affects temperature. At the moment your comments are too vague to convince or to refute effectively. The comment about decadal scale trends also applies to the present time, can you demonstrate that the current levelling off is forced or just the result of internal climate variability. If not you shouldn't be making arguments about what it means.
  6. It's the sun
    Yes Tom, If solar activity has a sginificant impact, then if sunspot numbers remain low, we should expect to see a temperature decrease similar to that observed during the early 20th century. It is too early to tell if the recent flattening will be a top similar to the previous two.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] What temperature decrease in the early 20th century?

    You do understand that decadal trends are not robust and signify very little?
  7. It's the sun
    Muon, Yes, solar cycle 19 was definitely the highest of the 20th century. However, cycles 21 and 22, in the 1980s and 1990s, were the next two highest, significantly surpassing anything during the early 20th century. The point is that sunspot activity was still high during the last portion of the 20th century. To expect temperatures to decrease based on the drop from a very high to just a high value would be comparable to expecting temperatures to drop because we added less CO2 to the atmosphere this year than last. A straight line fit does not capture the temperature profile of the 20th century, but does that negate the fact that an increase has occurred?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Re your second paragraph, it is well know that there are multiple forcings that affect climate, hence nobody would expect a straight line fit. Please be less opaque in your posts as such obfuscation gives the impression of trolling.
  8. It's the sun
    To illustrate Muoncounter's point @898:
  9. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    EtR#36: Eric, Nice to see you replying with at least some form of sourced information rather than pure opinion. But you'll have to try much harder. Reply to 'those who feel that solar activity declined.' Small point: whether one feels that solar activity has declined is irrelevant; this is about measurement, not feelings.
  10. It's the sun
    Continuing from here. EtR's sunspot graph clearly shows the 1950s solar maximum; since then solar activity has in fact declined (hence the descriptive term maximum). A simple straight lines fit doesn't capture that important detail and is therefore irrelevant.
  11. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    No. My contention was that Arctic sea ice has not been constant throughout the previous 5000 years. See the following: http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf That is not to say that todays extent is not as low or lower than that claimed to have existed 7000 years ago.
  12. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    I was all gung-ho for Eunice Foote to get a bit of recognition, but there haven't been many takers. Spencer Weart emailed that he'd include her in his history of science website when he next updates it.
  13. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Muon, About half the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the surface, and roughly one-fifth is absorbed by the atmosphere. The rest is reflected. While it is more, it is only two and half times higher. http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Solar+radiation Also, Here is the response to those who feel that solar activity declined: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/SIFs9m3EmII/AAAAAAAAADM/q1Zk0U-n0YI/s1600-h/Sun+Spots.bmp Or that ENSO contributions were negative: http://i33.tinypic.com/2cmp7ck.jpg
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please take this discussion to a more appropriate thread.
  14. One Confusedi Bastardi
    I am an artist, not a scientist. So I will speak to the problem of communication. Bastardi is clearly a gifted speaker. He is able to roll complex ideas into 'hooks' to use a song writers term, or 'verbal archetypes' if you prefer, memes might work but... ah well. My point is that Scientists on each side of an issue must find Phd's who are able to communicate with convincing clarity to people outside their personal sandbox. Communicate without bias or condescension (just because someone is not a scientist who also agrees with you does not make them stupid). If the [ - namecalling snipped - ] best Science can come up with... the Climate debate will continue to be debatable for a long, long time. FOR EXAMPLE: Einstein, a man who apparently became coldly cruel to his own rather gifted first wife, was a master at presenting himself as a loveable old duffer to the public. Anyhow, I love reading your debates, they are fascinating. I very much wish that artists could debate as civilly and intelligently as Scientists. Even at your worse you are far finer examples of human civility and respectful disagreement.
    Moderator Response: [mc] Please avoid gratuitous name-calling; it adds nothing to the civil and intelligent discussion we try to maintain.
  15. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Sorry about the all caps! They were used for emphasis and NOT shouting.
  16. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    muoncounter, What is NOT considered is that the atmosphere rotates which means that the solar energy is NEVER direct to the planets surface. A lens effect is also produced since the planet is smaller at the poles and rotates slower due to the circumference size.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The first claim is obvious nonsense; climate models reproduce features of atmospheric circulation that would not exist without the Earth's rotation. Secondly if the lensing effect is not built into the models, it is just possible that it is because its effects are negligible. Please before you post any further, read the responses to the arguments you are posting, or possibly go and read Ray Pierrehumbert's excellent book on planetary climate so that you have at least some idea of the basics of climate models.
  17. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Joe Lalonde#32: "solar radiation from the sun collides with molecules in the atmosphere" Not so much. Far more solar radiation is absorbed by the surface than by the atmosphere. Please see It's the sun and any of the various threads on the mechanics of the greenhouse effect. Use the Search function or search arguments by taxonomy. Note too the Newcomers Guide and the Comments Policy; we generally see the use of allcaps as the online form of shouting, which is not necessary in any way in this forum.
  18. It's not bad
    Yes, Tipping points are quite speculative, and unless one is talking about species extinxtion, really have no place in this discussion. Whether one is using the term "catastrophic" or "worst case" is really immaterial. Let's face it, if the worst case scenario comes true, it will be catastrophic. Those one feel that the IPCC was conservative, must then believe that the worst case scenario will come true. After all, there "business as usual" scenario shows a further 3.5C temperature increase. It appears to me that Joseph has a firm understanding of the science behind global warming. His concern, which is shared by many of us, is the long term consequences. I believe that he is correct in that many here are focusing on the worst cases possible, and ignoring everything else. Namely, minimizing the economic impact of CO2 mitigation, accelerated sea level rise beyond the current trend, and destructive future agriculture impacts when recent trends have been favorable. There is a rather large disconnect between the current trends and future predictions. Joseph is not the only one with these concerns.
  19. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    There are a great deal of confusion is the area of climate science and many areas do not make sense to the public. Science has still yet to dissect AGW deeper into the heat generated by BTU's to the CO2 created by SOME processes, NOT ALL processes. Friction and chemical reactions can produce different results. Yet heat and CO2 are bound by current theories but NOT recreated evenly in laboratories. CO2 is studied but what happened to the heat that produced it? There are many examples of these type of mistakes in science from understanding that solar radiation from the sun collides with molecules in the atmosphere(NOT RECREATED) but the laboratories study the direct line of NO atmosphere. Many Examples!!!
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is not the case, the contribution from waste heat is negligible, further discussion belongs on the appropriate article. Please note that just because a "skeptical" website say that climatologists don't consider some particular issue, does not mean that it is true. Please take time to read the responses to common skeptic arguments listed to the left of the page.
  20. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Here's another new paper on Antarctic ice (h/t Ari). A multivariate analysis of Antarctic sea ice since 1979.
    The work presented here indicates that Antarctic sea ice variability is a multivariate phenomenon and that the minimum, maximum, and mean SIE may respond to a different set of climatic/geochemical parameters. ... For Antarctica, similarities were found for the minimum sea ice extent, O3 minimum, and total solar irradiance, while the mean sea ice extent was associated with the global sea surface temperature, the global air surface temperature, the CO2 concentration, and the O3 depletion area. Near similar patterns were found among the maximum sea ice extent, the SOI, and the SAM.
  21. Eric (skeptic) at 19:40 PM on 30 August 2011
    GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    scaddenp I am not "extremely" concerned about fossil fuel rights holders. In your hypothetical (CO2 warming is an immediate threat0 I am not concerned at all. I am concerned in my worldview of science and politics of a cavalier dismissal of property rights. What I am truly extremely concerned about in your hypothetical is that you would not gain the political traction needed for drastic action without the changes in commercial, industrial and residential incentives I've outlined. It really is a government problem, not a government conspiracy. The local governments approve anything that gives them more tax revenue and that's where the problem starts. It continues with government-run or regulated centralized services which are notoriously inefficient. I'll explain what would work so you can see the difference. If my HOA were responsible for all CO2 efficiency we could get a big start on the 200 to 60 reduction. The one thing that would be difficult would be jobs and commute. We'd need to immediately invest in residential efficiency and build a small scale power plant (luckily we are right beside a large river which would only need some partial damming). We have some great small farmers who sell near our major intersection. For the rest of the year we would need our local chickens and canning. Right now there a couple families that I know of with enough to meet their needs. We maintain 8 miles of roads for about 50k / year. Some nearby HOAs have community water for far less money than the municipal water closer to the city (their total road and water bill is much less than the city water bill alone). Money spent is good proxy for energy efficiency. Allow me a crude characterization of your proposal: crank up carbon taxes and see what happens. What happens is economic armageddon, and the political likelihood of that policy is zero. If you add the Hansen rebate you will pick up a fait amount of support but that won't dislodge the vested interests. Those are not just corporate as you seem to assume but government. Then if we add the federal boondoggles that politicians want for their interests, the political support for the overall goal gets fractured. I believe my proposal is bottom up. A Hansen tax would also result in bottom up changes that I would support. But the transition is difficult especially politically, probably impossible.
  22. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    re Moderator Response,#52 I somehow doubt the environmental impact of gas flaring approaches the total enviornmental cost of oil sand extraction. So the flaring enough gas to supply the needs of Germany and France is insignificant. I don't think so. In addition, there are cannons to prevent birds from landing on tailings ponds at the oil sands. If we import oil rather than use the oil sands, we will have to put such cannons along our entire coast lines.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I didn't say that the gas flaring was insignificant, just that it was not enough to compensate for the environmental damage caused by exploitation of oil sand deposits.
  23. Dikran Marsupial at 17:32 PM on 30 August 2011
    Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Stephen Baines wrote: "The only way for Salby's interpretation to be right is if we have missed a net flux term to the atmosphere that is temperature dependent and is very large (20x?) relative to anthro inputs. That also implies a much faster return time than we have assumed (otherwise the net change would have been larger), and that has operated in the past. ... Could we have missed such a thing?" No, we know the net environmental flux with good accuracy via the mass balance argument, so there is no way in which we could have missed such a thing (unless the carbon cycle is not a closed system and conservation of mass does not apply, but that is somewhat unlikely). The fluxes in Fig 7.3 of the recent IPCC WG1 do a good job in explaining the observed behaviour of the carbon cycle. Salby is either wrong or conducting a hoax.
  24. Dikran Marsupial at 17:27 PM on 30 August 2011
    Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Sceptical Wombat wrote: "The known sources and sinks cannot account for the simultaneous and independent injection and removal of additional CO2 that Salby appears to require so IF he is right there must be some very big ones still to be found. This is not correct, as I said the known fluxes are sufficient to explain the 5% figure, it is well known by carbon cycle modellers, but it is in no way an indication that the rise is non-anthropogenic. See figure 7.3 from the most recent IPCC WG1 report: This shows a natural flux into the atmosphere of 210.2 GtC per year and a net natural efflux from the atmosphere of 212.4 GtC per year. These are very large compared to fossil fuel emissions of 6.4 GtC per year, and it is this large natural exchange flux of approx 20% of the atmospheric reservoir each year that confuses many into thinking our emissions don't matter. However the rise is governed by the difference between total emissions and total uptake, which is small compared with anthropogenic emissions. The only interpretation of Salbys talk that is correct is completely uncontraversial. I am hoping that Salby is conducting a hoax to see how many "skeptics" will swallow it hook, line and sinker. If he isn't then it will be hugely embarassing for him to have published something either wrong, or making a big fuss about something entirely uncontraversial, when he has a new book about atmospheric physics about to appear. He won't be the first person to have tarnished a good academic career in this way, so I hope that is not the case.
  25. actually thoughtful at 16:15 PM on 30 August 2011
    CO2 is just a trace gas
    More great ideas for a pirate to use to actually teach his students the science, and why it matters (as opposed to sort of kind of glossing it over - especially as these students will be the ones to pay the price for our current profligacy).
  26. CO2 is just a trace gas
    I have used a very effective demonstration of the significance of the trace concentration of 0.03%. Take 2 x 500ml beakers of water, add 3 drops of blue food colouring dye to one of the beakers. (each drop is approximately 0.05ml or 0.01%) This makes a 0.03% solution of the blue food dye. Shine a low power red laser pointer through the clear water, then the 0.03% solution. The reduction in the emergent beam is quite extraordinary. The final killer demonstration is to add another 'insignificant' drop (0.01%) to the blue solution, increasing the concentration to 0.04%, similar to current levels of atmospheric CO2. The attenuation is now almost complete!
  27. Stephen Baines at 15:00 PM on 30 August 2011
    Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    i think you're right skywatcher. Sphaerica, you are misinterpreting swombats intention. He/she is correct. The only way for Salby's interpretation to be right is if we have missed a net flux term to the atmosphere that is temperature dependent and is very large (20x?) relative to anthro inputs. That also implies a much faster return time than we have assumed (otherwise the net change would have been larger), and that has operated in the past. Could we have missed such a thing? does it makes sense that it operates only during the post industrial era and not previously? Highly unlikely. But that's not all. This flux must have a delC13 like plants, no C-14 (old) and it must preferentially increase CO2 in ocean surface layers (must be terrestrial). Swombat is making the case that Salby's interpretation predicts the existence of a previously unknown flux with a particular location, behavior, composition and size. Finding that flux is the obvious next step Salby should have taken before going public, if he were a real scientist. It would be interesting seeing him try to pose some viable possibilities that meet these criteria. I thnk he would find it hard.
  28. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Am I right in assuming Sceptical Wombat was merely trying to find a way in which Salby's interpretation of a 5% increase could be fitted to the CO2 data? I don't think SW believes Salby for a moment, assuming the final statement in #55 was heavy on the irony?
  29. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Thanks for this post. When talking to scientists, I typically use ozone in the stratosphere to deflate this argument, as it is also a case where "trace" amounts of a chemical in the atmosphere plays a vital role to life on Earth, and not due to direct exposure. The example works really well, though it is perhaps not as familiar to the general public. Also, I'm astounded by the argument that an increase of "only 100 ppm" cannot possibly be harmful. Having studied outdoor air quality for 20+ years, my experience has been that it's highly unusual to find part per *billion* level statistically significant changes in *local* outdoor air quality for many pollutants. But, a 100+ part per *million* increase in *global* pollution levels over this time frame? That's actually an astounding increase, in my experience. I usually remind people that those 100 ppm result from many billions of tons of cumulative CO2 emissions. Of course, all of this is important not due to the large magnitude of the increased concentrations, but due to the forcing that it represents.
  30. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    55, Skeptical Wombat,
    If we assume that 97.5% of the CO2 we emitted has been soaked up by negative feed back...
    This is wrong. You need to understand this better so that you know why.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] See correction/apology in comment below.
  31. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    57, Skeptical Wombat,
    The known sources and sinks cannot account for the simultaneous and independent injection and removal of additional CO2
    This is wrong. Until you correct this misconception, you cannot properly evaluate the problem, or Salby's mistakes.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] See correction/apology in comment below.
  32. Sceptical Wombat at 13:37 PM on 30 August 2011
    Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Dikran I am not for a moment saying that Salby is right but I do believe that my interpretation is the only one consistent with the content of his talk and the way it is being interpreted by his followers. The known sources and sinks cannot account for the simultaneous and independent injection and removal of additional CO2 that Salby appears to require so IF he is right there must be some very big ones still to be found. Maybe some enthusiastic "skeptic" could pick up a Nobel Prize or something. I look forward to your rebuttal. I think I can manage differential equations.
  33. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Good article, Sarah. I noticed recently another writer used the blood alcohol analogy against the 'tragedy of the commons' argument (our county's emissions are so small a percentage of the total that our stopping them would not change the overall result). It went that I may as well drink as much as I like before I drive because any people I killed as a result of my driving would make no significant difference to the national road fatality statistics.
  34. It's not bad
    muon, fair enough but I was trying to encourage Joseph to read and talk about what the science actually says with some confidence, whereas "tipping points" are more speculative and feature more in environmentalist tracts with varying degrees of accuracy.
  35. It's not bad
    "Nature seems to most of us to be a lot more adept at normalizing extreme situations than environmentalists are at predicting them." Ah, the dream that if we leave things alone, they'll all return to some pre-designed 'normal' point that happens to be very comfortable for us. As Rob says, what if the 'normalizing' point is one at which you cannot grow as much grain in the great grain belts of the world, because it is too hot/dry/variable moisture? What if the 'normalizing' point makes it uncomfortable/difficult/dangerous to live in many parts of the world. With a new planetary energy balance driven by high CO2, these things are possible. Do you think Nature will care? Nature can be in balance and yet we might really not enjoy it very much... The IPCC is conservative, and does not make 'catastrophic' claims, see for example Freudenberg and Muselli.
  36. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    #31 mc - agreed. But we know that so-called 'sceptics' of the theory of climate and greenhouse gases are never very sceptical of any opposing claims, pretty much however bizarre they are. Or even checking if the papers support the headline claims they read... To support my last point on IPCC conservatism - William Freudenberg's presentation last year on 'The Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge' is relevant.
  37. It's not bad
    scaddenp#132: "tipping point stuff isn't that scientific" Joseph's statement was: "I don't think anyone believes that the world will be past a tipping point". The non-scientific part is his personal opinion and his projection of what 'anyone' believes. His opinion remains unsubstantiated - and surely there are some who believe that such tipping points exist and will be breached soon (ex: Arctic ice going, going, gone). Those who rail against 'consensus' and 'settled science' would not allow that kind of thing to go unchallenged.
  38. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    #15, as ice loss accelerates (as has been observed in the arctic), the albedo feedback increases. It is not a static value. Additionally, large losses are spreading into the summer months of high insolation, further accelerating the feedback when open water is exposed to strong sun. When ice loss decelerates, probably when the ice is largely gone altogether, the ice-albedo feedback value will reduce of course. #18 Badgersouth: To add to your comment, the low PIOMAS volume to beat is 2010, which was significantly lower than 2007 (4428 cubic km compared to 2007's 6458 cubic km). The volume as of the 31st July, the last updated value, was 6494 cubic km, meaning that 2011 probably passed 2007's minimum according to PIOMAS on the 1st August. 2011's 31st July volume is ~500 cubic km below 2010. Source.
  39. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    skywatcher#29: "a theory of how the world works is no good if you've already discarded competing hypotheses." Yet celebration of the 'demise' of greenhouse warming continues now that the new pet theory of GCRs has been 'confirmed.' No one seems to be calling for multiple competing hypotheses; no one is bothering to look at uncertainties in the new experiment. In soft science world, the same rules do not apply.
  40. It's not bad
    Rob makes some good points. Please dont confuse published science with Greenpeace. This is a place to talk about the science says, not what environmentalists say.
  41. CO2 is just a trace gas
    By the way, it maybe worthwhile to explain why CO2 is so important. The whole idea is that electromagnetic radiation need a little antenna to be emitted or absorbed (a dipole). This can be described a pair of positive and negative electric charge. Di-atomic molecules, N2 and O2, which making most of the atmosphere, are very symmetric and hence poor antenna. Next comes Argon, which is a noble gaz, which suffer from a similar problem. This leaves water vapour and C02, which a polyatomic molecule and asymmetric, which make them good antenna.
  42. It's not bad
    I have to respond to this line as well: "Nature seems to most of us to be a lot more adept at normalizing extreme situations than environmentalists are at predicting them." Yes. Nature absolutely does have very clever ways to normalize things. Nature is also quite incognizant of suffering or even survival of any given species. She has no compunction about setting things straight regardless of how the transaction takes place. The real question is, are you willing to bet your children and grand children's well being on the chance that nearly every scientist who does research in this field is somehow getting it wrong?
  43. It's not bad
    I keep coming upon the "taxation is bad" meme, as Joseph is trying to make the case for. The idea is absurd. Taxation is generally a way to shift cost burdens in order to promote more desired market behavior. It doesn't just suck value out of the economy. What we are talking about is taking the external costs of burning fossil fuels and internalize them into the cost of fossil fuels. What that actually does is level the playing field with other forms of clean energy which don't produce the same external costs. The challenge is that, as time goes on, those external costs grow exponentially. If we don't find a way to capture the costs of burning FFs then they will act like ENRONs off-the-books assets that collapsed that company. Only with this it won't be employee 401k's that take the hit.
  44. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    Curry's about-turn is rather pathetic (good spot chris #9). Her ramblings now seem largely to be unfounded speculations, unsupported by coherent evidence, wrapped in flowery language so that it is harder to see that they are just speculations. The last example in the OP is a classic one of that. By her definition we cannot accept anything as true unless we test it against a competing hypothesis. Do I need to test that a glacier is made of ice before I decide whether it is likely to accumulate frozen water? Do I need to test whether gravity works downwards rather than upwards when walking near a cliff (after all maybe it doesn't...)? Do I need to test whether the plate glass window will break if I throw a cricket ball at it (maybe it won't...)? In Curry's world, a theory of how the world works is no good if you've already discarded competing hypotheses. It boils down to the fact that we don't have any coherent competing hypothesis to the current well-verified theory of climate and the various greenhouse gases. We've been looking for over a century, and anything that looks like a competing hypothesis has failed to match the data. I'd love for someone to find such a theory, but this is now staggeringly unlikely, and the lack of such a competing theory does not make it less likely that we are right about GHGs, it makes us more likely to be right. Any change to the theory, say in a manner similar to going from Newtonian mechanics to relativity, has to incorporate the same observations and so will pretty much certainly have to incorporate something physically very very similar to the CO2 greenhouse effect. Otherwise it will fail the observation test. ETR, IPCC is well known to be conservative about their views. They had to be, in order to get every singly country to sign up, including the likes of Saudi Arabia. Current observations of Arctic sea ice decline, and current research on sea level rise are two examples where the conservatism is quite prominent.
  45. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    “Speaking of Arctic Sea Ice volume... Combining ice thickness with sea ice area gives the total sea ice volume. At present, researcher­s cannot measure volume directly, so they estimate the volume with computer models. The University of Washington­'s Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilati­on System (PIOMAS) model combines data on sea ice concentrat­ion with models of ocean and atmospheri­c conditions to estimate total ice volume. Sea ice volume normally changes with the seasons, but monthly estimates through July 2011 show that the volume for each month has tracked well below the 1979 to 2010 average, and below the volume for 2007, which saw the record low ice extent. PIOMAS projects that this year's minimum volume in September will very likely finish below 2007 and could even reach a record low volume. Source: Arctic sea ice at the crossroads­, NSIDC, Aug 16, 2011 http://nsi­dc.org/arc­ticseaicen­ews/”
  46. It's not bad
    Joseph, what the science says about predictions for the future is found in AR4. They are very conservative (already wrong) and not in the least way "worst case". If you do not accept this, then perhaps it would be best if you picked a specific prediction from the science and tell us why you think it is wrong (preferably with some science to back it). "when people are economically suffering today" - there will always be people suffering economically. You can use this excuse to delay forever. Under any of these scenarios, these same people are likely to suffer even more if food starts to get really expensive. You also seem to be assuming automatically action will be bad (FF companies surely wish you to believe that). Perhaps have a look at this article. Just as an example, how would killing ALL subsidies on FF and returning to public as tax breaks be bad for you? "tipping point" stuff isn't that scientific. What reports have shown though is that the longer you delay action, the more expensive it gets.
  47. It's not bad
    Joseph#130: "global warming's catastrophic future predictions" A friendly word of advice: No one but hard-core deniers use 'catastrophic'. "an additional 1-2% ball and chain weight on the economy would most likely add even more prolonged recessions/no growth/sustained high unemployment periods." Really? No job creation via this investment? No new revenue? No new technologies will come out of such investment? No new small businesses? People employed in alternative energy/CO2 mitigation, etc somehow do not buy food, gasoline, clothing? Is it better for them to collect unemployment until that runs out and then go on public assistance? Or is that not part of your equation? "playing up the worst case scenario" Please substantiate 'playing up' in this context. Perhaps you should read Degrees of Risk before issuing such judgements. "BP oil spill and Exxon Valdez disaster both turning out to have a much much smaller impact on the medium and long term environment than predicted" Please substantiate these opinions. Impact of the BP spill, in the form of hypoxic zones in the Gulf, continues to grow. Live oil is still being discovered in Valdez sediments. Less time in the pages of the national review might help.
  48. Temp record is unreliable
    I'm sure there is a response to this somewhere, but i can't find it: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/ Any help would be much appreciated
  49. Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
    rcglinski#26: "I could define "pretty sure" as 65% certain if I wanted to, but it doesn't relieve the ambiguity." Why not? If I need to run an economic model, telling me that an event has a 65% chance of occurrence is an input to an expected value calculation. This happens in an industry of uncertain outcomes on a routine basis (my experience was the oil business, where 'chance of success' is taken very seriously). Calling this an ambiguity is purely a semantic objection. "when subjective judgments are expressed in the form of a number in a scientific publication" Look at the quotes from the publication discussed in this post: They are pure opinion, with no mathematical basis whatsoever. Arguing over the definition of 'more'? A bit like arguing over the definition of 'is'.
  50. It's not bad
    Muoncounter #128 "What is the 'science of predictions'?" It's not the science of predictions, it is the science concerning global warming's catastrophic future predictions which seems, at least to me, to have a very wide range of unclear benefits vs. risk, as opposed to the science behind the reasons for the global warming which to me seems settled, as in caused by humans. Also regarding the costs of prevention, I am not sure I agree with your relatively low cost of "boarding up and leaving town" example. I read somewhere on this site that the cost would be as much as 1-2% of GDP!!! That may sound like a low number but any economist would tell you that this is a huge number. The US/Europe seems to have just entered into a long period of slow growth (if not double dip recessions) and an additional 1-2% ball and chain weight on the economy would most likely add even more prolonged recessions/no growth/sustained high unemployment periods. Of course I understand your point of long term cost but playing up the worst case scenario that comes out of global warming when people are economically suffering today makes it difficult for the general public to sign up today for such a big cost for the benefit of our grandchildren. When you couple this with the general public tendency to automatically discount gloom and doom predictions (like the ones from global warming) and environmentalists' history of exaggerated predictions (maybe not on purpose but nevertheless...), as in BP oil spill and Exxon Valdez disaster both turning out to have a much much smaller impact on the medium and long term environment than predicted, that makes it an even tougher pill to swallow. Nature seems to most of us to be a lot more adept at normalizing extreme situations than environmentalists are at predicting them. With all due respect to environmentalists on this site. And in response to #129 sccadenp's question about switching from coal, the answer is no! It's not that hard to switch away from coal...especially if the free market demands it! So if it takes an extra decade or two to educate the general public in order to create the demand for the free market forces as well as give the technologies a chance to catch up, so what? I don't think anyone believes that the world will be past a tipping point because of that extra period.
    Moderator Response: [DB] "Nature seems to most of us to be a lot more adept at normalizing extreme situations than environmentalists are at predicting them."

    Most of us? Who would that be? You imply that people who have taken the time to learn the science that think that "there's no problem" outnumber those that do. And you would be wrong to think that.

    Furthermore, the issue with today's CO2 excursion is not so much the amount, which is considerable, but the rate: 10x greater than that which occurred during the PETM.

    For further reading on that which we face given business-as-usual, try reading this post.

Prev  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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