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  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  Next

Comments 76351 to 76400:

  1. 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?'
  2. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    @muoncounter#79 Yes, the paragraph that I excerpted from Parker's column are her words, not Perry's.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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).
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.'
  15. 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."
  16. 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.
  17. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
    Where is the algorithm and source code for the IPCC model published?
  18. 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.
  19. 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'.
  20. 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.

  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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?
  24. CO2 was higher in the past
    Carbonado#41 Presumably you are referring to the graph posted in comment #6 and at larger scale in #27? This graph is a cartoon; it is not from an authoritative source and is not taken very seriously.
  25. Sea level rise is decelerating
    Tom, It's not the data, it's the method. Piling 130 years worth of data into a data point from 1880 and comparing it to a data point from 1990 made up of only 20 years worth of data and then omitting the plot for the last 20 points in the time series, does not make any sense. The graph from such a scheme leads one to believe that sea level rise during earlier periods showed no variation from year to year. That is not the case. At the moment I have no way of downloading the data from the link above. Otherwise I would have used that data to create the plot. I have run the Peltier GIA adjustments on the GLOSS sites from the PSMSL and all it does is increase the slope by about 0.5 mm/yr.
  26. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    There are different views about what the climate system is. And what can be considered as an external forcing to it depends on the definition of system. The terminology that equates "climate sensitivity" with equilibrium response of the climate system to atmospheric CO2 concentration implies such a definition of the climate system that excludes CO2 concentration from variable components of the climate system. If we also treat ice sheets and vegetation as fixed (rather than variable), we can say that we exclude them from the active components of the climate system. We can construct a coupled system of the physical (but not biogeochemical) atmosphere-ocean system (including part of the cryosphere such as seasonal snow cover and sea ice). Then, the sensitivity of this climate system to CO2 concentration as an external forcing, i.e. "fast-feedback sensitivity" in James Wight's text, is meaningful both within science and as a piece of information to be referenced in real-world applications. In the glacial cycles, however, atmospheric CO2 concentration varied, apparently in response to temperature (as well as theoretically certainly forcing to it), and it responded apparently faster than the ice sheet did. So if we include the ice sheet as a variable component of the climate system, it is awkward to treat CO2 concentration as if an external forcing and to discuss the sensitivity. It seems interesting and meaningful as an exercise internal to climate system science to discuss the equilibrium response of the climate system to the change of one of the internal component of the system hypothetically held constant for an indefinitely long time. I doubt that it can be evaluated by simply comparing the values of alleged forcing and alleged response in the paleoclimatic reconstructions. I think that more careful discussion is needed both in theoretical considerations and in interpretations of observational data. Even then, I do not think that such scientific exercise is directly very useful to real-world application. Just insights gained by such exercise will be useful.
  27. Dikran Marsupial at 03:59 AM on 28 August 2011
    CO2 was higher in the past
    carbonado wrote "In the past Nature 'regulated' the concentration of CO2 by extinction of species." Care to give a reference to back up that assertion? On a timescale of thousands of years CO2 levels are regulated by ocean-atmosphere transfers, over timescales of tens of thousands of years plus by the chemical weathering thermostat. See e.g. David Archers global carbon cycle primer published by Princeton University Press.
  28. CO2 was higher in the past
    RE: CO2/AveTemp - mya Diagram This diagram could not prove anything. 1. It is a moving average - and of how many values, nobody knows. 2. The values themselves used in the Moving Average are also averaged values. 3. It is not even accurately calculated. Does anyone have any vague idea why the temperature saturation in the Jurassic and Cretaceous in the upper version of the Diagram is 22°C and in the lower version is 23° C, and how does this average temperature look like as distinct values. 3. This trend in the end of the diagram (in the last 10 million years, for example) is a masterpiece of misrepresentation: - What part of this period is with Homo sapiens and what without it (how much is 200 000 of 10 mln)? - What part of this period is with use of fossil fuels and what without? This 'prediction' is for another system and for another world (without humans and vehicles, and their fresh ideas of how to control the world). The guys that put back into the air the carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) should have any idea of what they are doing and how they will clean up the air and the ocean back in case of 'emergency'. In the past Nature 'regulated' the concentration of CO2 by extinction of species. Who, how, and when will regulate the CO2 produced by the vehicles, for example and which species will extinct first - humans or their cars. The dinosaurs 'ruled over' the Earth for 160 mln years by virtually doing nothing 'as regulation'. We, with our fresh ideas of wasting natural resources, mania to control everything, and dealing with things that we don't fully understand will hardly make a million - seriously.
  29. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Suggested reading: "Why Business-as-Usual Coal Consumption Could Mean Dramatic Changes" by Emily Grubert, Guest Blog, Scientific America, Aug 23, 2011 To access the article, click here.
  30. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    jyushchyshyn - I refer you to the fact that the Canadian government is slashing funding and jobs from its environment ministry.
  31. Sea level rise is decelerating
    Steve Case @1, the PMSL site warns that its data has not been adjusted for Glacial Isostatic Rebound, a caution you should have taken to heart. As it happens, the data set not only has very few stations predating about 1930, but they are not geographically representative. Rather, they are taken almost entirely from the East Coast of the United States, and northern Europe. The East Coast of the US and the southern shore of the Baltic are both experiencing strong local rises in sea level due to the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment, significantly biasing your sample. Indeed, even as late as 1980, there are just 5 stations in South America, and 2 in Africa (both in Morrocco). So at no time interval of your data set is a simple mean geographically representative, and through out the time period trends are as much a function of increases in station numbers in various areas as they are a feature of the actual record. If you where to apply your analysis to the Domingues et al data set, and come up with a similar result, you may then have a valid criticism. As it stands you do not even raise an interesting question.
  32. Sea level rise is decelerating
    From above: Here’s some sea level data , in fact two data sets. One is a global combination of tide gauge records by Domingues et al. (2008, Nature, 453, 1090-1094, doi:10.1038/nature07080). Using around 500 tide gauge records globally, it’s the latest version of the “Church & White” dataset. The other is satellite data: ... If we compute the linear trend rate for all possible starting years from 1880 to 1990, up to the present, we get this: The above chart, as I understand it, uses data from 1880 all the way up to the present, but the plot only covers 1880 to 1990. The last 20 years have been left off. If the plot were to continue right up to the present the time line would become very erratic as the sample size approaches unity and becomes meaningless. Essentially large sample sizes early in the time line are compared with numerically smaller samples of more recent data. In everyday language, it's comparing apples and oranges. The cutoff at 1990 would indicate that a 20 sample size is appropriate. So why not look at 20 year slices of trend rate back through time and see how they compare? And lets use all of the data all the way to the present. So if we compute the linear trend rate for all possible 20 year periods starting with 1807 - 1827 then 1808 - 1828 and so on up to the present, we get this: An entirely different picture is painted when each data point represents an equal sample size. The early years are erratic because of a small number of tide gage records. The above link "some sea level data" didn't work for me, I used data from the PSMSL that dates from 1807 from over 1200 tide gages. The data is grouped and averaged by coastlines and the median value take for each year in the time line. I assume that the Church & White/satellite data would plot out in a similar fashion as above.
    Response:

    [DB] From Church & White 2011:

    C&W 2011 SLR

     

    And using 16-years trends:

    C&W 2011 SLR

    [Source]

  33. Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
    Though the wealthy nations may not feel the full brunt of the earliest effects of climate change, it is not as though they will not feel any. From severe drought to flooding--- if climate change impacts the food supply and prices, I think the economics of increased scarcity will unfortunately lead to resource related conflicts, and ethical considerations will take a back seat to the deeper instincts of protecting ones own resources.
  34. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    More on the bad news front... "A pipeline that would greatly expand imports of oil sands crude from Canada won't significantly threaten water in the Great Plains or have much impact on climate change, the State Department argued in a final environmental impact statement it made public Friday. "While not the final go-ahead, the environmental assessment offered a preview of the Obama administration's pro-pipeline arguments in the face of efforts by environmental groups to get the United States to take action to reduce carbon emissions. The tarlike form of oil in the sands requires more energy to extract and process, and therefore produces more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil." Source: "State Dept. signs off on controversial oil sands pipeline" by Renee Schoof, McClatchy Newspapers, Aug 26, 2011 To access the entire article, click here
  35. ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
    RickG#14: How many full-throated deniers read even a short press release all the way to the last sentence? Headlines tell you everything you need to know, don't they?
  36. ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
    I think the last sentence of the CLOUD press release puts everything into perspective. "However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.? My emphasis in bold.
  37. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    In case I am sounding hyper-critical, then let me explain my wish for effective solutions. Firstly, it's no good to say "I support " without explaining the political action to make that solution happen. Second, effective is hard. A Kyoto-type solution would require reducing GHG emissions by at least 25%. However, an equitable distribution (same emissions per capita for whole world) of GHG emissions would require reducing US emissions eventually from around 200khw/p/d of FF energy to around 60. (MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" has figures for other countries). This does not take into account energy imported embodied in goods. If you demanded historical equity, then emissions would need to drop to around zero. Figuring out how to do that means looking at exactly how FF is used currently and proposing a means to change that. MacKay's book is good resource for physical limits to efficiency. Rising fuel prices are likely to deal to transport FF but at the expense of greater demand for electricity. This cannot come from coal. Ending the building of any more coal-fired generation is fundimental.
  38. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    Dana @ 48 [snip] but please do not make claims that just because Canadian governments are not out to shut down the oil sands, they do not "give a damn about the environment." Alberta is a world leader in reducing natural gas flaring and venting.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please keep the discussion impersonal and free of rhetoric. I somehow doubt the environmental impact of gas flaring approaches the total enviornmental cost of oil sand extraction, so the assertion is reasonable.
  39. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    Interesting article Badgersouth. I noted some comments at the end which point out that the Keystone Pipeline could be to export bitumen to Europe. I don't know if that is true, but if it were true, I would not approve.
  40. ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
    Hang on though-even if cosmic rays are significantly linked to cloud formation-then shouldn't we be seeing a *cooling* effect right now? After all, decreasing sunspots also means increased GCR's. Increasing GCR's means increased cloud formation (or so the "skeptics" tell us) & increased cloud formation means increased albedo-hence an overall *cooling* effect. If I were a "skeptic", I'd be trying to *disprove* the link between GCR's & clouds ;-).
  41. 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
    Not sure what your point is, but the fossil carbon is millions of years of sequestered carbon. We are releasing it over few hundred years. Does this imply CO2 was higher in past? Yes, it was but sun was weaker and the issue is the rate of change not the absolute temperature.
  42. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    For further resource on US energy use, the Wikipedia article has useful data and diagram too.
  43. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Further thought on US energy use - coal powered electricity doesnt support much industry, but then it appears that is because most manufacturing and industry happens in Asia using coal there. The ideals of consumerism creating a vibrant economy with abundant jobs (eg as in Landon's "Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence") are doing wonders for creating wealth there. Got a plan for changing that?
  44. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Another Bee. Interesting comment. Some thoughts. Some thoughts and possible approaches:- The other problem with micro-generation is that it is expensive. There are real economies of scale in energy conversion. Does a zeal for independence from government and foreign power extend to paying higher prices? "In general, the Right has a philosophical dislike for state subsidies." I would have thought so, but you wouldn't think so looking at the actions of the right when in power. Subsidy involves the governments picking winners. I have no problem with subsidies on health and education but I think they are almost always bad when applied to industry apart from supporting research.
  45. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Eric (skeptic). Delighted to see you on the thread. First off - I doff my hat to Cato. I didnt think they had it in them but it certainly allays my feats that they were simply a political ploy to support Koch. Coal is cheap - but subsidies dont help and clearly arent necessary. The crux of the problem for getting off coal is a way to make other options cheaper. Subsidy removal is just a start. What else? Your comment about the Hansen carbon tax idea suggests you would be in favour of pigovian taxes. Our government has a Fiscal Responsibility Act, which basically requires a government to balance the books in the medium term. Has any US government done this since 1900? Sounds a good idea, but dont see how it would reduce carbon emissions. most fuel is wasted driving to pointless service and paperwork jobs. I frankly do not believe this to by true. Please show some figures to back this assertion or withdraw it. After manufacture, transport is the most expensive. US Energy use can be found here. More electricity from coal goes to residential and commercial where it is spent largely on heating/cooling and lighting. You really think the only barrier to alternative energy and localized manufacture is zoning laws? I find that surprising to say the least. How else would you encourage local small-scale, low energy manufacturing? (I do actually like this idea but I think rising fuel prices will do this more effectively than anything else). I understand most US citizens live in urban environment, and it seems 36% of total housing is flat/apartments. Their self-sufficiency options are somewhat limited I would think, but you know your country better than me.
  46. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    The comment from Dr Jim refers to the last few lines of post 15. No. I am sorry, but you have made a common mistake. In freshwater the Ksp values for calcite and aragonite are indeed on the order of 10-9. but in SEAWATER the values are, as given, on the order of 10-7. Though the currently accepted values are little different, this paper explains things quite well. I like this paper because it has 3 of the biggest names (though I confess that in my opinion Wally's star has shined the brightest) in the business on one paper – sort of like the αβγ paper.
  47. ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
    davidkirtley#11: "claiming that this new study shows that climate models are all wrong. " The prediction here didn't have to wait long. Multiple choice: a. The deniers are reading too much into the new study b. The new study doesn't reach a firm conclusion c. The new study doesn't deal with climate models d. The deniers have read the news release and not the paper; the two do not say the same thing e. All of the above See comments above, the RC analysis and the prior It's cosmic rays thread.
  48. ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
    It seems like a lot of the deniers are claiming that this new study shows that climate models are all wrong. For instance here And here Could someone please explain the connection and if they are right or are they reading way too much into the findings of the CLOUD study? thanks
  49. It's not bad
    Continuing from here. ClimateWatcher: "our ancestors were not troubled by natural variations in climate" Tell that to the Anasazi: Climate change is thought to have led to the emigration of Chacoans and the eventual abandonment of the canyon, beginning with a 50-year drought in 1130. Tell that to the Akkadians: Geochemical correlation of volcanic ash shards between the archeological site and marine sediment record establishes a direct temporal link between Mesopotamian aridification and social collapse, implicating a sudden shift to more arid conditions as a key factor contributing to the collapse of the Akkadian empire. Tell that to the Mayans: A seasonally resolved record of titanium shows that the collapse of Maya civilization in the Terminal Classic Period occurred during an extended regional dry period, punctuated by more intense multiyear droughts centered at approximately 810, 860, and 910 A.D. And tell it to whoever these folks were. A severe drought in parts of low-latitude northeastern Africa and southwestern Asia ~4200 yr ago caused major disruption to ancient civilizations. Seems like drought is a common theme in these 'troubles'. This drought forecast should be troubling: Or as one Texan put it more succinctly,
  50. Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
    CW#3: "not troubled by natural variations in climate" Off-topic; take it to 'It's not bad'.

Prev  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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