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  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  Next

Comments 76551 to 76600:

  1. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    MattJ - not on my web browser, but the logo is very close, giving the impression it's covering text. It could do with a tweak though.
  2. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    I see a lot of good work has gone into preparing this article, which is why it pains me to observe first and foremost that the graphic "Climate Myths from Politicians" is covering up text of the first paragraph, which will surely repel many readers.
  3. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    If pirate is correct in "they merely echo their constituency," the polling issue is instructive. The following table shows that there is broad agreement that something must be done. The remainder the data on the source page show the broad ideological divisions on AGW opinions. There's a stunning contradiction between decreasing numbers who believe AGW is a real problem and the large percentages shown in this table who say we must do something. This indicates a high level of confusion in the general public and a potential area for an education effort. Not surprising that they're confused, given all the misinformation they are fed by the Limbugs, Becks and What's up/Faux News Bastardis. It also shows how far out of touch the Republican do-nothing/spend-nothing crowd really is - and illustrates a very strong weakness in their appeal in a national election.
  4. apiratelooksat50 at 05:43 AM on 25 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Dikran at 12 I wasn't criticizing any individual by that statement. I was criticizing politicians in general who will say anything that needs to be said to get elected. They watch these same polls and conduct their own to feed back to the potential voters what they want to hear. Politicians, for the most part, are not scientists. Whether Democratic or Republican they merely echo their constituency on polarizing issues such as abortion, climate, Creationism/Evolution, etc... Some may try to move to the middle to appear likeable to the other side.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is still getting away from the discussion of the scientific position of the politicians, and hence likely to derail the thread.
  5. apiratelooksat50 at 05:36 AM on 25 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Muon at 16 A very recent poll can be found here.
  6. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    Interesting discussion on the dealings with WUWT folks. I'm sure you folks that try to set facts straight there do make some difference, but nobody will be willing to admit it and it would appear your efforts are in vain (example: completely dropping the subject when engaged). Then again, maybe that belief is just wishful thinking on my part. Anyway, as far as Denning's challenge to come up with a Heartland-approved solution goes, these Heartland types have had decades to figure something out. The book Merchants of Doubt highlights several issues that have had similar policy implications as the climate change issue. In each case, the free market solution never materialized, and some form of regulation was finally put into place after a few decades of delay. Granted, there may be some similar problems that were solved by the free market that I don't know about, and there may exist a Heartland-approved solution for climate change that nobody has thought of. We can't hold our breath waiting for that solution, though. It seems that issues like climate change and peak oil expose some of the flaws in the long term viability of 100% pure capitalism. To me, it seems that capitalism does poorly when accounting for externalities, addressing public health problems, and anticipating disruptions. This is what I think strikes at the heart of these free market purists. I don't think any conceivable climate change solution jives with their rigid ideology, and that is why they have attacked the science for so long. Thus, I think it is more efficient to address the uninformed middle ground folks. That requires marketing and visibility for the scientific facts (hurray for Skeptical Science). Strong vocal support and education from our elected leaders couldn't hurt either. The way I see it, we need to first talk about the science and the solutions with people that are actually reasonable. We can still highlight the deniers when they are wrong about the science, but start to engage them only after the reasonable majority is well-informed. Thus, the initial priority is a three-pronged plan to inform the middle ground, squash the disinformation, and implement solutions. The secondary objective should be to engage the deniers if it is necessary to control their disinformation. They had their chance to be a part of the policy debate.
  7. Dikran Marsupial at 04:46 AM on 25 August 2011
    It's cosmic rays
    CERN CLOUD project results are published, discussion @ RC. I suspect they are not all that was hoped for, but I need to read the article.
  8. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Muon, [snip] Anyway, with the exception of the far right and left, the polls show similar support (or lack thereof) for action on global warming. Statements that Democrats support AGW and Republicans do not are contradicted by the polls themselves. Politicians tend to listen to the polls.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Moderator trolling snipped; please refrain from this sort of activity, I will simply delete the post next time.
  9. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Sphaerica, I see you are not to blame. The moderator deleted my last post which would have explained everything. ( -Snip- )
    Response:

    [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.  Your last comment was deleted by the moderator due to inflammatory remarks.

    In the spirit of transparency, it is duly noted that EtR also furnished up this link:

    http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html

    as the source for his claim.  Let the reader make of it what they will.

  10. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Sphaerica, Did you read my last post. I am totally in support of increased efficiency. What fuzzy thinking? I linked to the government report which supports my earlier post.
  11. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    jyushchyshyn - please let's refrain from making gross generalizations of large groups like "environmentalists". Especially inaccurate generalizations. There's no reason we can't address the demand side issue while simultaneously at least delaying the exploitation of the tar sands. If we can delay it long enough, perhaps we can decrease demand sufficiently in the meantime such that by the time the tar sands oil can be transported, the demand will no longer be sufficient. China is working on a carbon cap and trade system, and eventually the USA will have a carbon pricing system, which would raise the cost of the carbon-intense tar sands oil and thus decrease the demand. And if we delay long enough, maybe Canada will elect a government that gives a damn about the environment as well.
  12. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    97, Eric the Red,
    All our improvements in efficiency have not stemming the rise in atmospheric CO2.
    All of our improvements in efficiency are trivial compared to what we can and should be doing. We've barely started, and so you're declaring it a failure. I would also point out that once again you are falling victim to fuzzy thinking, imagining the general numbers instead of researching them and carefully quantifying them. As far as cars and driving. I live outside of Boston, and visit NYC often. A lot of people are living well away from such large cities these days due to sheer congestion... as much as 60 miles away. At the same time an embarrassing number drive huge SUVs like a Chevy Tahoe (15 mpg city) in the stop and go traffic of rush hour. It's embarrassing that you would take a firm stand against efficiency. Absolutely embarrassing. That anyone would do such a thing is emblematic of denial in the extreme.
  13. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    No, the world is not black and white like that. It is the environmentalists and the extreme right who see the world in black and white terms. Personally, I would prefer to see the pipeline to Asian markets not be built. Have two way tanker traffic in the Pacific Ocean is an oil spill waiting to happen. In addition, the government of Alberta has been far to lenient in allowing oil sands operators to drag their feet in both greenhouse gas emissions and in dealing with the tailings issue. As CBDunkerson said, "If Obama blocks the pipeline or bargains his approval for some kind of concession (e.g. investment in electric vehicle research, offsetting carbon capture, or whatever) I'd say that is pretty good for us." Perhaps such a deal could include a ban on overseas exports of such synthetic crude, as well as firm deadlines to deal with the tailings and greenhouse gas emissions. it is the Asian markets which have virtually unlimited growth potential. As Camburn said, "The deamand is there for that oil." If there is a market for anything, someone will find a way to supply it. If we deal with consumption, that will take care of the demand for the oil. If there is no demand for the oil, no one will produce it.
  14. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    muon, ( -Snip- )
    Response:

    [DB] Off-topic snipped.  This post is about Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science, not public opinion polls on various and sundry topics.

  15. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    EtR: "All our improvements in efficiency have not stemming the rise in atmospheric CO2." Complete the thought, EtR. Is it A) "and so we shouldn't address the problem through efficiency," or is it B) "but efficiency allows any other additional solution to work that much better, so all of this work on efficiency is a good thing"?
  16. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    The Eunice Foote writeup is very interesting. If accurate it seems like a fairly simple way to demonstrate the greenhouse effect to 'skeptics'. I wouldn't have thought that the extra warming within a glass cylinder would be significant enough to be measured by a thermometer... let alone 20 degrees warmer. Granted, this was apparently a 100% CO2 demonstration, but still an easy way to blow numerous 'skeptic' arguments (e.g. 'the CO2 effect is saturated') completely out of the water.
  17. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Sphaerica, Many of the improvements have passed their maximum savings growth. For instance, a new furnace today will not result in as much natural gas savings as it did 20 years ago. Replacing all the really old, greater than 20 years or so, appliances mightl. But how many of those really old appliances are still working? Insulating older homes or replacing doors and windows would probably generate significant savings. But I still do not see this making a huge dent. Vehicle fuel economy has increased from ~13 mpg in 1975 to 32.5 mpg in 2009. Again, much of that savings was reaped between 1975 and 1985, with only marginal increases since. That must be a really poor SUV to only get 12 mpg. Do people really commute that far to work? Unless they live in the Yukon, I cannot image going that far to the grocery store. On the flip side, improved fuel economy has allowed people to drive further, so how much was really gained? Technology has allowed many to work from home, thus eliminating some commuting. All our improvements in efficiency have not stemming the rise in atmospheric CO2.
    Response:

    [DB] "Vehicle fuel economy has increased from ~13 mpg in 1975 to 32.5 mpg in 2009."

    In the usual absence of a cited link, the inescapabale conclusion is that you are again making things up with impunity.  A quick Google:

    2009 Cafe

    [Source]

    So now the onus is on you to furnish a reliable cite to back up your seeming bald-faced assertion.  Remember, your continued participation in this forum is contingent upon this. 

    The regular reader will recognize that assertions without foundation are a staple in this poster's repertoire.

    From the US Federal Government:

    Reduce Climate Change
    Climate change is widely viewed as the most significant long-term threat to the global environment, and man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are very likely the cause of most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. 

    Burning fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel releases carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere, contributing to global climate change. CO2 is the most important humanmade GHG, and highway vehicles account for 27% (1.5 billion tons) of U.S. CO2 emissions each year. 

    Every gallon of gasoline your vehicle burns puts about 20 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere—the average vehicle emits around 6 to 9 tons of CO2 each year. 

    Unlike other forms of vehicle pollution, CO2 emissions cannot be reduced by pollution control technologies. They can only be reduced by burning less fuel or by burning fuel that contains less carbon. 

    One of the most important things you can do to reduce your contribution to climate change is to buy a vehicle with better fuel economy. The difference between 25 miles per gallon and 20 miles per gallon can prevent the emission of 10 tons of CO2 over a vehicle’s lifetime, more than a year’s worth of use. 

    You can also reduce your contribution to climate change by getting the best fuel economy out of your car

    • Using a low-carbon fuel, such as compressed natural gas (CNG) or electricity from a renewable resource such as wind or hydropower

    • Walking, biking, or taking public transit more often

    • New fuel economy and CO2 tailpipe emissions standards will go into effect starting with model year 2012 vehicles.

  18. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Paul D - no, there aren't any prominent Democratic politicians who are climate "skeptics". There are a few who oppose certain climate solutions, but not climate science. It is indeed very polarized. Back when we started the Climate Myths from Politicians database, we tried to find some "skeptic" quotes from Democrats, but struck out. It's only Republicans who reject the science.
  19. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    jyushchyshyn - the world isn't black and white like that. Of course consumption is the main problem, but when we start to produce unconventional fossil fuels with higher carbon emissions intensity, that's a problem too.
  20. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    20, barry, That is so cool! If it's not a hoax it should be brought into the mainstream, with Tyndall and Arrhenius, at ever mention of past climate science.
  21. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 01:02 AM on 25 August 2011
    Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Birthday felicitations - and best wishes for your new role. The Global Change Institute must find it hard to believe its luck :D
  22. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    94, Eric the Red, I would like to point out that almost everything in our current society has a lifespan of five to ten years (with the major exception of buildings). If we simply committed to improved efficiency for those new products that are already destined to be manufactured and consumed to replace existing tools, within that five to ten year span we could make a huge, huge dent in the problem. But we can't do that while people are still wedded to driving huge, 12 mpg SUVs just to commute sixty miles to and from work, or to get to the grocery store. And getting there requires a political commitment from the Right, as well as stopping foolish resistance to proven science so that people know whom they can and should trust, admit to the problem, and act in their own future as well as present interests.
  23. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    94, Eric the Red, See comment 63. That's where Camburn started, with Thorium reactors.
  24. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    Tyndall mayn't have been the first!
    we've known since British physicist John Tyndall's laboratory experiments in 1859 that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap heat
    I chanced upon a delightful wee monograph stipulating that Tyndall was beaten to the punch by three years, by a certain Eunice Foote at "the 1856 AAAS annual meeting in Albany, New York." Though her work wasn't published, it was noted down by a journalist, thus:
    "Prof. Henry then read a paper by Mrs. Eunice Foote, prefacing it with a few words, to the effect that science was of no country and of no sex. The sphere of woman embraces not only the beautiful and the useful, but the true. Mrs. Foote had determined, first, that the action of the rays increases with the density of the air. She has taken two glass cylinders of the same size, containing thermometers. Into one the air was condensed, and from the other air was exhausted. When they were of the same temperature the cylinders were placed side by side in the sun, and the thermometers in the condensed air rose more than twenty degrees higher than those in the rarified air. This effect of rarefaction must contribute to produce the feebleness of heating power in the sun's rays on the summits of lofty mountains. Secondly, the effect of the sun's rays is greater in moist than in dry air. In one cylinder the air was saturated with moisture, in the other dried with chloride of lime; both were placed in the sun, and a difference of about twelve degrees was observed. This high temperature of sunshine in moist air is frequently noticed; for instance, in the intervals between summer showers. The isothermal lines on the earth's surface are doubtless affected by the moisture of the air giving power to the sun, as well as by the temperature of the ocean yielding the moisture. Thirdly, a high effect of the sun's rays is produced in carbonic acid gas. One receiver being filled with carbonic acid, the other with common air, the temperature of the gas in the sun was raised twenty degrees above that of the air. The receiver containing the gas became very sensibly hotter than the other, and was much longer in cooling. An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a much higher temperature; and if there once was, as some suppose, a larger proportion of that gas in the air, an increased temperature must have accompanied it, both from the nature of the gas and the increased density of the atmosphere..."
    http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf May be familiar to some contributors here, but a new one to me. Marvelous bit of history.
  25. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    I would like to know what type of reactors Camburn would support. Thorium reactors are much smaller, can be built locally, have significantly less shielding needs (hence less government regulations), and thorium is much more plentiful than uranium. Economically and safety-wise, these make more sense than uranium reactors. On a cost basis, I do not know how they would compare to other options such as wind or solar, but the size requirements are less. Efficiency upgrades are fine, and we should continue to to make strides in that direction. But that is only a marginal reduction. In fact, these are ongoing as people replace older vehicles, furnaces, etc. with newer models.
  26. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    91, Camburn, I'm curious, but why are other options not on your radar, such as wind and solar, improving mileage on new vehicles, energy efficiency in building, and other methods? Why is the solution restricted to building as many nuclear power plants as we possibly can (while knowing that, like fossil fuels, radioactive fuel is also a limited resource)? After that... I'm with scaddenp... how do you propose that we move beyond just letting the free market not bother to build those new nuclear power plants, and get into a mode where the cost of fossil based energy reflects the actual cost, and not just the extraction, preparation and delivery cost of the product?
  27. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    pirate#12: "The latest polls show" What polls are you citing? Here is a summary of polls that disagree with your contention. Action by EPA to regulate CO2? favor 71% stop 28% New legislation this year to regulate energy output from private companies in an attempt to reduce global warming? favor 56% oppose 40% Energy policy to keep prices low or protect the environment? environment: 56% energy prices 37% Global warming: major problem 54% minor problem 23% not a problem 19% Perhaps you have some data to the contrary. But as always, a source speaks louder than an unsubstantiated assertion.
  28. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    I think it would be reasonable to have a post documenting the relative policy paralysis on the topic of climate change that has occcured in the US & other 'old rich' countries since 1988.
  29. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    eg. You Americans need to lighten up man. Chill out on the political front.
  30. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Surely there are Democrats that are skeptical?? I know in the UK we have Labour and Liberal Democrats that are skeptic. I guess if there are no Democrats, then that is the problem in the US, far to polarised and the issue of climate change is politicised.
  31. apiratelooksat50 at 22:11 PM on 24 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Thanks, Badger. I think anytime we start discussing politics on this site it is going to be a slippery slope before the conversation devolves away from the science. I know the politicians say what they think their constituents want to hear. A vote is a vote. The latest polls show that more and more Americans are not in support of the AGW theory. Of course, the politicians are going to play on that. I'm not in favor of that. I wish politicians would speak truthfully. But, they never have and never will. Case in point: look at Obama's words and promises pertaining to AGW and environmental policies before he got elected. He has not done much at all in that area, and that was with 2 years of a heavily Democratic weighted House and Senate.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Discussing politics may well be a slippery slope, but it probably isn't a good idea to grease the slope further by criticising a particular politician for something other than the correctness of his scientific position. Please, lets get back to discussing the scientific position of the candidates, which is the purpose of the article. Final paragraph corrected as requested.
  32. funglestrumpet at 18:35 PM on 24 August 2011
    Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Congratulations on the four years bit and also on the new appointment on climate change science communication. Re. the new appointment, boy, have you got a job on your hands! A quote from this week's New Scientist concerning new rules on ship pollution: "The agreement, reached at the UN's International Maritime Organization, comes after years of negotiations. It is a rare step forward for climate negotiators at a time when an overall deal on global carbon emissions looks ever more remote." Good luck, we all need you to succeed, and quickly.
  33. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Okay, I am not in the US so maybe things are different but simply having a government wish it does not make it happen here. Are you proposing the government builds them? You say there are huge barriers now - so what does the government do to allow this happen?
  34. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    Global warming is a consumption problem and not a production problem. The truth is that the genie is already out of the bottle. Stopping the oil sands will not save the planet for the following reasons; 1. Stopping the oil sands detracts from the real issue; the need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. 2. OPEC oil is not green. Enough natural gas is flared and vented to provide the total annual natural gas consumption of Germany and France. Global Standard to Reduce Gas Flaring Unveiled in Algeria 3. Litigation will probably only temporarily delay the pipeline to export oil sands oil to Asian markets. Using the oil from the oil sands in North America and Eastern hemisphere oil in the Eastern hemisphere will mean less oil being transported by supertanker overseas and less risk of oil spills. 4. Contrary to other claims, the oil sands will not lead to the use of oil shale. The oil sands have enough oil to supply North America for the rest of this century. If we were in danger of depleting the oil sands in the next 20 years, I would agree that they would be a gateway drug to oil shale, but this is not the case. 5. Stopping the oil sands could lead to shortages of oil. That may be the idea as a shortage would be the only way that stopping the oil sands could reduce consumption. However, a shortage of oil will lead to a back lash, and it will be political suicide for any politician not to talk like the Republicans are talking today. 6. Many people who support the fight against global warming make their living extracting oil from the oil sands. A hostile attitude to the oli sands could alienate these people.
  35. OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
    @Paul W and @Doug Mackie Don't forget that weathering rates respond to changes in vegetation type & cover("bioogical enhanced weathering"), and the hydrological cycle - which will change due to increasing global temperatures at higher CO2. These changes will increase weathering rates, CO2 consumption and the supply of alkalinity to the ocean.
  36. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Happy Birthday SkS and all the best John - your work is valuable and much admired.
  37. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Scaddenp: The policy is apparant, or so I thought. I would support a program of building nuclear to replace coal as electrical generation stations.
  38. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Happy Birthday!
  39. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Happy birthday SkS. Well deserved congratulations John.
  40. Daniel J. Andrews at 13:26 PM on 24 August 2011
    Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Happy birthday! Love your app--perfect for reading through some arguments to refresh my memory or learn new things.
  41. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    camburn, interesting but still ducking the question of what policy you would support that will effectively change the balance. You have proposed an effective technology, no doubt about it, but not a means by which it can be introduced quickly, if you were convinced that it had to be.
  42. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Happy birthday to SkS! And congratulations on the new position. Seeing as you have created the best site on the Web for rebutting the the arguments that climate skeptics have with the science, I imagine you're ideally placed to do well in your new job. And of course you have a handy resource to find those pesky papers when you need them :) Well done!
  43. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    scaddenp@87: I didn't get involved in the regulatory burden/process. I studied the stream flow of the Missouri, and determined that there was enough flow to cool a large plant without large scale alterations of stream temperature. My Senator, who is my neighbor, got the development part of the State to start the process. After about a year, it was determined that the length of time to get permits, the seemingly changeing permit requirements etc made it not practicle to proceed. To me we are in an ideal location. Remote, tetonics are very stable, water supply was not an issue, transmission lines are already in place, or the corridors for such in place to allow expansion. Seemed like a win win to me. There was a lot of NIMBY. People are familiar with coal fired power plants. They do not fear the pollution from them, and we do have very clean emissions as the state PSC is diligent about that. To me, nuclear is such a clear cut solution. I would not mind living next to a plant at all. Of course, my cousin has an influence. If he feels safe having his family live 10 miles from where he works, then I feel safe is one was located near me. As far as liability, I have no problem having the federal government guarantee that as I think it is very very much in the publics interest to build these, whether they agree with that assumption or not. Kinda funny about libertarian views. I am a Ron Paul supporter, as I deem President Obama ineffective and not understanding basic economics. The present batch of Republican Candidates are really bone heads, and not critical thinkers. So, I hope I am wrong, but it looks like the USA will have 16 years of idiots occupying the White House.
  44. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Happy Birthday SkS! And John, thanks for being a much needed voice of reason out in the internet ether.
  45. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    What is the correlation between not accepting climate science, and not accepting evolution among the candidates? I know the positions on evolution of Perry, Bachmann, Palin and Huntsman, but I'm not sure of the others. KenH
  46. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    It seems to me that Jon Huntsman's comment: "The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party - the anti-science party, we have a huge problem" is well founded. The challenge is to turn that potential problem into a very real problem. It is a glaring political weakness, even in the US.
  47. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Doug, It is not my contention that the addition CO2 is coming from the oceans. That was my response to the hypothetic question posed by muon. If you have another potential answer, please share.
  48. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    @Philippe Chantreau #7: I have interacted with apiratelooksat50 for quite few years and I can vouch for his sincerity in posing his question.
  49. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    "Just believing in global warming is risky territory for Republicans. Backing environmental regulation would be a dangerous leap in the primary with little hope of payoff in the general election." The above is the concluding paragraph of an excellent article, "Huntsman, Romney believe in global warming, but not action" by Rachel Weiner posted on the Washington Post's The Fix on Aug 23, 2011. Weiner's article nicely supplements Dana's.
  50. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    ETR: Degassing? Didn't you read post 10? For one thing the oceans have not warmed enough to have been the source of CO2
    3. Not enough warming You may remember from post 8, that warm water can hold less CO2 than cold water. Our knowledge of Henry's Law and the CO2 equilibria allow us to calculate the increase in seawater temperature that would be needed to cause the observed increase in pCO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. the partial pressure (or 'concentration') of CO2). The results show that to explain the 100 ppm of additional CO2 added to the atmosphere since preindustrial times by ocean warming, the average temperature rise of the surface ocean needs to be about 10o C, much larger than has occurred. As we noted in post 8, the Henry's Law coefficient, KH, is dependent on temperature (and salinity to a lesser extent). However, there is no exact expression as seawater is sufficiently complex that the values for KH for seawater have been experimentally determined. For constant salinity, the pCO2 in the atmosphere doubles (i.e. =200% the initial concentration) for every 16oC increase in seawater temperature*. Atmospheric CO2 is now 140% of the preindustrial value (it increased by about 110 ppm from 280 to 390 ppm). Thus the temperature change required to sufficiently change the Henry's Law coefficient is 140/200 × 16 = 11oC.** This calculation shows that the surface ocean would on average have to have warmed by about 10oC since about 1750 if the oceans had been the source of the CO2. Plainly the ocean does not have a uniform temperature, so the changes would actually need to be even more extreme in some places. Of course, no such warming has occurred. *for the interested this is explained in detail in the appendix to: Takahashi et al. "Seasonal variation of CO2 and nutrients in the high-latitude surface oceans: A comparative study" Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 7(4), 843-878.
    ** actually a simplification of a partial dertivative

Prev  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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