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. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Sphaerica, While temperatures and lack of precipitatino could become too high for certain species in certain regions, much of the world's plantlife exists in Northern latitudes well below limiting temperatures. Prediction temperature and precipitation increases in these areas would be more than sufficient to counter any potential losses in the more arid regions. My point was a counter to Doug statement about all the missing CO2 from the atmosphere making its way into the world's oceans. Apparently more is being sequestered by plants. I strongly disagree with your contention that all the extra carbon will eventually get back to the atmosphere. If anything, plants are likely to sequester have even larger percentages in the future.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] "Prediction temperature and precipitation increases in these areas would be more than sufficient to counter any potential losses in the more arid regions." reference please. Note the Amazon is not in Northern lattitudes, neither are the central African rain forests. The arid regions tend to be in mid-lattitudes. "If anything, plants are likely to sequester have even larger percentages in the future." reference please.

    Note Sphaerica is correct in that much of the CO2 used by the biosphere for photosynthesis is released back to the atmosphere by plant respiration and by the decay of dead plant matter. CO2 is only sequestered by permanent increases in plant biomass. This is unlikely to increase indefinitely as human population increases and puts pressure on the land available for forrest. However if you have a verifiable source that suggests otherwise, I would be glad to hear about it.
  2. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    81, Badgersouth, I suppose the modern analogy, however, would be how many angels can fit on a CO2 molecule, and when they try do they singe their wings? But yes, the conversation has turned more to why they don't, rather than actual suggestions of what they should do, or practical, defensible, considered answers to the challenge.
  3. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    38, Eric the Red, That's pretty common knowledge, that some portion of the CO2 has gone into extended plant growth, due both to reclamation of land (such as farmland that has again forested in the U.S. Northeast) and some plants simply growing larger (for now) in what are, at this fractional point in the path towards dangerous CO2 levels, slightly better growing conditions (more CO2, slightly warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons, with only slightly worse or more common drought/precipitation conditions in just a few, contained areas). That will change, and there's only so much additional growth that can take place before plant life is no longer a sink. Eventually, as temperatures become too high for some regions and species, and drought and negative precipitation changes transition ecosystems (forest to savanna or prairie, or the expansion of current deserts), plants will become a source of additional carbon instead of a sink. All of the extra carbon that is being sequestered by plants may get back into the atmosphere and oceans, and possibly/probably even more than that. What's your point?
  4. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    I trust the opinions of the experts who are saying things like it would be the equivalent of lighting a fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet. Or that we are now looking at 2-3 C, maybe 4 C, before any serious CO2 reductions. So is the Keystone XL approval the signal to go ahead and focus on mitigation? Does it mark the moment when the AGW community increases their focus on helping people survive? (I'm curious about such things, and I don't see much written about mitigating the effects of AGW. Perhaps I look in the wrong places.)
  5. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Happy Birthday to SkS and Congratulations on the new job. I discovered SkS after Climategate and I am so glad I did. You and all the regulars do a fantastic job of making the science accessible to anyone who is interested in learning it. Every scientific discipline should should have an equivalent. Thanks to all who contribute.
  6. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    To amplify the point made by Andy S, I highly recommend: "Republican Presidential Candidates on Climate Change" by Timothy Hurst posted Aug 22 on Ecopolitology. The caricatures of the candidates done for the Hurst article are a hoot!
  7. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Here's what the Union of Concerned Scientists said about SkS in a recent news release. "Skeptical Science is the leading website for debunking spurious claims regarding climate science. The site tackles everything from flawed research papers to conspiracy theories about scientists and is updated with the latest contrarian claims and primary sources that debunk them."
  8. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    John Cook: When do you go in for cloning?
  9. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    This study by Yude Pan of the U.S. Forest Service found that one third of the CO2 emissions was absorbed by the world's forests. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/07/13/science.1201609.short
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Link activated. The net sink given in the abstract is 1.1 ± 0.8 Pg C yr–1, which could be as low as 0.3 pG ry-1, which is much less than a third of anthropogenic emissions (about 8.7 pg yr-1 using the 2008 figure). The upper end of the uncertainty is 1.9 Pg yr-1, which is more like a fifth of fossil fuel emissions. It is well known that not absolutely all of fossil fuel emissions will end up in the oceans; but the bulk of it will.
  10. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Happy Birthday Skeptical Science, and congratulations John, on your new position.
  11. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    This comment thread is turning into an extension of the Medieval debates about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
  12. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    This is a wedding anniversary, but I thought I'd post the various materials associated with the 4th wedding anniversary. I find them interesting: Traditional U.S.: silk, linen. Traditional U.K.: fruit, flowers Modern U.S.: appliances If that doesn't sum it all up in a nutshell . . . Anyway, happy 4th, and thanks John.
  13. Sudden_Disillusion at 23:40 PM on 23 August 2011
    Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Happy Birthday SkS! Keep the good work up. It's so much more fun to argue about AGW with the deniers... it's getting a hobby!
  14. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Apparently Monckton is claiming it's only your 3rd birthday...
  15. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    A couple of clips from Al Jazeera on the Alberta tar sands. The Kelly (2010) study, mentioned in Dana's post, features prominently. Bill McKibben pops up too.
  16. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Rob, I think you hit the nail on the head about why libertarians are reluctant to compromise. They try to take an analytical rather than an emotional approach to problems. This leads to them being good at identifying the costs and undesirable effects of others proposals. However they try to create philosophical and political systems by logic from a few basic principles. Parsimony is a good idea in science. It is not in ethics. They end up with systems that ignore or underemphasize a lot of aspects of human nature. These are systems that don't lend themselves to compromise.
  17. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Best wishes, and many happy returns. (Or, at least enough that the folks cop to the difference between true skepticism and denial.)
  18. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Schmoepooh, the religious right and libertarians are joined by a perceived common enemy. Without they would be each others main enemy. Most libertarians that I know are not religious and those that are religious are not zealots. I disagree with your interpretation of how different sides see society and social bonds but giving my interpretation would be long and off topic.
  19. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    "I think you could carry most of them. However the more doctrinaire libertarians would try to find non government alternative solutions if possible and try to frame some quandaries in terms of property rights even when they are a poor fit." That's the problem with an absolute libertarian view. Some issues have no clear property rights solutions; the tragedy of the commons problems. There comes a point where realism has to trump ideology. I think strong libertarians feel any compromise means that ALL of their beliefs have to be jettisoned. This reluctance to compromise isn't restricted to them of course, but it's the heart of this problem, I think. "Rob Murphy and I both frequent a site..." I can't go back there now; I burned too many bridges, and besides I scrambled my password with a throwaway email address so I won't be tempted. I don't fit into an easy political box any more, I and try to stay out of purely political debates online as much as possible. I'll be leaving this thread for that reason in fact. I prefer the science discussions over the political musings.
  20. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    "Just a thought on the Libertarian front." Other than Ron Paul (and he has his own issues), libertarians on the Right are few and far between. I've seen Palin, Bachmann, and even Glen Beck (of all people!) called libertarian. The word loses meaning when it used so indiscriminately. Libertarianism is opposed to the theocratic impulses of much of the Right. Most libertarians I know are atheist/agnostic. Most are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-evolution, and opposed to censorship. I know libertarianism is the new bogeyman label for the Right, but libertarianism is mostly dead in the USA. "Social and political institutions have to be negotiated between autonomous individuals." The horror! That almost sounds like freedom. "We are in fact so social that we can say without serious contradiction that our identities, moral, religious etc shapes the basic genetic endowment each of us has and produces our phenotype (behavioral traits)." Our genes shape our genetic endowment. This genetic endowment has to be expressed in the totality of the environment it finds itself in, resulting in phenotypes. Nothing we do or believe will change that genetic component. It is what it was at our birth(barring mutations). "This in part explains many of the characteristics of the conservative right. Suspicious of difference and change, a strong instinct for territoriality and a reluctance to submit fundamental beliefs to rational scrutiny." Pop psychology isn't very helpful here; for what it's worth I see a lot of the above in the hard Left. It's nobody's monopoly.
  21. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    The question that is asked in this thread is "What actions to solve the problem are compatible with your values?". But the answer to that depends on what those values are. There is a difference between conservative and libertarian values. For libertarians the market and property rights are fundamental and inviolable. For conservatives they are valued but not all important. If you can persuade a conservative that the danger is real and grave then you can get them to support pragmatic measures to deal with the problem. The problem with conservatives is the sheer antipathy towards the left that has developed in many of them. There is a reflexive opposition to anything the left proposes. Denialism is part of this and is basically rationalizations supporting this antipathy. The problem is not ideology. It is the use to which ideology is put. With libertarians it is an ideological problem. I think they have a moral and ideological framework which need considerable modification to deal with climate change. They are less likely than conservatives to demonize the left but they are indulging in wishful thinking and to support this they are seeking out reasons to deny that they have a problem. Some are realistic but not many. Unfortunately conservatives and libertarians are listening to each others bad ideas. Rob Murphy and I both frequent a site populated by conservatives and libertarians. It has a denialist majority but not perhaps as big as it seems. The denialists are louder than others. Most physical scientists on the site are not denialists. Most of the rest are I think. It is quite plain that the primary reason their for deialisim is that they refuse to believe anything said by any of the left. Too many let politics trump all. Some are looking for any way that they can to support market purism and clutch at any scientific straw they can find. And some are overgeneralizing from their experience in their own professions and not seeing .the differences between climate science and their professions. But the big thing is the political polarization. What policies to deal with global warming would gain their support if you could get them to see the danger as urgent? OK, I'm on the left of the site seeing myself as a centrist who used to be libertarian. I regard replacement of coal as the principal priority right now. It is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas increases and it is the problem that has the most mature replacement technologies available. Construct a smart grid and build renewable and nuclear generation capacity as quickly as possible. How to finance it? You probably will need a lot of government involvement there though I could be persuaded otherwise if someone came up with a convincing alternative. Institute a carbon tax to push the market towards lower carbon choices. This will reduce the need for regulatory pressures though it will not eliminate them. Still any attempt to deal with the problem through regulation should only be tried after careful consideration of the costs and benefits. No gestures to show how concerned you are about the problem! Identify and eliminate any subsidies or tax incentives that encourage unnecessary carbon emissions. Continue work on developing alternatives to petroleum for transportation as the next step in emissions reduction. Not all of these will be things that I would prefer but I would prefer ripping off future generations even less. How much of this would those with stronger libertarian or conservative tendencies than me support if you could convince them of the urgency of the problem? I think you could carry most of them. However the more doctrinaire libertarians would try to find non government alternative solutions if possible and try to frame some quandaries in terms of property rights even when they are a poor fit.
  22. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Congrats.
  23. Dikran Marsupial at 21:52 PM on 23 August 2011
    Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Happy birthday SkS, and congratulations to John on the new position, a wise appointment!
  24. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Doug, You are partly correct. Not all the missing CO2 is making its way into the ocean, but being removed by plantlife. In fact, the largest portion may indeed be used by plants for photosynthesis.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Evidence please, preferably a reference to peer-reviewed journal article, appearing in a journal capable of giving a reliable peer review (i.e. a journal that regularly covers the science of the carbon cycle)?

    BTW, this post brought a smile to my face, much appreciated. :o)
  25. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    funglestrumpet, in my experience, when a blog, YouTube video, or other such 'common sense' source defines 'settled science' as proving something which peer reviewed scientific literature disagrees with the 'common sense' interpretation has usually overlooked or misunderstood some vital detail(s). Thus, for instance, when AGW 'skeptics' insist that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st and or 2nd law of thermodynamics they are often doing so in earnest belief... but clearly have misunderstood how the greenhouse effect and/or these laws work. This can even lead to things like thousands of TV weathermen and meteorologists signing a petition saying that global warming isn't happening. People working in a field can have a general understanding of how things usually happen without really knowing the underlying science.
  26. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    I will agree with those who support building thorium reactors. The technology is readily available, and the idea that we do not have the expertise to build these reactors is ludicrous. Compared to existign reactor designs, there are fairly simply, and could be build in a relatively short time frame. CV2 has pointed out that both left and right supported more nuclear power before Fukushima. In reality, only the radical environmentalists were against nuclear, although there are a splattering of individuals mixed throught the general populace who are against nukes in any way, shape, or form. The Japanses crisis will fade, and support for nukes will resurface, just like after Chernobyl. The bigger push will come from energy prices. If oil and gas prices start rising again, then people will be more willing to build these plants, although NIMBY thinking will still permeate. That is why the smaller, thorium facilities could be built locally. The biggest obstacle is not fear, but government regulations as mentioned by Camburn. Utilities are reluctant to build plants because of the potential costs of the government regulations. If the feds were to present a design (or a choice of designs) which could be built with specified safeguards and requirements, then we may start to see some nuclear proposals being put forth. Currently, this appears to be the biggest bang for the buck in power generation. Which is what will drive alternate energy.
  27. Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Happy birthday and heres to the day we no longer need a blog refuting the more 'fragrant' views on climate science.
  28. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Just a thought on the Libertarian front. The link with the religious right and radical individualism which seems to be the common thread is the implicit belief in souls and the presumed spiritual autonomy and accountability (to God). Just me and God. Social and political institutions have to be negotiated between autonomous individuals. This goes back to Hobbes' version of the social contract. A secular evolutionary approach recognizes the irreducible social character of the human species (along with other primates and mammals). We are in fact so social that we can say without serious contradiction that our identities, moral, religious etc shapes the basic genetic endowment each of us has and produces our phenotype (behavioral traits). This is fundamental genetics 101. Interestingly, this is how moral identities are constructed by those of us who feel obliged to take responsibility for the welfare of the planet and seek cooperatives ways of doing so. Same process - different outcomes. This in part explains many of the characteristics of the conservative right. Suspicious of difference and change, a strong instinct for territoriality and a reluctance to submit fundamental beliefs to rational scrutiny.
  29. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    CV2 wrote: "Losing support for nuclear power because of problems with 50+ year old designs and technology really shouldn't be relevant to the new melt-down proof systems of today." What 'should or should not be' is a question for philosophers. I was talking about what is. Many human beings fear things that can kill alot of them at once... and don't get too fussy about the particulars. That said, your answer suggests its own solution... shut down the 50+ year old designs (many of which were supposed to have been retired years ago) so that they can't melt down. There will then be no melt downs for many years, public support will increase, newer designs can be built, and nuclear power can go forward. Instead, what we've got is plants that we KNOW have safety vulnerabilities continuing in operation long after they were originally supposed to be decommissioned. Accidents are inevitable. Essentially, the nuclear industry's policy of continuing to squeeze money from outdated power plants is preventing them from making vastly more money from safer new power plants. And will continue to do so unless they get lucky and there are no major accidents at old plants for a few decades OR they finally wise up and shut down the old plants.
  30. funglestrumpet at 18:52 PM on 23 August 2011
    Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    21,22,23 I am not a structural engineer, but I am a mechanical engineer. This is not a thread about 9/11, I was only using it as an example of what can happen to settled science in the public arena. ( -Snip- ). I am not angry, just frustrated. I see, thanks to the hard work of contributors to this site, those on the other side of the fence playing all kinds of tricks in order to futher their cause while this side, to its credit, plays with a straight bat. Unfortunately, the public doesn't see this and so do not object when Monckton puts on his top hat and tails and put on another show of deception and illusion. In turn, the politicians pander to the whims of the general public opinion which leads them to the politically safe position of supporting business as usual. I have no idea where we go from here, but it does seem to me that this side is losing the war while winning every battle. The issue is whose flag will be flying on the remaining bit of high ground when climate change has run its course. It would be a shame if settled science continues to be ignored the way it currently is.
    Response:

    [DB] Ideological statements snipped.

  31. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    >>CBDunkerson at 01:34 AM on 23 August, 2011 Lloyd, polls in the United States showed for many years that majorities on both the 'left' and 'right' supported more nuclear power... unless it was going to be located near them. So, most people (more than 50%) on 'the left' WERE "advocating the building nuclear power plants (sic)". Of course, that changed with Fukushima. Support for nuclear power has dropped sharply this year...<< Losing support for nuclear power because of problems with 50+ year old designs and technology really shouldn't be relevant to the new melt-down proof systems of today. It's like abandoning cars because your Stanley Steamer's boiler blew up.
  32. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    Camburn, you are probably correct about the chances for a carbon tax in the US. But its not because the US electorate has a good understanding of economics and climate science, rather the opposite, unfortunately. For example, there are front-running presidential candidates who claim that they can suspend the laws of economics (Bachmann's $2 gas promise) and physics (Perry praying for rain).
  33. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    17, Anthony Mills, Enlighten me. What do you know about models and their inadequacies, that I don't? Explain yourself more clearly.
  34. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    Andy S: There will not be a carbon tax, at least in the USA in the forseable future. Most people now understand where the idea was started and a loath to have anything to do with it.
  35. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    Stephen: And they won't. President Obamma's economic policies have been such a dismal failure that he is clinging to anything in the hopes that he will get re-elected. He would have been much more sucessful had he read all of Keynesian's theory. You can't borrow money to stimulate without long term negative effects. You can use reserve funds.......(cash on hand)...and it works well. Anyways....the economy will dictate the immediate future.
  36. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    Camburn, the question is what proportion of the tar sands remains in the ground and how much we put in the air. Yes, the demand is there for the oil but that demand will diminish if we make the price high enough, through carbon taxes or emissions caps. As mreisner said, it's a political choice. Some recently announced policies in Canada require any new coal-fired electricity generation projects to have the same GHG emissions profiles as natural gas plants. This means that new coal power stations in Canada will need carbon capture and storage. If only the same could be done for new tar sands operations: require them to have the same GHG profile as a light oil operation. That wouldn't be good enough but at least it's a step in the right direction.
  37. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    15.Sphaerica. Your comments are inappropriate. Please read my comments more carefully before responding. The first line of my comment (2) addresses the "surface energy balance",as does my comment (9). Your references are irrelevant. I suggest you google "surface energy balance"and learn something about the topic. Further,I suggest you study an appropriate textbook on heat and mass transfer to learn about the basic physics needed to describe latent heat transport from a water/air interface. 16.Scaddenp. I guess you are right--thanks.
  38. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
  39. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    @dmyerson - tar sands emissions on well to wheel basis are significantly higher. According to NRDC: "Replacing 3 mbd day of conventional oil with tar sands oil would be equivalent to adding more than 22 million passenger cars to the roads." http://www.nrdc.org/land/files/TarSandsPipeline4pgr.pdf According to the State Department GHG emissions from the tar sands are at least 20% higher. However they did not look at the land use change - ie trashing the boreal forest. (Pers comm)
  40. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    scaddenp: The nuclear industry has been burned often, so they are reluctant to build. Disclaimer: My 1st cousin is a quality control engineer at Prairie Island in Minn. Even the old tech at Prarie Island is working well. He feels absolutely no threat to himself/or his family. He thinks it is crazy that we are not on a mission to have all of our energy produced this way. When asked, as he is also part of a project manager team, he says the regulations, the hoops, etc...required to build a plant now make it virtually impossible. The US Navy has been using nuclear for decades. Anyways, the tech is here, the will is here, but the regulations etc are also here. My point being again, the immediacy of the problem gets lost. I proposed that the state of ND try and get permits etc to build a plant next to the Missouri River. We looked into it, and after exaustive study.....decided that it was impossible to do. And the heck of it is....we WANTED to do it. WE know that lignite will last only so long. WE have all the infrastructure in place to export elect, which we do. So......instead of a nuclear plant, we got another coal plant..........go figure.
  41. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    Stephen: It is also anticipated to send Bakken crude south as well.
  42. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    There is a widespread assumption promoted by industry that the Keystone Pipeline is all about tar sands oil for America. My investigations suggest that's not the case at all. It is about exports from the landlocked tar sands via the Gulf to Europe ...and maybe elsewhere. Keystone XL: A Pipeline to Europe?>
  43. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Regarding reactors, thorium ones in particular,the Australian situation is that since we don't currently have the expertise or experience to build commercial reactors locally we would have to import the designers and builders and thus have a likely 20 year lead time from calling of tenders to going live. So, at least for us here,a nuclear solution is going to be too late to be of any use unless other new energy solutions start to be built in the much nearer future. Sorry Camburn, but seldom do trite, one word solutions bear scrutiny - even if they are well intentioned.
  44. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    @Tom Curtis #57: You and I obviously disagree on the merits of this article and whether it should have been posted on SkS. Let's leave it at that.
  45. mullumhillbilly at 14:02 PM on 23 August 2011
    It's waste heat
    KR@90, sure I've ventured to comment elsewhere, and have even supported your scientifically-sound comments where others were attempting to argue the second law fallacy. So I'm not here with an agressive agenda, and like you I don't have time to waste in simply arguing. I'm looking for answers to some simple questions that don't seem to have been adequately addressed, the time factor is one of them. And BTW, to me, a "Warmist" is someone who believes that climate sensitivity is higher than empirical evidence suggests, who abusively "denies" all skeptical questions or alternative explanations, who thinks that the peer-review system is beyond reproach, and who adamantly asserts that mitigation not adapatation is the only answer. Not pointing that at you, I appreciate that you are polite and patient, although it seems I'm still not getting a direct answer about the time factor. You say "..the climates ability to dump heat quickly", which again is noting that time is of the essence. scaddenp@92 I think I'm repeating myself. DLR is far less important during the day than at night, in relation to the planetary energy sum that drives climate. The yearly average is obviously an integral of daily balances, and climate sensitivity to CO2 arises from the net accumulation of atmospheric heat energy over time, for two atmospheres with differing CO2. That net accumulation seems to be predominantly at night, because that's when elevated CO2 "trapping" of FIR-LWR has greater releative significance. Elevated CO2 is not so important to climate warming during the day because SWR heating is by far predominant. What's your explanation for why DLR is less during daylight hours, peaks at ~midnight, then declines until dawn ? If the accumulation of energy over time is less than thought because pre-dawn energy losses are greater than thought, then climate sensitivity is lower than thought. I don't have any references to back that up just now, but then neither have I seen any empirical analysis of diurnal energy balance with differing CO2 concs. TomC@94. You said "The atmosphere, particularly when humid, has a similar but smaller effect. That is quite distinct from the GHE". OK, I guess I was nitpicking at you in the way others were doing to me, I'm sure you understand the effects of water vapour. "...entire duration of that cooling, it would cool slower with a GHE than without it." I don't doubt that, but on a timescale of a ~12 hour night, with soil and rock being pretty good insulators, the crucial thing is the LWR from exposed surfaces, no? eg Surface temps can be sub-zero C, but just a few cm into the soil it might be 10 deg warmer. Is there any LWR coming from the subsoil? Of course not. And if the amount of escaping LWR drops markedly after midnight (as scaddennp's link in 86 shows), then higher CO2 levels won't be "trapping" much extra energy at that time. So, I'm agreeing that a planet with GHE is warmer than one without; its strawman argument to suggest otherwise. What you dont seem to be addressing is my point that a rise in GHG might not cause the marked increase in GHE if overnight energy losses are greater than thought. Where is the "missing heat" ? Regarding "...equilibrium with geothermal energy" , that's nothing like what I'm saying, and another strawman. muonC@93. I offered to take these to another thread, but didnt get a suggestion. Feel free to transfer them if you like (but leave a link please so I can find it again). Waste heat.. yes I came to the conclusion (with appreciation for TomC@71 correcting my units conversion error) that, if (I.F.F.) CO2 doubling leads to 3.7W/m2 forcing, then GHG forcing energy is equal to combustion heat every 8 months (0.66 yrs, or factor 1.5x). Even that sounded too high, which is why I raised the overnight heat loss question. I'm still in a state of disbelief that GHG forcing can be 100x the combustion energy, every year, and will look into it further when time permits and I can find somewhere to acces Flanner's full paper.
    Response:

    [DB] Try here. 

    The cost of 1 GRL article:  $25

    The power of Google:  priceless.

  46. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    I note that among our regular skeptics, only Camburn (and eric (skeptic) earlier) have stepped up to challenge so far.
  47. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Camburn, are you claiming noone is building Thorium reactors because the environmental movement wont let them? The environmental movement has enough clout to block nuclear but not enough to block coal? Can you point to a proposal where the investors are lined ready but are blocked by environmental movement? (I could be wrong but I dont think this is the case - I dont think you could get investor for nuclear let alone thorium because of economic issues but I am happy to be shown wrong).
  48. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    The tar sands will be developed. Whether the oil is shipped to the US or a foreign market doesn't matter. The deamand is there for that oil.
  49. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    [DB] Are you offerring to write one...? Hah! I'll just leave this alone. Because the logic of the economic Right is currently expressed in actual relations over most of the world, talking about solutions for the Left requires first addressing the context provided by the Right. That requires working through the "why" I mentioned above. I just wonder why capital would favor mitigation rather than war, migration, food and water shortages, and that wonder drug for productivity and driving down wages: desperation. Ray Anderson was anomalous. The historical development of capital is an extraordinarily nasty business, and it leaves me with too much pessimism to engage on this thread--even when I itch at the sight of straightforward silliness.
  50. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    The right/private sector has a track record on large-scale engineering projects - and (after looking at two examples) it's decidedly mixed. Exhibit A: The Pickens Plan. The crux of the plan was to build a massive, $1 trillion network of wind farms stretching from Texas to North Dakota, which would replace domestic natural gas used to generate electricity. The excess natural gas would then be used to power millions of American trucks and cars, thus freeing the U.S. from the shackles of OPEC oil. Even some environmentalists swooned over the Pickens Plan, with Carl Pope, then executive director of the Sierra Club, saying, "To put it plainly, T. Boone Pickens is out to save America." Within a year, however, the wind-power scheme was all but dead, and soon Pickens - and his multimillion-dollar ad campaign - had largely faded from the airwaves. Exhibit B: Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which took a crisis to get started. On October 17, 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries announced an oil embargo against the United States in retaliation for its support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. ... The price of gasoline shot upward, gasoline shortages were common, and rationing was considered. Most Americans began demanding a solution to the problem, and President Richard Nixon began lobbying for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline as at least a part of the answer. It would be interesting to look at a number of such grand scale projects and see what the track record of the private sector really is.

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