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  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  Next

Comments 76801 to 76850:

  1. There is no consensus
    Rickoxo#430: "... makes me think this site is expressing more personal opinion than summary and distillation of what the scientific community would say about this topic." No one here pretends to speak for the 'scientific community.' I doubt that many here would take issue with Dana's stronger statement ('... require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong'). It takes some understanding of both the physics and the intricacies of climate science to be able to say that with confidence. A statement such as the one in IPCC AR4 ('... very likely due to observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse ...') is clearly a watered down, committee-written compromise version of what they could have (and probably should have) said. You can only see that and begin to grasp the fullness of the problem by learning something about the science. Relying on what can only be described as 3rd hand information is a very dangerous practice because there are lots of bad sources out there (and they very often come here to promote their uninformed opinions).
  2. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    93, Eric the Red,
    Crystal-ball projections are poor subsitutes for scientific research.
    You love to trot out "science" as a debate tool, but it's just empty words (just as for the "heroes" of the post above). I realize now where you are coming from since you said:
    No one knows what the future will bring...
    The reality is that you don't believe in science. You do believe in engineering and technology. You believe in what you can see and use. You believe in what you can buy at Walmart for $59.99 to use in your kitchen or bathroom or house or yard. That's real to you, and that's as far as science goes. Real science... understanding the universe and how it all fits together (so that engineers can make those wonderful labor-saving toys for you) is beyond your grasp. Real science is superstition, magic and voodoo to you. You can't actually understand real science, which is why you don't get it, and why you fall back on using the words "scientific research" as a ploy in an argument, and yet thread after bleeding thread you are unable to accept even one single aspect of current climate science. You refute all -- all -- of climate science, while trying to stand behind science as your shield -- selected parts of science that you use to keep your eyes tightly shut. You don't believe in science, only technology (which is science that you can see and feel without entirely understanding, and so is real to you). That's the bottom line with you, and anyone that discusses anything with you needs to recognize that. As far as your unsubstantiated claims about polar bears (while demanding proof of the opposite from everyone else), visit this post: Polar Bears or any of these papers: Climate change threatens polar bear populations: a stochastic demographic analysis (Hunter et al, 2010) Rebuttal of “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit (Amstrup et al, 2009) Polar bear population status in the northern Beaufort Sea, Canada, 1971–2006 (Stirling et al, 2010) Polar bear population status in southern Hudson Bay, Canada (Obard et al, 2007) Predicting 21st-century polar bear habitat distribution from global climate models (Durner et al, 2010) Effects of Earlier Sea Ice Breakup on Survival and Population Size of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay (Regher et al, 2010) I suggest you take further arguments about this to the thread I already posted above, where it belongs. It does not belong here, although this is the perfect place for someone such as yourself to emulate the stars of this post in misrepresenting, denying, or dismissing the actual science.
  3. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    First, I should thank the owners of this blog and the community for this site was the final nail in the coffin of my former world view and AGW denial. All it took was reading the well-digested blog posts here, and the truth became evident. I actually first found this site while searching for an arguement against AGW. So it works! I say that to say this, I think the key to creating some kind of future that isn't based on fossil fuel can only be driven by science and bottom up support for action. Politics and Policital parties are a moving target. They are in the world of short term gain. I do not know how to involve the "political right" in the US other than by convincing them one at a time that we have to take action, both in abandoning fossil fuels and mitigating AGW impact.
  4. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Absolutely les, all the polar bears need to do is migrate to their new territory by heading North from the North Pole.
  5. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    I think climate change denialism is an aspect of political polarization. Over the past, oh, twenty years or so most sides of politics have become more eager to demonize the other. Many have been constructing echo chambers over that period, seeking information from those who will not challenge their preconceptions, who will tell them things that they find comfortable to hear. Many of the politically active have come to see their political opponents as not just wrong but as stupid and/or evil. And to come to these conclusions they are attributing motives to opponents that I think have only a tenuous connection to reality. Rather than accept political opponents declared motives they attribute motives that allow them to see themselves as fighting evil. They look at what they might loose if their opponents win and think that that loss has to be because their opponents desire it father than because their opponents have different moral priorities to them and their possible losses are side effects of those different priorities. They refuse to accept that an intelligent person of integrity could come to different conclusions to them on moral issues. What is happening in climate denialism is that since most of the left accepts the reality of anthropogenic climate change and at least says it is trying to do something about it and is proposing measures that at least seem to have the effect of furthering the left's other goals then they see it as a power play by the left. Much of the right has become obsessed with fighting the left and often forgets their own aims in the service of this obsession. What is behind this? Some of it is so that they don't have to question whether they are in the right or accept that even if on balance their position is the best one it still had disadvantages and costs and undesirable consequences. Some is satisfaction of fighting evil, which of course requires someone that you can see as evil. Some is the bonding that comes from joining together against an external foe. The attitude is that if something is pushed by the left it has to be evil. For conservatives at least this obsession is actually a betrayal of their principles. In contrast to libertarians and progressives conservatives place a high importance on social cohesion. They are exactly the party that should be most in favour of prudent actions to safeguard our future. But for some reason, probably in part the religious motivation of many of them, they have have become especially likely to see the left as evil. Libertarians are not accepting that the market has limitations and that there are things that require centralized rather than distributed decision making. The market cannot deal with common goods because they are not traded. And it does not handle emergencies well because they require centralized decision making by a hierarchy, anything else is too slow. They don't want to accept that the market has to be modified and their principles are in some cases inadequate. And so many of them engage in wishful thinking. Ironically they are usually the group that is most likely to rightly point out the undesired consequences and costs of others pieces of wishful thinking. Sorry this has been a long post but sound bites got us into this mess. This is not a subject that can be dealt with in a couple of sentences. I'll post the rest of my comment tomorrow.
  6. There is no consensus
    And if you don't get into the science, Rickoxo, then you're going to be left relying on opinion. If I point out that some of the minority do their publication in dodgy journals, you'd have to take my word for it. Adelady's advice is good, but wear your math hat at SoD. The Miskolczi series is interesting if you like to see the in-depth interrogation of one of those 10%. If you're into the statistical side, Tamino gives statistical silliness the baseball bat treatment. It's a no-brainer over there right now, though (Joe Bastardi).
  7. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    I'll bet the polar bears are looking at a bright future... ... given all the new food that's heading their way: Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming
  8. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    EtR wrote: "The scientific research shows a stable polar bear population today." WHAT scientific research shows that? I don't believe I've seen a single paper making the claim that the total world polar bear population is currently stable.
  9. How does global warming affect polar bears?
    garethman, see my response to your comments in the other thread. You seem to have a rather inaccurate picture of the amount of hunting going on, what hunting levels polar bear scientists have estimated as sustainable, and the relative importance (i.e. very little) hunting has compared to sea ice loss. "Mullers claim about not a single bear having died from the effects of climate change is odd. How can he know that?" Which was precisely my point. He can't. But beyond his lack of any basis for making the statement, logic also says it must be wrong. Polar bears that drowned in areas which were previously always covered by ice died due to climate change. The condition which led to their deaths (i.e. large areas of open water) did not exist before. Ergo, the thing which caused that condition caused their deaths. Otherwise, his argument comes down to the equivalent of, 'not a single polar bear has been killed by hunting' - you just have to ignore that the reason their heart, brain, or other vital organ stopped working (the DIRECT cause of death) was the bullet they were shot with (the INdirect cause of death) the same way you ignore the sea ice retreat. EtR wrote: "Unfortunately for CB, his claim that just because there is no evidence that climate change has had a negative impact means that climate change has not impacted polar bears." I can't make out what you are trying to say here... or even what you think I said. However, you go on to claim that polar bears dying due to global warming cannot be verified. THAT is not true. Just above I presented the very simple logic that polar bears cannot drown if they are not in the water... which also proves (global warming -> less sea ice -> more polar bear hours spent swimming -> more polar bears swimming when storms come up or beyond the limits of exhaustion -> more drowned polar bears) that global warming is killing bears. You have also been pointed at studies which extend this inescapable logic into the realm of observed reality.
  10. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Sky and Sph, What evidence do you have that the polar bear populations will be devastated in the future? Certainly not the recent many-fold increase in numbers that has occurred since the international hunting ban. Crystal-ball projections are poor subsitutes for scientific research. The scientific research shows a stable polar bear population today. This is especially significant given the many species which have declined in the past few decades due largely to human interactions. I suggest you both open your eyes to what is happening to the polar bears today. That may yield better insight into what tomorrow will bring.
  11. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Tom C#31: "Any purported Libertarian solution ... must be able to eliminate global emissions by 2050 ... any purported solution ... must reduce US emissions to zero by 2020." Those are verrry tough deadlines; given the disordered political picture in the US at the moment and the likelihood that it will continue moving in the wrong direction. Accepting my analogy to the Dutch Delta Project for the scale of this type of problem, I do not see how the 'free market' accomplishes such a task. It would be interesting to find an analog for a project of such complexity and scope carried out primarily by private interests. Even if you put together a coalition of Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and the Sultan of Brunei (representing all the money you might need), you would still have to counter the inertia of opposition from deeply entrenched corporate lobbies. Like the dinosaurs, the ExxonMobils of the world do not adapt quickly. And like the dinosaurs, the world may be very different before they know what hit them.
  12. Polar bear numbers are increasing
    garethman wrote: "But I also cannot stand idly by while thousands of bears are shot by “sportsmen”" According to the IUCN polar bear specialist group, fewer than a thousand bears on average have been killed by hunting over each of the past five years. That includes somewhere between 100 and 200 killed in the Chukchi sea area (where Russia does not enforce quotas). This works out to about 4% of the population per year. Under those kind of controls the population grew steadily for decades before leveling off and then starting to decline over the past twenty years, primarily due to sea ice loss. It is noteworthy that during the peak of unregulated hunting the number of bears killed each year was 'only' about 1500. As the population declined (and it became harder to find bears to kill) that dropped down to about 1000 per year. Given that there were only about 5000 left when hunting limits were put in place it is clear how dire the situation was. Yet just a slight reduction in the number killed each year allowed the population to rapidly increase. Yes, as habitat loss puts increasing stress on the ability of polar bears to survive, maintaining the hunting levels of the recent past would further compound the problem... but it seems unlikely that is going to happen. Both the United States and Canada have already established new protections for the bears and are evaluating further changes. In any case, on its own regulated hunting is clearly not a problem. As the population decreases so do the quotas. Sea ice loss, on the other hand, is increasing in severity. Yet, those 'skeptics' who have moved on from the 'polar bear numbers are increasing' lie all seem to focus on hunting as the new way to avoid even thinking about the real problem. All polar bear hunting could be banned (it very well may be within the next twenty years) and the total polar bear population would still decrease if nothing is done about sea ice loss.
  13. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    55 Tom Curtis "Les @10 was frankly, talking nonsense. This is a witch hunt, what we see above is an index." Frankly, I'm not. I never said this is a witch hunt. What I said is that there is a risk that it could degenerate into one if not managed properly or over-done.
  14. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    Inspiring. I think most of the criticisms of the speech are just nitpicking (nothing is perfect). I doubt he got through to most of his audience (the right is not noted for it's use of evidence to form policy) but who knows - he may just have reached a few - especially given that essentially he was also appealing to their hip pocket (get in the drivers seat or be forced to accept solutions you don't like). Very clever overall :)
  15. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    I forgot to add that part of the issue is to do with knowledge itself. The right in particular believe that if you have knowledge of something than that knowledge must be utilised. eg. If you know coal can produce electricity, it is the right of everyone to exploit it. But what if we didn't today know how to use coal to make electricity and only knew about wind turbines and even nuclear reactors?? This clearly shows that it is knowledge that allows people to say 'we must use this resource'. What restrictions do is to place an artificial barrier to specific knowledge because other knowledge (about climate in this case) says using the coal knowledge would be harmful. So ultimately it is a battle of knowledge and some rejecting specific knowledge. Those that support AGW accept that the knowledge of coal producing electricity, they also accept the knowledge of climate changing. The other people accept coal knowledge but question climate science or reject it completely. Which really points to focusing on climate science, since all sides accept coal can produce electricity!
  16. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    I personally have no problem with restricting access to technology that is known to be damaging, do the right?? You have to be an extremely dishonest person to be happy that you are allowing humanity to destroy itself and that it was possible to prevent that destruction. Surely the question (put simply) is if one wants to travel from A to B, no one is stopping you doing it, but they might want to restrict how you do it, depending on what is available at the time the person wants to travel. And what happens under such circumstances? Well one thing that often happens is people become innovative and invent new systems that can do something better within the restrictions. This happens all the time. There isn't much in the way of politics involved here, just that people are creative and adapt. Commercial companies are free to develop within a (environmentally) sustainable legislative structure.
  17. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    #89: There is nothing bad happening now???? I suppose as usual you'll 'wait and see' if the rising trend in natural disasters, the faster-than-expected melt of Arctic ice, the acidifying oceans, or the large spikes in food prices continue (to use just a few examples). You advocate waiting on just about every thread, even when there's ample evidence to act now. There's plenty happening right now that's definitely not good, but only if you open your eyes Eric. Well said Sphaerica.
  18. OA not OK part 18: Been this way before
    Thanks for the links, Doug. What struck me was how compelling Richard Lindzen was when spoeaking to the committee, i.e. not very. It was gratifying to see that the USN recognises the realities of AGW. Looking very much forward to the summation articles in this series.
  19. There is no consensus
    Rick "At some point I'll pick an aspect of the science and get as into the detail of that as I can..." 'An aspect' encompasses many things. If you're looking at the central issue - the radiative physics of gases - all well and good. That's where the core science is, that's where the agreement is. Don't pick a side issue or a fine detail like droplet sizes affecting albedo of clouds (and dozens and dozens of similar nitpicks). The item that's been so competently put together relies on radiative physics in the atmosphere. The fine details are important for getting the best presentation possible - but the garnishes, crockery and cutlery don't change the fact that a meal is ready to serve. Changing the colours of plates or shape of forks might improve the look but not the nutritional content or the taste of the food. If, like me, you're not a scientist, concentrate on learning the basics. Be warned, basic does not mean simple or easy or quick. Science of Doom is probably the best place to start for digestible serves of serious science.
  20. There is no consensus
    Muon 424, I didn't mean to try for a higher standard, I was just trying to pull out what hit me as a clear and critical premise from IPCC so we didn't get bogged down in questions of, "well this person disagreed because of the policy issues, and this person disagreed because of something else, etc." I got that quote from here on this site and now looking back, I see I didn't give a reference, sorry for that. The quote comes from Dana1981 in the big picture post that's linked on the home page, end of the 2nd sentence in the "Humans Are Causing the Warming" section. I used that quote because I thought it reflected a reasonable summary of the opinion at this site and I thought it reflected what IPCC said as well. Sorry for the error on my part. I appreciate your comment, "That's a new, vastly higher hurdle; some no doubt can and do disagree with your words 'quantify,' 'verify' and 'essentially all'." I find it interesting that this site is promoting a statement of GWS that is stronger than the IPCC position. In that same section of Dana1981's post, he answers the question of what would it take to refute man-mad global warming theory, "it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries. It's this kind of combination of extremely strong statement of GWS linked with a claim that the evidence is so overwhelming that it's basically beyond refutation that makes me think this site is expressing more personal opinion than summary and distillation of what the scientific community would say about this topic. I'd bet everything I have that if those two sentences from Dana1981 were on the Doran survey, there wouldn't be anything near 90% acceptance of both of them. Yet those two sentences are presented in a featured article on the home page of the site. p.s. back a comment or so ago, I didn't set up the criteria from 20 publications as indicating sufficient status as a climate scientist, that comes from Anderegg
  21. There is no consensus
    DSL, I don't think I have any basis for an assessment of the science yet, I'm still trying to get a handle on what the experts in the field believe. At some point I'll pick an aspect of the science and get as into the detail of that as I can, but for now, getting a sense of the degree to which experts in the field see the science as settled or open to debate but clearly leaning in a direction hits me as a useful starting point. I get that Doran didn't define the context under which he was asking about human contribution to climate change being significant, that's one of the flaws in his survey, but that still wouldn't change the meaning of significance once he defines the nature of the contribution he was talking about.
  22. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Tom, Alex and MP: Most people are very sloppy about ppm and ppmv and mean ppmv when they say ppm. That is they take it as understood that the units are the same: volume CO2 per volume 'air' and not some mixture of units like volume per mass. (However, by using the ideal gas laws you could convert). From our post:
    1 part per million (ppm) of this atmospheric mass is 5.1 x1012 kg (5.1 billion tons), but this does not take into account the fact that CO2 molecules are heavier than other molecules in the atmosphere. Most of the atmosphere is nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). Nitrogen (N2) has an atomic mass of 28 and oxygen (O2) has a mass of 32. Thus, we can say the 'average' molecule in air has a relative mass of about 29. CO2 however has a mass of 44. So, 1 ppm of CO2 thus has a mass of (44/29) x (5.1 x1012) kg = 7.7 x10^12 kg = 7.7 billion tons. If the calculation is done more carefully then the answer is 7.8 billion tons of CO2. (The FAQ at the US government Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center says 1 ppm CO2 = 2.13 Gt C, but we recall from post 5 that we can convert that to Gt CO2 by multiplying by 3.67: 2.13 x 3.67 = 7.8).
    Thus 31e12 kg CO2 is 4.0 ppm. The atmospheric increase is less than this due to absorption by the ocean.
  23. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    89, Eric the Red
    No one knows what the future will bring...
    Wrong! You don't know what the future will bring, because you refuse to learn and open your eyes. I'll say it one more time. You are the guy who jumps off of the skyscraper and is heard to say, each time he passes an open window, "so far, so good!" Intelligence is about being able to see beyond the present. The science is solid, and anyone who takes the time to learn it knows that. You don't take the time to learn. You come into every thread expressing tangential doubts and reasons not to worry or even look too closely at the problem. Doubt, doubt, doubt. They also become, for you, reasons to avoid paying attention to the facts or learning what you don't know. The difference between you and I is that take the time to learn about gravity and anticipate the splat (or not even jump), while you're willing to talk happily to people as the windows magically fly by.
  24. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Badgersouth - I didnt have ambitions beyond people already arguing at Skepsci. I am looking at the root of denial, where political values are involved. I think that if someone interested enough to look at skepsci can see ways of looking at the problem without an assault on political values, then they can then be more open to looking at the science objectively. TC - I think that it is also true some significant reduction in emissions is better than no reduction. However, "significant" does mean some serious dent. I dont think "fee and dividend" or trading schemes are going to make massive reductions quickly - they just remove some barriers to switching technology. Just for my 2c. I'm all for just a ban on new coal generation - that gives you 30 years to replace generation and let the market figure out what's the best replacement. Definitely not a solution to appeal to the right however.
  25. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Muoncounter #30: I concur with your timeline. You have also convinced me that Ken Lay may have influenced the Clinton Administration on cap and trade. I suspect a lot of others did as well.
  26. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Thank you both DB and Steve!
  27. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Alexandre @30, how do you convert ppm by mass of CO2 into ppm by volume?
  28. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    I am posting this separately from my preceding post even though it is logically connected, in order to give the point some space. The point is simple: Any purported Libertarian solution to the problem of climate change must be able to eliminate global emissions by 2050 as per the first chart in my preceding post. Further, any purported solution that rejects a carbon market must reduce US emissions to zero by 2020 as in the second chart above. Anything else is not a solution. That also means Camburn's one word solution needs to be elaborated. How exactly will sufficient thorium reactors be introduced to the US by 2020 to eliminate all use of fossil fuels for standing power and transport, based on Libertarian principles. In the absence of a discussion of that point, just saying "Thorium Reactors" is an evasion, not a solution.
  29. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Badgersouth#26: Ok, so take the legal concept back to the Clean Air Act of 1990, but that dealt with trading SO2 allowances. In this 1997 US House document, carbon trading was a 'possibility': Using tradable emissions to achieve regulatory goals can be expanded to cover additional pollutants. Two possibilities are particulate matter and ozone under the Clean Air Act and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. That's about the time Ken Lay was dumping campaign contributions in Democratic pockets and living large at the White House. Do you have a different timeline?
  30. Antarctica is gaining ice
    SocialBlunder, Have you looked at the intermediate tab? From that article, the 2002 paper might not be in error (since the data was probably obtained sometime before 2002). The 2nd figure (from Velicogna 2009) shows a curve that indicates that somewhere around 2001 or 2002 the ice mass was stable. Now the ice mass is negative and the loss is increasing by ~26 Gt/year. So if that acceleration is constant and if the ice sheet was in balance in ~2002, then in ~2001 the ice sheet would have been gaining 26 Gt/year. A lot of ifs there, but I see no reason to disbelieve the 2002 paper and don't see it contradicting this article - it's just that the 2002 uses outdated information (not their fault - it was current when they printed it). But take that with a grain of salt. IANACS (I am not a climate scientist), just an aerospace engineer living as a computer scientist :).
  31. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Scaddenp @25, Camburn and Muon may be right about the conception of emissions trading schemes, but that is irrelevant. The equation is quite simple. If we want a reasonable chance of preserving our children's future, we need to reduce carbon emissions at a rapid rate. Given that its already too late, to start radical reductions in 2011, we probably want to catch the blue curve (below) and aim at globally averaged reductions of 5.3% per annum. However, that is the globally averaged figure. If we are to deal with global warming, we must treat the right to emit CO2 as a scarce good. At the moment this scarce good is a commons, but in order to ensure that it is not arbitrarily consumed, rights must be explicitly allocated, either on a national or individual basis. Because these rights are to a scarce good which is in demand, they have economic value. The issue then becomes how do we allocate the goods. A Libertarian (and any sensible person) is committed to the view that societies are just things that people do, ie, that the fundamental ethical unit is the individual, not the society. That being the case, a "fair" distribution of this scarce good must be a fair distribution based on the number of individuals involved, not the number of societies (or nations). In other words, a fair distribution is an equal per capita distribution. But based on an equal per capita distribution of emissions rights, the US (and Australia) is committed to reducing emissions at greater than 10% per annum: Frankly, that is an impossible ask, even on a war footing. There are only two ways to resolve this paradox. The first is to allow the exchange of rights to emit in some form of regulated market. The second is to insist in negotiation that the people of the third world surrender their emissions rights gratis because we all are finding it to hard. That second stance is the current preferred stance of western nations in international negotiations. It also directly contradicts claimed Libertarian principles. Given that the second method contradicts Libertarian principles (and any reasonable principle of fairness), whether a the US adopts cap and trade, or fee and dividend, or whatever, it is going to have to allow for the use of traded carbon credits as offsets against the scheme it uses. Consequently the supposed advantages of Pigovian taxes is illusory. The potentially flawed carbon market will still need to be introduced anyway; and ways found to overcome those potential flaws to do so.
  32. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Sphaerica, I guess the feeling is mutual. There is nothing bad happening now, but wait until the future comes and disaster hits. You use this future disaster concept to overcome the fact that currently there is no problem. No one knows what the future will bring, so no one can dispute your contention. However, we do know the present, and polar bears are currently not endangered.
  33. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    scaddenp#24: "you might see useful new thinking" Take a successful project as a model: The Dutch Delta Project could only get moving in earnest after a major disaster (1953 North Sea flood). The success of this project required massive government spending and a long-term outlook. I'm no expert in Netherlands politics, but it looks like the Dutch governments that made these decisions were centrist coalitions. Coalitions that could work together to solve big problems. Those were the good old days.
  34. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    scaddenp #21: Why on earth would you believe that an article posted on SkS challenging the right to provide solutions to a problem that it denies exist, prompt anyone on the right to respond? In addition, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that the right's position on climate change has been and continues to be dictated by the fossil fuel industry. Personally, I do not believe your article serves any useful purpose and is not consitent with the core mission of SkS.
  35. Antarctica is gaining ice
    I understand that both WAIS and EAIS are in negative balance. I am trying to reconcile that knowledge with the paper linked above. The abstract states "We have used ice-flow velocity measurements from synthetic aperture radar to reassess the mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica. We find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year), in contrast to earlier estimates indicating a mass deficit (−20.9 gigatons per year). Average thickening is equal to ∼25% of the accumulation rate, with most of this growth occurring on Ice Stream C. Whillans Ice Stream, which was thought to have a significantly negative mass balance, is close to balance, reflecting its continuing slowdown. The overall positive mass balance may signal an end to the Holocene retreat of these ice streams." Does the +26.8 Gt apply to only the Ross Ice Streams and not to WAIS as a whole?
    Response:

    [DB] It's good that you question the 2002 study (as that is the skeptical thing to do).  Joughlin does absolutely splendid work and is highly regarded in the field.  From Ian Joughin and Slawek Tulaczyk 2002 (3rd to last paragraph in the paper):

    This analysis covers only the Ross Sea sector of the ice sheet, and negative imbalances are observed in other areas of West Antarctica such as Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers.

    Emphasis added, obviously.

    Anyone who tries to extrapolate this result, especially in lieu of later, continental scale findings like detailed in the OP above or the Intermediate version of this post, is a serious Cherry-Picker.

    I would also encourage you to review Rignot's latest work, discussed here.  Absolutely fascinating stuff.

    Note:  Science allows individuals to register for free downloads of the older material, such as the study Joughlin study referenced in this comment.  The cherry-pickers and dissemblers of the world count on people not fact-checking their claims. 

    Don't let them win.

  36. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    muoncounter #23: Cap and trade was not "started" by Enron as falsely asserted by Camburn. Your news clip only prooves that Enron was licking its chops over its potential implementation in the US.
  37. Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
    Thank you Alexandre and Doug. Yes, I was using ppm instead of ppmv. Doug, I was not questioning that CO2 sinks into the ocean, that is clear to me. But when I've tried to do calculations from data, I've get obviously wrong result and I wanted to know where I've been wrong. Well, guess I'll have to learn more.
  38. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Muon, Camburn. Interesting. I way prefer the pigovian tax to cap and trade anyway and Enron's support makes me like it even less. Suitably right-orientated in theory but lousy in practise.
  39. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    muon, if they are real skeptics as opposed to deep in denial, then they should be able to accept the challenge? If they cant take the challenge, then we have every reason to doubt the sincerity of their skepticism, and they have every reason to doubt the efficacy of their political beliefs for solving real world problems. I am only asking a hypothetical question - IF you were convinced... I think you should direct "skeptics" to take this challenge when you suspect their skepticism is actually political denial rather than scientific. On the other hand, you might see useful new thinking that would make a positive contribution to the debate on solutions.
  40. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Badgersouth#18: " ... poppycock." Actually, I have to go with Camburn on this one (first time!) I worked for a company that had extensive deals with Enron before the bust; those were the anything-for-a-buck days. Washington Post, Jan 13, 2002 On Aug. 4, 1997, Lay and seven other energy executives met with Clinton, Gore, Rubin and other top officials at the White House to discuss the U.S. position at the upcoming conference on global warming in Kyoto, Japan. Lay, in a memo to Enron employees, said there was broad consensus in favor of an emissions-trading system. Enron officials later expressed elation at the results of the Kyoto conference. An internal memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States."
  41. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    I see Prof. Denning as somewhat naive in his approach. A bit of a read of the psychology of belief will show that most people hold beliefs for all sorts of reasons and rationality is mainly used for post hoc rationalisation and pursuasion. Perhaps it is justified "just for the record" but his use of the "free market" "libertarian" discourse is seriously misguided. When it comes to scientific facts and the most effective solutions, "left" and "right" do not refer to scientific solutions, they refer to political solutions. Politics will play its part but lets not confuse the two.
  42. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    scaddenp#21: "You aren't going to convince them ..." Phil, they have already convinced themselves. I don't want to rain on this parade, but: Look at Heartland's environment page. These folks are in deep denial, but physics doesn't care. The global warming scare has fizzled. The sun has entered a new “quiet” phase, and average global temperatures have been stable for 15 years. Look at American Enterprise's page on Energy and Environment. They're even against energy efficiency!: When you dig into proposed "efficiency" measures, you find that usually, there's a good reason why someone has chosen not to perfectly insulate their house, or use fluorescent lights, or drive a compact car, or use a clothes dryer rather than hang their clothes out to dry. Look at Heritage Foundation's Energy and Environment page. The science behind global warming is anything but certain, but one thing is certain: The policies to cap carbon dioxide and mandate “clean” energy production are very expensive. And these are the 'think tanks'. Don't look for any kind of forward-looking leadership to come from this camp; they are only interested in the money they make here and now (well, they will probably get inheritance taxes reduced so their kids will be as fat and happy as they are). When it gets really hot, they'll just turn up the AC.
  43. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    please, please, do not use thread for criticizing the right. You aren't going to convince them and doesnt add anything constructive. I would ask the moderators to please rule that comments that are primarily criticism or defense of a particular political stance as opposed to discussion of proposed solutions as breach of "no politics" Comments Policy.
  44. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    AGW has been caused by mankind's activities (primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation)s ince the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Thus, the actions of numerous prior generations throughout the world collectvely created a global problem. The soultions therefore must be collectively created and applied world-wide Collective action is anathma to many Libertarians and right wing-nuts in the US. We waste our time and energy trying to find ways to accommodate their ideologically-driven belief systems.
  45. Don Gisselbeck at 10:43 AM on 22 August 2011
    GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Free Market Capitalism has no mechanism for dealing with long-term existential threats. Its response to overfishing is to continue to overfish. Its response to the threat of a major asteroid strike would be straight out of the Onion http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-vote-to-repeal-obamabacked-bill-that-w,19025/. Do we want to survive? Probably not.
  46. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    @Camburn #2: You state: "The idea of Cap and Trade was started by Enron, endorsed by Goldman Sachs. It was looked at as a money making scheme with government blessings. Goldman Sachs had thought they had found a new gold mine with this." This statement is poppycock.
  47. CO2 effect is saturated
    Guinganbresil @173, I'm sorry but you are confusing two issues. The first issue is whether or not there is an enhanced greenhouse effect. The second is will the climate response to an enhanced greenhouse effect result in a net negative or positive feedback. The important point from Haries is that he shows beyond reasonable doubt that there is an enhanced greenhouse effect. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will introduce a positive forcing to the temperature, and it is known independently that that forcing is 3.7 W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 with low uncertainty. Having established that, and this is another of those areas of settled science in climate change; the question becomes, "What is the climate sensitivity?", and we must look to independent evidence for that. Suffice it to say that a range of empirical evidence including recent observations and paleoclimate observations show that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is around 3 degrees. Given that you need to look at the likely impacts of such a climate sensitivity. Ignore the impacts for 450 ppm (the current notional limit on CO2 increases for the international community). Rather consider the business as usual (A2) scenario for the end of this century, which will result in over 800 ppm of CO2. At 800 ppm, even with a climate sensitivity of 1.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2, the Earth's temperature will rise over 2 degrees C. At 2 degrees C there is an expected 50/50 chance that the Great Barrier Reef will be destroyed. At 2 degrees C there is an expected 50/50 chance that the Amazon Rainforest will be destroyed. And these are not on/of states. Even if they survive they will survive in severally degraded conditions. That level of ecosystem collapse is not consistent with a flourishing civilization. If our civilization survives that level of ecosystem collapse, it will be a hard, unpleasant skin of our teeth affair. And that is for a climate sensitivity so low that we have a less than 1 in 20 chance of being that lucky. More likly we will be looking at a 4.5 degree increase, an increase of the same order as the difference between glacial and interglacial temperatures, and which will have similarly large impacts on ecosystems and habitability. As an aside, the anvil head thunderstorm does negate the effect of CO2 over the region of the thunderstorm, but only by imposing a much stronger greenhouse effect.
  48. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    rpauli- Species survival? Your typical right winger will respond that the species will survive and adapt....it's our civilization I want to preserve as much of as possible.
  49. It's waste heat
    mullumhillbilly - The only way for energy to leave the Earth climate is as thermal radiation. All else is just re-arrangements of the energy within the climate. Thermal radiation leaves any object at a rate determined by (a) temperature, and (b) the ability of the surface to radiate at that temperature. Please see this Thermal Radiation wiki for an overview. Without GHG's, the surface of the Earth radiating at an emissivity of 0.98 (98% of theoretic max efficiency, as dirt and water are very effective emitters of IR) would be able to match incoming energy at a temperature of ~255K, or -18C. That would be cold. GHG's absorb IR, re-radiate a great deal back to the surface, and most importantly, as GHG concentrations increase, the effective level in the atmosphere where IR can escape is higher and (due to the lapse rate) colder. Therefore less IR escapes at GHG frequencies at any particular temperature. In order to radiate as much energy as is incoming, the Earth has to be warmer. See the following: The smooth curve shows what a 'blackbody' could emit. The notches are where GHG's reduce radiation at any particular temperature. In order to radiate the same energy as the blackbody, the integrated area of the jagged curve must match the area of the smooth one, and hence the entire curve must be higher - the temperature of the emitting body (in this case the Earth) must be higher to scale it up. In this case, as observed, about 15C. Then outgoing matches incoming energy. --- If this is not comprehensible, I strongly suggest doing some reading on the basics of the radiative greenhouse effect. There's tons of information out there for you.
  50. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    Dave @ 34. I love that theory, but I think it's more like culturally reinforced cognitive inertia. At some point they just tune out when the counter-information weighs too heavily (convincingly) against their perceptions. To quote Dikran;
    The whole point of laying out the steps one by one was to make the argument as easy to definitively refute as possible - but no takers. ...unwillingness to engage with analogies, or to take up challenges... ...No answer was ever given... ...if truth seeking were the aim, you would have thought they would have been eager to answer, but no
    Dikran, you speak my experience exactly. The better you make your case, the less willing they are to engage. But we keep trying there, reaching across the abyss and looking into it. Brrrr. I hate using the word, but maybe denialism is really the most apt. Or rejectionism.

Prev  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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