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  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  Next

Comments 77701 to 77750:

  1. A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
    Peter Sinclair has a new item: Heat waves spotlight nuclear achilles heel On Wednesday, the utility had to bring a third reactor at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant down to 50 percent power to avoid environmental sanctions because the water in the Tennessee River — where the plant’s cooling water is discharged — already was at 90 degrees. “When the river’s ambient temperature reaches 90 degrees, we can’t add any heat to it,” said TVA’s nuclear spokesman Ray Golden. ... All existing nuclear plants use vast amounts of water as a coolant. But in recent years — often far from the public eye — hot river and lake temperatures have forced power plants worldwide to decrease generating capacity. Experts say the problem is only getting worse as climate change triggers prolonged heat waves, prompting calls for changes in siting processes. Anyone see a feedback here? Long hot summer -> river temperatures over 90 degrees F -> nuclear plants reduce generation -> more gas and coal burned in FF plants -> more CO2 emissions -> increased temperatures. Add in drought -> reduced river flow and depth -> more rapid heating of water. Stir. Repeat.
  2. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    Firstly, let's just start with a quote from Wikipedia where yuo will learn what diffusion is between solid surfaces and gases - like the Earth surface and the first 1mm of the atmosphere. Or like my light shade experiment at http://earth-climate.com which no one here bothers to read. The following is linked a couple of times in my site: ( -Snip- )
    Response:

    [DB] Long, Off-topic perambulation snipped.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it and also adhere to the topic of the thread that they are posted on.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  3. Where have all the people gone?
    Yooper (response to #24): "meant as a retrospective look at the changes that could took place at some future point in time," Here's an aptly titled movie along the same vein. Why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?
    Response:

    [DB] Thanks for the link.  Didn't know it was wholly available on the 'net yet (I caught an open-window preview back in the spring).  Highly reccommended.

    Postlethwaite was a treasure.  He will be missed.

    Edit:

    Ok, didn't realize that was just a preview (saw the 1:40 and thought that was the hour/minute runtime).  Oopsy.  Very much worth buying, though.

  4. Where have all the people gone?
    Tom Curtis - "On the other hand, I do want to firmly reject Agnostic's claim @11 that we might see a 1 meter rise in sea level by 2050" True, it seems very unlikely given the present state of knowledge, but 'suspected' rapid jumps in SLR during the height of the last interglacial, suggest that it is still possible, in principle at least. See: Rapid sea-level rise and reef back-stepping at the close of the last interglacial highstand - Blanchon (2009) If the timing/dating by Blanchon can be confirmed by other techniques, it's strong evidence of ice sheet collapse. Sure it's likely that collapse will take place further into the future, not in the next 39 years, but when you read what the bulk of scientific literature was saying 7-8 years ago, they've certainly made a habit of underestimating the speed of ice loss.
  5. Where have all the people gone?
    Tom Curtis: It seems we're mostly agreed that long-term (i.e. over 500-1000 years or so) sea level rises of 5-15 metres are not only plausible, but likely. Where I disagree with you, though, is your perception of rate. As Sphaerica stated at 17, it might be more appropriate to think in terms of ice melt per warming, rather than ice melt per century. After all, the end of the last glacial maximum saw a 5ºC temperature rise over 10,000 years. We're looking at matching that in 100 years. With rate of warming two orders of magnitude higher, it's not such a stretch to imagine that rate of sea level rise might be only half an order of magnitude higher. On that basis - I'd say that past performance is absolutely not a good indicator for what will happen over the next century, because the projected rate of warming does not appear anywhere in the paleoclimatic record, no matter how far back you go. This is the importance of models - they can give you an idea of what will happen when you venture into new territory. Models of ice sheet dynamics seem to be fairly rough & ready at the moment, but the more research done on it, the more worrying the results seem to get... (recent work on the PIG being but one example)
  6. It's not bad
    In a spirit of refinement: Under "Polar Melting" the last sentence (as I write) is "Melting of the Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise with no benefits accruing." If ice shelves are floating ice (rather than land based ice), why would their melting per se particularly add to sea-level rise? What scientist has predicted that? Suggest removing that sentence. Sea level rise is covered under another bullet point anyway. (Yes, there could some side effect of speeding the adjacent land based ice's speed of travel to the sea - but that's more indirect and less solidly demonstrated and generally not what the sentence says or needs to say).
    Response:

    [DB] Thanks for taking the time to add to the discussion. 

    "If ice shelves are floating ice (rather than land based ice), why would their melting per se particularly add to sea-level rise?"

    Excellent, thoughtful question.  Obviously, floating ice itself cannot add to SLR as it melts.  A general answer is that the floating ice sheets of Antarctica act as buttresses, inhibiting/slowing the downstream flow of the ice sheet proper in response to gravity.

    A loss of the floating ice sheets will lead to the oceanic edges of the ice sheet to exposure to the much warmer waters of the Southern Circumpolar Current.  This will then lead to greater rates of calving at the leading edges, which then leads to an increase in icestream flow downhill.  This vector change in icestream speed eventually propagates upstream along the entire channel of ice.  The result is dramatically increased rates of calving of ice leading to the demise of first the WAIS (West Antarctic Ice Sheet).  Given enough warming and enough time, the EAIS (East Antarctic Ice Sheet) will also be vulnerable.

    Remember, the base of the WAIS and most of the EAIS are well below sea level.  The body blows the ocean can land without the blocking arms of the ice shelves can wreak terrible impact.

  7. There is no consensus
    Tom, Try here. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_balance_of_Earth
  8. Where have all the people gone?
    DB @26, I'm certainly happy to concede that the WAIS will melt faster than Greenland. However, I return to my point about the past being the guide to the future. Similar situations undoubtedly occurred during the last deglaciation, and may have been responsible for some of the intervals of 4 meters per century sea level rise. Consequently multimeter sea level rises by 2100 cannot be excluded. But the average rate was still 1 meter per century, which I consider a better predictor. With regard to the mechanics of WAIS breakup, I think the sea is going to have to melt its way in. The weight of the ice will prevent it from simply running in under the ice and floating it away. Consequently the break up of the WAIS will certainly take decades, and will probably take a more than a century. Of course, all estimates come with large implied error bars ;)
    Response:

    [DB] I believe we are in broad agreement that:

    1. Past history is a general predictor of future performance
    2. That our current understanding of about 1 meter SLR is at about the upper limit we can expect by 2100 due to melt alone
    3. That the weight of the WAIS will prevent the warming oceanic waters from running underneath it as it does ices shelves/tongues.

    That being said, the constraining factor limiting the mass-wasting of the GIS, the coastal fringe of mountains, is entirely absent from the WAIS.  What this (warming plus geomorphology) entails for the WAIS is an enhanced Zwally Effect (surface melt running through moulins lubricating the bedrock promoting ice-sheet slip), creating an unstable ice sheet sliding at increasing speed down a slope that terminates in the ocean...(we need to drag Mauri in off the glacier he's on right now to provide some proessional insights).

    Basically, gravity (like physics) is a bee-otch and wins all ties.

  9. Where have all the people gone?
    DB @24, I certainly did not want to imply that you where suggesting Miami would be under the keel by 2100. Indeed, given the linguistic developments evidenced your story, I suspect you are placing it several hundred years in the future (without a specific number in mind). On the other hand, I do want to firmly reject Agnostic's claim @11 that we might see a 1 meter rise in sea level by 2050.
  10. Where have all the people gone?
    Michael Sweet @21, I am not particularly concerned about Miami's water supply, as it can be supplied by desalinization at need. As such it represents a low order problem for the future, and one which Miami has plenty of time to deal with. Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent the Nile delta (and no doubt others I am less familiar with) represent serious problems, which I do not wish to down play. They are resolvable problems. Bangladesh may well be able to defeat rising sea levels by building (with international aid) large sea walls now, along with other concrete baffles through out the delta. The idea is not to hold the sea back, but to retain more silt from flooding, thus raising the delta level. Alternatively the problems could be solved by either mass migration, or by urbanization coupled with enhanced agricultural productivity. The point is that if sea level rise were the only problem, the problem would be resolvable, and adaption would be a more economic response than mitigation. Of course, even for Bangladesh, sea level rise will be one of the least of their problems from global warming. Indeed, for Bangladesh some of their problems (loss of reliable irrigation due to glacier melt in the Himalayas, for example, or reduced primary productivity of crops due to excess heat) will make solving the problem of sea level rise more difficult if not impossible. So adaption only is not a viable response to climate change.
  11. Where have all the people gone?
    Sphaerica @17, the problem with indicating a sea level rise per degree celsius is that the paleo evidence clearly shows that it can take centuries, and even millenia to melt large ice sheets. The Laurentide ice sheet (over North America) for example, did not fully retreat until about 6,500 years ago, even thought the last glacial ended 10,000 years ago. Therefore the expectation that the Greenland Icesheet or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet should fully melt in 90 years is unrealistic. Should they melt completely, which seems likely with business as usual, that would result in a sea level rise of around 15 meters, (approx 7 from the GIS, 5 from the WAIS and 3 from other ice caps and glaciers), but it will not do so for several centuries. That means the sea level rise will be an ongoing problem for the foreseeable future, but not a catastrophic one for most people.
    Response:

    [DB] Tom, my understanding for the WAIS is that ice sheet collapse is the postulated mechanism of loss.  And that this is thought possible due to the WAIS being almost entirely accessible to the ocean, as the majority of its bed is well-below current sea levels.  With the PIG & Thwaites being the linchpin/keystone for the entire works.

    Thus, rates of in situ melt for the WAIS are completely moot.

  12. There is no consensus
    Eric the Red @374, I am going to need a citation for that claim. I have googled several articles articles written by Pidwirny, and none of them have the figures you show. Further, as Sphaerica points out, your quoted figure was for net thermal radiation (Surface Radiation minus Back Radiation), whereas Cotton and I where clearly discussing the Surface Radiation alone.
  13. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    SteveB#4: "once you factor in waves and tides. " True enough. But even the tides are quoted as so many meters above mean sea level. Your 2nd paragraph gives me the impression that you are talking about this 'static' topography; essentially the shape of the geoid, to which we then add the transient wave and tidal ups and downs. Don't mind me; I took a GIS course this summer, so I'm all awash with datums and geoids.
  14. Where have all the people gone?
    "I find it interesting that George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire fantasy series features background tension stemming from the idea that "winter is coming." " I wonder if this is favourite book for our sometime visitor - The Inconvenient "skeptic" who somehow believes a milankovich forcing can override all other forcings no matter how big.
  15. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    Paul - The Kopp et al paper I link to estimates a rate of 5-9 mm per year. muoncounter - you are totally correct if considering just stationary ocean surface topography. Local sea-level can temporarily be much greater than 2 m on a regional basis once you factor in waves and tides.
  16. Where have all the people gone?
    I would have to say that I also share Tom's skepticism over extreme rates of sea level rise. While this is attention-grabbing, I dont think it is supported well by science so far. Even with much higher temperatures, its hard to put much credence on projected sea level rise rates that are higher than peak rate for ice sheet collapse at the last glacial termination. On that basis, I doubt that sea level would be higher than 1m by 2100. While this doesnt have dramatic impact, it should be noted that 0.5m sealevel rise by 2100 is no laughing matter either (see the Stern report), especially for those places already having problems with coastal erosion and salt incursion. The great deltas in particular have a very delicate balance between sediment load and sealevel rise controlling dynamics.
    Response:

    [DB] Please note that I at no point (AFAIK) constructed any sort of time frame or amounts of SLR into this post.  Or at least into the intro piece.

    The intro was meant as a retrospective look at the changes that could took place at some future point in time, looking backwards from that time.  It serves(d) as an attention-getting device intended to spur dialogue.

    And yes, I was strongly influenced in this by The Road Warrior, The LOTR:FOTR and Earth Abides (by George R.R. Martin George R. Stewart).  Stories that will always live in my memories.

    Smiley

  17. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    I think we need a post on Postma. Chris? Doug, any new theory needs to perform at least as well as what it replaces. To start with, it needs to be able make testable predictions. I would like to see how your new theory goes in predicting the lapse rate for Earth, Mars and Venus for a start...
  18. There is no consensus
    374, Eric the Red, If you are getting your numbers from Pidwirny's article on energy balance of the earth where this diagram is just a revision of Trenberth's, substituting percentages for W/m2, then I'm afraid you are reading it incorrectly. In any event your numbers are incomplete. You are only accounting for incoming radiation (340) and not the greenhouse effect (which adds additional energy to the surface that must be accounted for). Either way, how does this in any way support your original contention that "scientists are placing too much emphasis on outgoing radiation effects in the atmosphere as opposed to convection"? Or are you openly withdrawing that comment?
  19. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    Minor point: "global sea-level is not the same everywhere and can vary by many metres from region to region" I thought measured ocean surface topography was on the order of 2 meters; most would say that 2 < many. Do the more recent data show more topography than this older satellite?
  20. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    How rapid was that SL fall? How rapid can the SL fall?
  21. Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    Bern @62: I actually like hearing Aussies speak in their native tongue. The background music on all of the TH videos was way too loud though.
  22. The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas
    Excellent posting! Expected rate of SLR?
  23. The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen
    Indeed. It might be worth crafting analogies like this for all the other specious arguments. 8)
  24. There is no consensus
    Michael Pidwirney of NASA has some different values: Incoming radiation: 340 W/m2 Reflected: 99 W/m2 Absorbed by Atmosphere: 78 W/m2 Absorbed by Surfase: 163 W/m2 Of that absorbed by the surface, his ebergy transfer numbers are: Thermal radiation: 61 W/m2 Convection: 17 W/m2 Evaporation: 85 W/m2 You can stop waving your hands now.
  25. The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
    People who get too locked up in a left/right description of politics miss out on some of the finer distinctions. For example, there is a group of classical liberals in the US that view the modern liberals as anti-liberal. These classical types are somewhat similar to the older definition of liberal here but have learned a lesson with respect to laissez-faire and the blind trust they used to have in the markets. There is no simple name or party affiliation for the classical liberals, but people do mistake them for libertarians or conservatives now and then. I read Ridley's book a while ago. It was the first one to make me look at the various components of climate projections. One can be skeptical or believing in some components and then switch sides for others. We've been inventing labels for each other to deal with these variations. 8) I can't bring myself to view economics as science. When I am at my most skeptical it is with the economic projections necessary for the climate models. I think the science is good, but I'm learning economics now so I can make a decision based on more than blind trust. The economics academics don't agree on some pretty fundamental stuff and their track record isn't pretty, so the learning experience for me has been a fun one.
  26. Where have all the people gone?
    A couple of other SF books with climate change themes: Mother of Storms - John Barnes Heavy Weather - Bruce Sterling
  27. Where have all the people gone?
    muoncounter #19 Actually, Asimov wrote the short story Nightfall in 1941. 1990 was the novelization by Robert Silverberg.
  28. Where have all the people gone?
    Tom, While much of Miami's waterfront will still be above sea level with a one meter sea level rise, where will they get their water from? Currently they have well fields on the back side of town where they obain water for drinking. Those are located only 3 feet above sea level. If sea level was to rise even 0.8 meters, a small storm surge (or none at all) would innundate the well fields and they would have no source of water. Miami is a special case that grabs the attention of Americans (like me). A better question is what to do with the 17% of Bangladesh that would be innundated by a 1 meter sea level rise. (I noticed that APiratelooksat50 did not mention Bangladesh recently when he listed countries affected by sea level rise, you can make any claims if you ignore the evidence). Millions of subsistance farmers live there. Current increases of sea level have made farmers switch from rice to shrimp. All the arable land nearby is already farmed. Where will they go? Your reference to the World Climate Research Program sea level rise workshop appears dated to me. Much has been learned about sea level rise in the past 2 or 3 years. I note that their graph shows measured sea level rise at or above the maximium they estimate will occur. It will be interesting to see what the next IPCC report says about sea level rise.
  29. Dikran Marsupial at 03:53 AM on 10 August 2011
    Where have all the people gone?
    Drowned world by J.G. Ballard? Can't remember what the cause of the warming/sea level rise was, but it was published in 1962. Found it a rather dissapointing read though :-(
  30. Where have all the people gone?
    Read Asimov's 'Nightfall.' A highly developed planet with multiple suns and therefore continual daylight; every 2000 years or so, an eclipse causes total darkness. Scientists try to warn the population prior to the eclipse, but a quasi-religious cult interferes. Bad results. All that, written in 1990.
  31. Where have all the people gone?
    It might be interesting to have an article on climate change in fiction. It's one thing to get the models; it's another to develop a comprehensive narrative of the future from a human perspective. There is the established genre of eco-fiction, but I'm thinking specifically of recent stuff incorporating global warming (e.g. Kim Stanley Robinson). I simply don't have the time right now to do a thorough piece, though I suppose it could wait. I find it interesting that George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire fantasy series features background tension stemming from the idea that "winter is coming."
  32. Where have all the people gone?
    16, Tom Curtis, Might it not be more correct to measure sea level rise in terms of "per degree Celsius" instead of per year, given that the current rate of temperature change will quickly outstrip that of the past? The 120m sea level rise since the last glacial goes with a roughly 20˚C temperature change in Greenland, but spread over several thousand years such that warming in Greenland appears to have been at best 1˚C per century. Using (probably unrealistically) simplistic, linear projection this implies that another 10˚C temperature change within 100 years could amount to a total sea level rise of 60m (although the annual rate of actual sea level change in response to such rate of warming could be open to argument). Now, admittedly, this is an apples and oranges comparison, because the amount of water locked up in ice, and the configuration by latitude and on land and water is drastically different. But by the same token, this makes an effort to predict sea level rise by year (instead of by degrees C) similarly difficult to do based purely on past sea level rise. I think the situations are just too dramatically different to take too far, but I take no solace in a 20˚C Greenland temperature rise yielding a 120m sea level rise, no matter what the time frame.
  33. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    We should go a step further... there should be an MSM Hall of Shame cataloging the utterly ridiculous attempts of some to fabricate and promote their own personal Galilean redefinition of the science (co2isnotevil, Postma, etc.). It's really become a rather entertaining recurring theme. That it happens over and over is what is most amusing.
  34. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    A commenter at tamino's offered the phrase 'multiple simultaneous misconceptions;' I propose that we adopt this as the new definition of MSM. The result of too much MSM is 'a strong defense against understanding reality.' That's pure poetry.
  35. Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
    One thing I haven't seen much discussion of but could easily be monitored is fungi; they might be worth watching for patterns in precipitation/temperature/etc. I know that Chapel Hill NC tended to get a long rainy spell early each summer, after which mushrooms would flourish in the woods. It seems like microenvironmental effects would play a larger role for fungi than for plants and animals, but careful observation, establishing control plots, GPS/GISS technology etc. could help keep account of these factors. Additionally, there are lots of mycological enthusiasts and clubs who would likely be interested in participating. Does anyone know about such a program? If not, I would like to organize one - anyone know any resources or protips?
  36. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    22, Tom Curtis, Agreed. Let him be hoist by his own petard. He has Poe'd his way into a shining example of expert denial at work.
  37. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    Sphaerica @21, probably, but perhaps those visitors will now know to ask him why he is ignoring (and in fact contradicting) 250,000 data records gathered at a global network of 1600 stations as of 2006. And why they should place such store in the authority of his BSc (Physics) which he places such store in, while ignoring the hundreds of PhD (Physics) scientists who let data, not their credentials do the talking, and whom he contradicts without evidence.
  38. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    19, 20, Dikran, Tom, Looks to me like "Doug" was a drive by troll, just trying to draw visitors to his amazingly informative site.
  39. There is no consensus
    370, Eric the Red,
    ...it does show how some scientists are placing to much emphasis on outgoing radiation effects in the atmosphere as opposed to convection.
    Evidence, please. This is mere assertion. At the same time, please reference Trenberth's energy budget, which is a careful accounting of exactly how energy is transferred, backed by actual measurements. Coming down: 517 W/m2. Going up (in W/m2)...
    Radiation:396
    Convection (thermals):17
    Evapotranspiration:80
    Reflection:23
    Retained:1
    Total: 517 Everything balances as measured (in/out/retained). Gee, whiz, those dang scientists really do know what they are talking about... precisely, and without simple assertions and hand waving.
  40. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    DougCotton, I am also waiting your proof as asked for by Sphaerica. Having read your site, it appears to me that you are basing your opinions on simple assertion. What is worse, you claim without reference that the IPCC "assumes" things which are actually based on large archives of measured data, such as the Global Energy Balance Archive: The IPCC's "assumptions" are such that they can demonstrate this sort of fit between model and experiment: In contrast your level of understanding is such that you make the false (and simplistic) assumption of a single layer atmosphere in order to criticize the results reported by the IPCC. So, to Sphaerica's question, I add my own. Which text book on atmospheric physics did you read before you set out to demolish an entire branch of physics by waving your hand near a pot? Because from your web site, the answer appears to be none.
  41. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Stevo: "enough evidence has been found to leave 97 out of every 100 climate sceintists in no doubt" That's what scientific consensus is. The problem is that people conflate scientific consensus with everyday consensus, which usually consists of a group having an informal chat about a topic, followed by someone (usually the boss!) proposing a course of action with nobody objecting. Basically, the denier argument against consensus is based around a mistaken idea of what scientific consensus is, and what that consensus represents. Like many denier arguments, it's not based in reality. I like the term "consensus of evidence" that is used here at SkS as well. It's far more convincing, as it takes the human element out of the picture.
  42. There is no consensus
    Eric the Red @370, which scientists are "...placing to much emphasis on outgoing radiation effects in the atmosphere as opposed to convection"? It is certainly not the mainstream climate scientists. The importance of convection as a distributor of heat has been central to the theory of the greenhouse effect since Manabe and Wetherald 1967, and is a central feature of GCMs.
  43. Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    Badgersouth @ 60: perhaps John deliberately chose to not fake an American accent, in order to remind Americans that there's an entire world outside the borders of the US of A? ;-) (although I have to admit to great amusement when asked, in Ohio, whether I was Canadian... I may not have the broadest Aussie accent, but it's definitely *not* Canadian!) Actually, I think it's more likely he just didn't even think of it. Some of us are so used to hearing such a wide variety of accents (e.g. I work with people from Scotland, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Germany, Serbia, the US, and the UK, and I live in a suburb with a high Chinese population), that it doesn't occur to us to change our accent for different audiences. That kind of message-tailoring is more the realm of marketing folks...
  44. Dikran Marsupial at 22:57 PM on 9 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    DougCotton: Scientists need to be self-skeptical; a good scientist would view it as their own task to find the weak points in their own arguments (it is part of research). When they think they have adequately addressed all of the shortcomings of their work, and what remains is still of interest, they then write a paper explaining their theory/findings and submit it to an appropriate journal. The journal will then send it out to several experts in climatology who would submit reports detailing the shortcomings of the paper and suggestions by which it could be improved. Now if you had some confidence in your theory, that is what you would do, rather than calling out a science blog to do your basic research for you. If you dropped the hubristic attitude you might do rather better in encouraging people to discuss your theory; as it is your tone does not suggest that you are at all open to inconvenient truths.
  45. Where have all the people gone?

    Agnostic @11, I am curious as to who that economist is. As you know, I am far more skeptical of the threat from sea level rise than most regular commentators here at SkS (excluding deniers). I base that skepticism both on a reasonable trust of the experts, and a belief that the past is the guide to the future. The opinion of the sea level experts (of whom Hansen is not one) can fairly be taken to be represented by that expressed by the World Climate Research Program sea level rise workshop. There estimate for end of century sea level rise including the melting of glaciers and ice sheets is for a rise between 0.6 and 0.8 meters: Church 2007 Placed in the perspective of Brisbane, that equates to a change of peak King tides from a minor to a moderate flood level, still a meter lower than the flood experienced in January of this year. Although coastal suburbs would be impacted more, that still means less than 10% of the land area of Brisbane would become untenable for commercial use or inhabitation, assuming no counter measures in the form of sea walls and levees. The cost of that would be approximately to increase the normal cost of construction in replacing aging buildings by 40%, a minor cost against the normal economic life of the city. Sydney would be effected even less by such a rise. Arguably other cities would be effected more. Indeed, I would be surprised if they did not. But purportedly one of the most vulnerable would be Miami, and even there the impact of a 0.8 meter sea rise would be relatively minor as shown by this image of Miami with a 1.25 meter sea level rise (or the impact of a 0.45 meter storm surge with a 0.8 meter sea level rise): Much as I enjoyed Daniel's fiction, I think we can safely say Miami will not be below anybody's keel in the next one hundred years. Turning to the past as the guide for the future, it strikes me that during the approximately 140 meter rise in sea levels since the last glacial maximum, sea levels rose at "...an average rate of about 10 mm yr-1 (1 m per century), and with peak rates of about 40 mm yr-1 4 m per century), until about 7,000 years ago" (Church et al, 2008). That one meter per century average pace represents a useful best estimate of the likely rate of sea level rise for a four degree temperature differential between initial and equilibrium temperatures, and hence for peak sea level rise at the end of this century. Going from 0.3 meters per century now to 1 meter per century at the end of the century leaves an average increase over the century of around 0.6 meters. Even in the unlikely event that sea level rises match those before the Eemian, when over a 2.5 thousand year interval, sea levels rose at approximately, 3.5 meters per century, because of the slow rises in the first part of the 21st century, whole century averages are likely to be closer to 1 meter than to 2. So, while I fully expect sea level rises of up to 8 meters in the long run, and up to 20 if, with just a bit of bad luck, we trigger a tipping point, I do not expect sea level rises to be the major climate change story of the 21st century. Compared to the impacts of ecosystem loss, ocean acidification, extreme weather, and extreme heat, the impacts of sea level rises will appear almost inconsequential, although a significant (not crippling) economic burden in their own right.

  46. There is no consensus
    EtR#370: "gravitational warmth theory" We heard that one over and over on the 2nd Law threads; its all due to the potential energy released by air molecules falling from the upper atmosphere. That does not rise to the level of 'theory'; call it an idea, a notion, a delusion. "some people like his hand waving over the cooking pot," It's easier than doing actual research. Fewer annoying things like 'data' to worry about.
  47. Where have all the people gone?
    Eric: hmm, I thought the current rate was more like 3.2mm/yr. But the answer to your question is: non-linear ice-sheet dynamics. There are signs that Greenland & the WAIS are beginning to destabilise. Based on that, and paleoclimate data from previous interglacials, it seems the question is now "how long will it take" rather than "will it happen".
  48. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    13, DougCotton,
    I'm waiting for your proof...
    No, Doug. Please lower your hubris dial just a few notches. All of science says that you are wrong. Therefore, it falls to you to prove your position, not vice versa. No one owes you squat, particularly when your statements are (a) totally incredible and (b) totally unsupported by evidence.
  49. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    13, DougCotton, You should also recognize that the earth/atmosphere interface is probably the most trivial component in the system. What about the other miles upon miles of atmosphere, where the real action takes place? Where does your personally defined and branded science fit in there?
  50. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    13, DougCotton,
    ...heat transfer from solids to gases in equilibrium is (as IPCC claimed) mostly by radiation rather than (as science says) by diffusion (like conduction)...
    Citation, please. Prove this point instead of just declaring it. Science says? Please. It does not. If you think it does, you should have no trouble providing a clear reference stating this position.

Prev  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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