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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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...
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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".
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    13, DougCotton, Your personal interpretation of physics is just so much hand waving. You provide no calculations or observations to prove your position (that more heat transfer must occur by conduction rather than radiation in the atmosphere), which is a flat-out laughable fabrication. You simply wave your hands amidst a gish gallop of physics terms and concepts, and then expect everyone to believe that you are right and the rest of science is wrong. You, Postma, and a host of others are really just out-doing yourselves with your ability to reinterpret science to arrive at a different conclusion from the rest of the world. That you can do it with such intense complexity is a demonstration of the incredible breadth of the human mind. [In the 1980s there was a homeless woman from Korea living in Newark, NJ. She was actually fairly far along in building an ark, on which she was going to return to her native land. Among other things, she had plans for laser cannons for defense at sea. It was really an impressive feat.] It's also comical when you make the IPCC out to be this single-minded nefarious entity against which to launch your assault. Hint: All the IPCC does is to collect and summarize studies and information accumulated by thousands of other scientists, and when you attack the IPCC you are attacking pretty much nothing.
  16. Where have all the people gone?
    Agnostic, What do you feel will change in the next 40 years to create 1m of SLR? That is a large leap from todays 2-2.5 mm/yr.
  17. Where have all the people gone?
    Bern#7: Look at the 'bright side': Suppose Bachmann (and no doubt some other of her extremists) has her way and EPA is dismantled. Within a few years of burning high sulphur coal and letting the soot fly, our air will be brown again - just like it was before the EPA could regulate pollutants. Higher albedo, global warming problem solved. Chris G#8: Especially when storm clouds are gathering and it looks like a hard rain's gonna fall.
  18. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    typo: "unless you can prove ... " PS Try the simple lamp cover experiment near the top of my site. Or, if you're not sure about conduction, try holding an iron rod in a furnace all day. You're going to get your fingers burnt one way or another sooner or later. Also explain how (supposed) radiation just happens to get the temperature right - ie about the same on a calm night as the underground temperature. Is it just a fluke??? Too bad if the humidity trebles from 30% to 90%. If the radiation is busy warming the air molecules (somehow) where is all the energy to send all those photons back down again - almost as many as the IPCC said went up - many more than the sun itself sunk into the surface. http://earth-climate.com/IPCCdiag.com
  19. Where have all the people gone?
    Uh oh. Based on the maps above, a 1 meter sea level rise would make the office building where I work part of the Atlantic Ocean. Is it bad to find oneself looking forward to some of global warming's impacts? :]
  20. Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
    Dear John Cook - see my other post or just read http://earth-climate.com I'm waiting for your proof, against what experimemts indicate, what Wikipedia says about "Heat Transfer" and what quantum physics elegantly shows, namely that heat transfer from solids to gases in equilibrium is (as IPCC claimed) mostly by radiation rather than (as science says) by diffusion (like conduction) because, unless you an prove something contrary to accepted peer-reviewed physics and empirical evidence, my site explains why greenhouse warming theory falls apart. Doug Cotton B.Sc.(Physics) ... Manager, Climate Research Centre
  21. There is no consensus
    The gravitational warmth theory seems to be making the rounds these days. The idea that the Earth would heat itself through gravity in the absense of the sun boggles the mind. Especially after going to great lengths to show how the incoming solar radiation has fluctuated throuhgout history. While some people like his hand waving over the cooking pot, it does show how some scientists are placing to much emphasis on outgoing radiation effects in the atmosphere as opposed to convection. Of course, this is due to the much larger difficulty in measuring the convection effects.
  22. There is no consensus
    Tom wrote: "In contrast, Cotton's alternative estimate was made by waving his hand near a cooking pot." LOL! That's taking 'hand waving' arguments to a whole new level. :]
  23. Where have all the people gone?
    Odd that most climate scientists seem to be of the view that SLR will be less than 1m by 2100. There are of course exceptions such as Dr Hansen who predict possible decadal doubling of polar ice mass loss producing catastrophic SLR during the last 30 years of this century. I think this minority will be proven right and, on current trends, SLR of 1m is likely to result by 2050. By 2050, global population of ~10 billion is predicted. At least 1 billion will be directly impacted by SLR flooding and a further 5 billion affected by scarcity of life essentials, property losses and economic collapse. But not to worry, we are assured by at least one supposedly informed economists commenting on SkS posts, that humans are resilient and will learn to live with and adapt to SLR. Some may. Billions will not.
  24. There is no consensus
    Well, I had to read it carefully to make sure this guy was serious and not a Poe. So many unphysical things, so little time. You might like to look also at Greenhouse theory violates 2nd Law thread too. Unfortunately, there are a great many "papers" like this around. Appinsys and icecap.us are full of them (often mutually contradictory). The question is ask is "has it been published in a peer-reviewed journal?" (and E&E doesnt count). There is a Nobel prize waiting for someone who can get humanity off the global warming hook. I'd cheer them all the way, but Cotton isn't the man.
  25. More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
    I fail to see the relevance of massive demonstrations about management of Czech republic forests - all that I am suggesting is that if you have differently managed forests, then you can test the hypothesis. Canada is colder so other factors at work. There is no end to good theories and this might be one, but without supporting data, its just an hypothesis.
  26. More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
    Camburn, your example of Kochia and its adaptability is unfortunate. This is a classic case of the kinds of problems that will be exacerbated by climate shifts. Kochia is a declared pest plant in WA because, among other things, it is "Notorious for its large size (shading developing crop plants) and its ability to spread fast. Is resistant to insect attack. Shoots ...toxic to ... grazing animals, due to high levels of oxalate (up to 4.7% soluble and 11.4% total), nitrate (up to 2.2 percent) and alkaloid (up to 1.2 percent). Plants that accumulate more than 1.5 percent by dry matter of nitrate are potentially toxic." There are literally thousands of plant and insect species that threaten productivity of agricultural, pastoral, orchard or market garden activities. The fact that this plant example is one which directly damages both livestock and crops is a mere accident. But it's a perfect illustration of precisely the kind of plant that we'd like to see fail in the evolutionary race being set up by climate change. Seeing as weeds, almost by definition, are plants which succeed where they're not wanted, they look to have an evolutionary advantage in many of those environments.
  27. More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
    Tom: The adaptability of Kochia into sub species....and yes it is actually a new sub species according to NDSU to be able to grow later in the year was/is quit remarkable. This has nothing to do with pesticide, and everything to do with adaptability. You are correct, in that vegitation will respond rapidly to a change and adapt. The trees will not be so lucky, as they are a long life species, and their seed does not move as easily as grass/weed/etc seeds.
  28. More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
    scaddenp: This is from memory, but I believe in The Chec Republic some years ago there were massive demonstrations because of the difference in how some wanted to manage the forests. Also in talking with cousins up north..Canada...they state that where the forest is young and thriveing, the beetle doesn't really do damage, but the older forests that haven't rejuvinated themselves, the beetle is widespread. That is a local observation for what it is worth. I think the thing in Checoslovakia...(spelling)...was much more dramatic and in depth.
  29. Where have all the people gone?
    Nice fiction! I always enjoy reading stuff like that (not living it though....).
    Response:

    [DB] Thanks!  Did you try the audio version of the intro?  I'm experimenting with making posts more multimedia to drive interactivity and interest.

  30. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Do you think the word 'consensus' might be a problem? Deniers use it to tout the idea that the AGW case is based on consensus thinking or appeals to authority. Perhaps we might be better served by saying that enough evidence has been found to leave 97 out of every 100 climate sceintists in no doubt that global warming is real and that human activities are the cause. Perhaps someone else reading this can come up with a pithier version - thus more appealing to the general public. The focus, at least to my way of thinking, should emphasize the vast amount of evidence from diverse sources which all leads consistantly to the same conclusion. I'd hate to give that one remaining red guy on the graphic any kind of assistance in his misinformation campaign.
  31. More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
    Camburn @213, your examples of rapid adaption are not relevant because they depend on small (single protein) adaptions that pre-exist in the population, and upon massive (near 100%) mortality rates for variants without the preferred protein. Now if you wish to suggest that most plant species will suffer >90% mortality per generation for 8 to 10 generations in the coming century, your examples are relevant. In the real world, however, plants will be stressed, rather than killed by climate change. And in the real world, adaption will require modification of a number of interrelated biochemical pathways. Hence, in the real world we can expect plants to be stressed for a long time, and to typically take a long time to adapt. The problem with stressed plants is that they are less productive, they are more likely to die due to other factors, and they are less able to resist invasive species. The net effect is - and will be - a loss of biodiversity. With the loss of biodiversity, you inevitably have a loss of net primary productivity even once the have adapted and are healthy again, a loss that is only recovered with the recovery of biodiversity which takes millions of years.
  32. Where have all the people gone?
    Sorry, Bern...
  33. Where have all the people gone?
    Muon, you beat me to a response. Indeed, all true; Bachman and her supporters scare me. What I was going to say is: Nah, it's just hard to accept that some lifestyle changes might have to be made (no more big 4-wheel drives for commuting to the office, etc.), very hard to accept that something very bad is likely happen, and very hard to accept that one is at least partly responsible. Facing this triple-whammy, it isn't that surprising that many seek shelter in denial. It isn't even surprising that many get angry when you try to pry them out of their sheltered place. I was in the wilderness with a group who took a wrong turn coming down a mountain once. There was anger. There was denial. But eventually the fact set in that the only way to get back to our food and our only known sources of water was to go back over the top of the mountain. (Well, OK, we skirted around the summit.) It's a pity that thermodynamics are harder to understand than triangulating a position on a map. Because saying, "We are here; our food, our tents, and our sleeping bags are there. What do you want to do?" tends to cut through the BS.
  34. More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
    Camburn, so when climate zones change (even when it happens slowly), do you see plants adapting? No, only over very long scales. Instead you see vegetation zones move with the climate. However, this is sidetrack really from question as whether more CO2 is "plant food". What matters to us really is affect of rapid climate change on our agriculture. I'd say way too soon to draw conclusions yet, but the modelled changes for BAU climate zones suggest caution would be better idea. By the way, got a reference for your black beetle hypothesis? I'd like to see comparison between managed and unmanaged forest.
  35. There is no consensus
    Eclipse @366, I am not sure of the correct thread, so I'll make my response here. First I should say, what a load of tripe Douglas Cotton has produced. He persistently claims that the IPCC "assumes" values which have been measured, while asserting without measurement "facts" to be true simply on the basis that they are convenient to his theory. Like many deniers, he obviously has no idea what goes into a General Circulation Model, assuming that they have the properties of a one dimensional model, while he himself employs an unphysical model of radiative transfer, the most obvious flaw of which is that he assumes any upward transmitted radiation from the atmosphere is immediately emitted to space (whereas most of it is simply absorbed by higher levels of the atmosphere). His core assumption is that:
    "The IPCC models assume far too much radiation from the Earth's surface instead of convection with air molecules which do not emit photons that can be captured by CO2"
    He defends that claim with this illustration: The defense consists of simply reasserting his claim, and an analogy based on a cooking pot. Of course, the IPCC (actually Kiehl and Trenberth 1997, which has since been updated with Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl 2008 [PDF]) based their conclusions on actual measurement. The difficulty arises because it is not possible to measure the upward surface IR radiation at all, or even many locations around the globe. Rather, detailed measurements have been done over particular land surface types under various conditions. These measurements produce results like these: Note that the upward IR radiation is consistently greater than 400 W/m^2. (It is shown as a negative number to distinguish energy leaving from energy entering the surface. For comparison, consider these measurements of Net radiation, Q*, (Incoming shortwave plus incoming longwave minus outgoing shortwave minus outgoing longwave), latent energy, LW, and sensible heat, H. Sensible Heat, Cotton's "conduction" does not rise above 200 W/m^2 except over a dry lake bed, and is negative for much of the time. Clearly, averaged across the twenty four hour day, and across a variety of locations, it is a much smaller component than the outgoing surface IR radiation. Khiel and Trenberth's figures where generated by taking a great number of measurements such as these, and using them together with knowledge of the proportion of the Earth's surface covered by each surface type to estimate a global figure. In contrast, Cotton's alternative estimate was made by waving his hand near a cooking pot. The difference in procedure is a true indicator of the difference in value of the two works.
  36. Where have all the people gone?
    muoncounter: Indeed, I see today that Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann has vowed to shut down the EPA: "I guarantee you the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) will have doors locked and lights turned off and they will only be about conservation." They are playing a political game, where they blame environmental protection for all the economic ills that the US is suffering from. Sadly, if they get their way, it wont fix the economic ills, but you can be sure it'll generate some non-economic ones...
  37. More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
    Tom: You also mentioned Bark Beetles. These beetles actually serve a specific function in forests. They eradicate sick trees etc, and thrive on dead wood. One of the main reasons for what is considered infestation now is the age of the forests. Fires have been managed, which from a practical environmental look was not a smart thing to do. This practice has almost ruined large tracts of forests because nature demands burns to reproduce healthy trees. In absense of burns, there are natural insect forces, such as the bark beetle that rejuvinate those forests as well.
  38. More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
    Tom: You are making several assumptions about plants/insects etc that are not correct: 1. What I write does not apply to trees as my knowledge in that area is limitied at best. 2. You are making assumptions that plants/insects etc will not adapt quickly. a. Example: Plants 1. Wild oat. There are herbiceds that will kill a wild oat. But even with the best herbicide, a few remain. It only takes approx 8-10 generations of wild oat to establish a strain that is resistant to said herbicide. 2. Kochia plants. They are very robust plants. Extremely small seed, and extremely adaptable. They develop the same resistance to chem as wild oats. And in fact, new strains/biotoa have evolved that are not only resistant to herbiceds, but the requirements for germination have changed. Now we are infested with kochia that will germinate in June/July/Aug. 20 years ago, if you got that flush in the spring....you had 100% control. Insects: Insects eat plants. Most insects do not consume their host totally, but some do to the point of death. These insects, colorado potatoe beetle as one example, are resistant to most insecticides now. Chem companies have to come up with new combinations annually as within 4 generations, the insect will be immune. Plants: Plants grow under a host of conditions. Yes, there are optimum conditions, but in reality, they never exist in nature. A plant will grow a long ways away from its optimal growing area. It will thrive and spread. I will use wheat as an example. Wheat is grown in the USA and Canada. The environment on the southern fringe is much different than the environment on the northern fringe. Yet, the plant produces well enough that it is grown for a food stock.
  39. citizenschallenge at 13:15 PM on 9 August 2011
    Where have all the people gone?
    That was a disturbing audio, resonating too close to home. A futurecast, eh. Don't imagine that any contrarians will listen to it long enough to give it a second thought. Crumbling towers indeed. As the tragedy unfolds with relentless momentum, we are the witnesses. But, that sucks, it would have been much nicer to actually do something constructive. But, I guess, the Bible and that monstrous mass of people who are hooked into it, want their Armageddon no matter what it takes to achieve it.
  40. More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
    Eric the Red, there are several facts you are not considering. First, evolution is a slow process taking tens of thousands of generations for significant adaptions to occur, and take over the population. That means for plants with an annual life cycle (one generation per year), they are just now becoming adapted to standard holocene (pre-industrial) conditions following the last glacial). For long lived species such as trees, their ideal adaption is for glacial conditions, not inter-glacials. Where it not for the fact that their range has shifted, they would be heavily stressed, and mostly gone extinct. A change in temperature of the same scale as that between glacial and inter-glacial (such as we are currently headed for)will cause them to become even more stressed, or require similarly large changes in range. Second, changing range to adapt to new conditions is also a slow process in human terms. For most species of plant, progeny will grow within a few hundred meters of the parent, so the maximum rate of "migration" is a few hundred meters per generation. Given that ranges will need to change by several hundred kilometers to maintain similar climactic conditions, that means most species will take several thousand years, all else being equal, to migrate to a suitable climate zone. With several thousand years of migration required for migration, but several decades for the temperature shift, you should see the problem. Three, and most crucially, not all organisms will adapt at the same rate. Some plants are hardy, quick growing and have short generation times. We call them weeds. They are likely to adapt far quicker than other species because of the quick growth and short generation time. Non-plant species, notably insects, will also adapt at different rates. The hardest competition for any species is not the physical environment, but the competition with other species, and consequently difference rates of adaption will result in some species that would otherwise survive becoming very stressed, and probably extinct in some cases. Just such a situation is currently being illustrated by Bark Beetle attacks. Because species thrive based on a particular ecological mix, different rates of adaption that disturb that mix are guaranteed to result in a massive loss of biodiversity. Your attention is focused on whether CO2 concentrations alone will cause a particular species to become stressed. Well, if it does, then that plant is in trouble. But even if it does not, adaption to temperature change, moisture change, and changing ecological balance will adversely effect most species.
  41. Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
    Barry #1 - don't you think two percent is pretty good? I expect that among scientists - like any educated, professional population - there are the demented, the alcoholic and event the sociopathic (some think as high as 8%). Two percent might be pretty good compared to other measurements.
  42. Where have all the people gone?
    Bern#4: "with their heads firmly entrenched in the sand," Interesting position, that. Washington DC was built on landfill, so head in the sand might be messy: 1860s -- Residents of Washington, D.C., dump garbage and slop into alleys and streets, pigs roam freely, slaughterhouses spew nauseating fumes, and rats and cockroaches infest most dwellings including the White House. Actually, it doesn't sound like that much has changed. I don't think the cuts you were referring to made it all the way through the budget process into law, but you can bet they'll be back.
  43. More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
    EtR#209: "when the Earth was full of shallow seas and swamps" You should probably read some geology texts. Let's pick one such time, known as the Carboniferous to most of the world (we call it the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Periods). Briefly, this was a time of widespread shallow swamps, big leafy trees, etc; the result was lots of coal (oil forms from marine critters). Abrupt climate change during this time is thought to be the reason for the 'Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse.' You should note that the animal at the top of the food chain went extinct due to this event. So my response to all of this glib 'some plants will do better than others; there are always winners and losers'? It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature!
  44. Where have all the people gone?
    Didn't the US Congress recently vote to outlaw funding for climate change mitigation programs? Depressing, to say the least... The silver lining - with their heads firmly entrenched in the sand, they *might* be some of the first to feel the effects of the rising waters...
    Response:

    [DB] I know you speak figuratively, but 6 meters of SLR brings the sea to Congress' steps, literally:

    DC

  45. More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
    EtR - "a return to ice age" is not expected even without human effects for 10,000s of years, maybe 50,000 (see Berger & Loutre 2002 so why bring this up? Are you seriously suggesting that adaption of agriculture will occur as easily with current rate of temperature change as it would to changes in the glacial cycle (which are 10x at least slower)?
  46. There is no consensus
    I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this post, but I'm asking whether there is any material addressing this new theory? It's really doing the rounds in Australia. It's all about heat exchange in the upper atmosphere — Douglas Cotton Lastly, how do I subscribe to a thread? I'm not getting emails when someone answers me?
    Response:

    [DB] You should be getting those now.  You may have to log out of SkS and then re-log back in for the changes I made to take effect.

  47. More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
    Sphaerica, If you read the paper to which mouncounter referenced, you will see that many plants have adapted quite well to the current conditions. I never said that all plants will do well. Those which are at the edge of their environmental limit are likely to fair rather poorly. Conversely, there are those which will flourish due to conditions which are beneficial. To think that any change will automaticall be detrimental is what is simplistic and wrong. By the way, evolution does not necessarily take millions of years. There have always been winners and losers. Why do you think the losers will outnumber the winners? Muoncounter, The time several million years ago, when the Earth was full of shallow seas and swamps. It was these plants that many believe became today's oil deposits. Contrast that period with the recent glaciation period. We are currently sitting in between these two climates, and a return to an ice age will not be favorable to many plants.
    Response:

    [DB] "We are currently sitting in between these two climates, and a return to an ice age will not be favorable to many plants."

    That "return" is becoming increasingly remote.  Recent work strongly points to Business-As-Usual committing us to skipping between 1-5 of the next ice age cycles.

    Note that this research does NOT reflect the results of adding 3.5 to 5.0 Gt of CO2-e methane due to an Arctic methane release nor another 1.0 to 1.5 Gt of CO2-e CO2/CH4 from melting Arctic permafrost.

    Auld Lang Syne, anyone?  Bueller?

  48. It's cosmic rays
    Oh no! A new denial meme about to be born: Adriani et al 2011 THE DISCOVERY OF GEOMAGNETICALLY TRAPPED COSMIC-RAY ANTIPROTONS This Letter reports the discovery of an antiproton radiation belt around the Earth. The trapped antiproton energy spectrum in the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) region has been measured by the PAMELA experiment for the kinetic energy range 60-750 MeV. So it's anti-matter that's been causing global warming all along. The anti-water that forms from these anti-protons (and those evil positrons) will destroy us all -- anti-rain is clearly the cause of the drought (which could also be called an anti-flood). Be afraid, be very afraid. Bet Svensmark wishes he'd found this.
    Response:

    [DB] Ah, the Bridge of the Gods has been found!  All that is left is for one to project one's atman into it, then return as the Avatar of Tathagatha, with both raised Aspect and Attributes...

    Of course, that will probably be denied, too.

  49. Where have all the people gone?
    On the weekend I saw a current events article showing the difficulties the people of Taraqwa in Kiribati are encounterring already with salt water from increased storm surges contaminating fresh water sources. And still the denial machine rolls on....
  50. Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
    Thanks you all concerning my question. Sure, the fact that extra emissions of CO2 must be stopped is unquestionable. "to promote protoplankton growth" Yes sorry, when I said "plants" I meant plants in general and any other organic or not CO2 processing system. Which I'm pretty sure it's there in our pockets but we can't still find the correct one. Talking friendly, Nature did once this job, we are nature, and O3 is not a luck for us but our micro-grannies job. So we students or scientists must not give up this research as well as trying hard to stop incoherent C02 emissions. I'm student of Molecular Biology & Biotechnology at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Now getting into plants treatments specially for any possible way to create Earth-like atmospheres on planets. And you know, it's so funny (sad too) to hear and read scientists denying these problems we got here when they know Earth it's such a little planet talking about physics or chemistry, a little house by the river of blasting radiations and darkness. It's so obvious it can be damaged easily. Keep pushing the finger SkS. Peace.

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