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  1659  1660  1661  1662  1663  1664  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  Next

Comments 83301 to 83350:

  1. Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
    Moderator #11. Here's the link to the Tony Abbott interview on ABC Lateline. My apologies for misquoting in my earlier posting. Abbott did not say the actual words, "I'm not across the science" but from the interview it is plainly the case that he is not. When asked if he had read the science or IPCC report he responded, "No, I don't claim to have immersed myself deeply in all of these documents. I'm a politician. I have to rely on briefings - I have to rely on what I pick up through the secondary sources". He then went on to quote Plimer and some cherry picked short term data and claimed that it was valid because the numbers came from the Hadley Centre.
    Moderator Response: (DB) Fixed link.
  2. Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
    "It's worth noting that EPA regulation of greenhouse gases is not the best solution to the climate problem." I don't understand why this is stated as a fact. Regulations worked very well for NOx and CO emissions. I personally like the idea that when something is known to be bad, people are simply not allowed to do that thing. The market should work well to find the lowest cost alternatives.
    Response:

    [dana1981] I subsequently explained, EPA regs are harder on the economy and less effective at reducing emissions (at least the currently planned regulations) than a carbon pricing mechanism.  A pricing mechanism gives the market more incentive to find low-cost alternatives.  There's more of a financial motivation.

  3. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Eric, Good to see the Tasmanian marine protected areas are doing their job. For climate impacts of the warmer current going south there's this. And that's pretty well word for word from the abstract - full paper paywalled. Good for sea urchins. Not so good for the seaweed areas they invade.
  4. There's no room for a climate of denial
    @Sphaerica #9: Kudos on your response to apiratelooksat50. Having conversed with him a couple of years ago on commnet threads to articles posted in a local newspaper, I was curious to see if he would respond to your invitation to continue a dialogue. The fact that he has not done so, does not surprise me. He is a classic example of the "Mr. nice guy" denier persona.
    Response:

    [DB] We will judge people fairly, based on their bahavior displayed here, not in other venues.

  5. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    I have no problem assigning a cost Eric to airport. We are currently serviced by 747s so reducing us to hilltop airstrip to service a city of 120,000 seems like we are taking a loss caused largely by action of others. Why is this exempt from legal remedy? "What I am looking for from you is a discussion of the external costs without which a libertarian solution is impossible." Okay, I dont follow this so perhaps that is my problem. What do you mean by external costs? You so far havent commented on liability, air pollution control or what happens if coal is always cheaper unless its environmental cost is taken into account. My impression is that you are implying that a solution cant be found by reduction in government, then a problem cannot be solved inside your value system. Clearly, if say 500ppm of CO2 would unequivocally kill us, that would not be case. Also, I notice you appear to prefer geoengineering to emission reduction. What I dont like about this, is that costs of geoengineering would have to be borne by people taking the loss (eg tourist operators and fishing industry for reef damage) instead of the people creating the problem in the first place (the emitters). Certainly lets also have discussion of scientific points in the appropriate threads.
  6. Eric (skeptic) at 07:38 AM on 9 June 2011
    Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    adelady, from "Changes in fish assemblages following 10 years of protection in Tasmanian marine protected areas": "Notable results include a statistically significant increase in abundance of Latridopsis forsteri and large fish (> 300 mm) when examined across all reserves relative to controls, and a 10-fold increase in the abundance of large fish and a doubling of per site species richness of large fish within the Tinderbox Marine Reserve relative to controls." No mention of climate in the abstract. On the reef, from what I read my solution of water temperature is too simplistic for the inshore reef, mainly because of the proximity to land, shallow water next to land and effects of runoff which will make it difficult to prevent temperature spikes. Offshore there is the East Australian Current most responsible for many temperature fluctuations.
  7. Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
    Cadbury here has denied that he is the same person as posting on those sites. If in fact he is the same person, then posting a downright lie should be reason for exclusion in my opinion.
  8. There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
    No. That is not a toolbox that I have heard of. I seldom need that kind of statistical analysis and would look to R instead of MATLAB for the tools if the statistics Toolbox wouldnt cover it. (That said, it does have multivariate tools but I have never used them). However, that's the approach of the Benestad paper.
  9. Bob Lacatena at 07:04 AM on 9 June 2011
    Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
    39, JeffT, Hmph. Speaks volumes. And for whomever has been complaining about moderation at SkS, versus the "WUWT is an open forum!" declarations I've seen, note the comment shortly after his, where his comment wound up in moderation, and the mod talked about all of the outrageous posts that wind up getting deleted.
  10. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    DM#29 : precisely I doubt the validity of this assumption since the various forcing have different spatial repartitions - or more precisely I haven't seen any strong justification for this assumption. Concerning my thought experiment, it is undoubtedly a change of solar energy input , so it has exactly the same effect than the possible influence of solar activity, or a change of albedo. My point is that the temperature can be higher with a lower energy input, so there is nothing like a simple relation T(F) : it must be T(F, x, y...) where x, y.. are parameters describing for instance the repartition in latitude, the oceanic circulation, and so forth. So there is also nothing like a single derivative dT/dF . It could be a partial derivative ∂T/∂F |x,y... but this coefficient depends on what you choose as the "other coordinates" x, y, to be held constant. Again nothing like "one" single sensitivity valid under any circumstances.
  11. Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath
    Sphaerica@7, dana@8, Doug@9 and Tom@13, Thank you all very much for your answers to my question. I wish I had thought of what Spaerica wrote. My own arguments were pathetic in comparison. I just said that wind and weather would mix everything just fine. I particularly like Tom’s graphs. But I think I will try Doug’s calculations because it is simple and direct. My colleague is no Dirk Nowitzky so I’m sure he couldn’t survive 3.1m of CO2. He has studied physics, so he shouldn’t have any problems following the arguments plus I’m not quoting a scientist who gets money from the state and (in his eyes) is therefore corrupt. I’m afraid that although he might just possibly concede this single point, I won’t be able to convert him from the dark side. He only accepts what EIKE publishes (the next little ice age will start in 10 to 30 years, etc.). But then Lord Mockton is listed on this “institutes” board, so what can you expect. Unfortunately my colleague’s English is not very good otherwise I would have simply directed him to this site.
    Response:

    [DB] The main skeptic arguments and the debunking thereof are available in multiple languages, including German.  If that helps, that is.

  12. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Duh! That would be the western Pacific next to eastern Australia.
  13. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Eric(sk) "...cooling the water upstream when it gets too warm." Upstream? Where on earth is upstream for warm water in relation to the GBR? If you know a way to cool any significant portion of the eastern Pacific ocean currents that warm the GBR waters, everyone would like to hear about it. (Tasmania would like to hear about it too, because their fisheries are also affected by warmer waters.)
  14. Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
    Patrick, "...surveys of public opinion show a trend towards scepticism." Not any more. Check out this SMH report from last Friday.
    Response:

    [dana1981] Good news there!

  15. actually thoughtful at 05:05 AM on 9 June 2011
    There's no room for a climate of denial
    Paulm - no disagreement here. I just take every chance I get to urge people to take personal, visible action to fight climate change. Peer pressure/shame is probably the only effective lever we have to affect the conversation/attitude of humanity. As many people point out sarcastically, people are sheep. Let's herd them (by our actions) towards climate change avoiding behaviors. We can keep the fact that they are saving money, saving resources and saving the earth as a happy place for humans to ourselves. Actions do in fact speak louder than words.
  16. Eric the Red at 04:57 AM on 9 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Okatinko, Yes, T(A) > T(B). The greater land mass in the NH would result in significantly more heat being absorbed by the surface. This is one of the premises in the Milankovitch theories. These changes are thought to be responsible for the ice ages.
  17. There's no room for a climate of denial
    AT, The realization of what a warmer world means based on our emissions becomes a moral issue. Once one realizes that emissions are causing deaths and will cause the disruption of our kids then decisions become much more straightforward. This is why it is important to convey to dire effects accurately and honestly to the public. Its the personal connection and realization of the consequences of our actions that mold our behavior in a moral world.
  18. Eric (skeptic) at 04:41 AM on 9 June 2011
    Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
    Thanks Tom for that link. Looking through all of the responses, that question has very clear support for "yes".
  19. Patrick Kelly at 04:31 AM on 9 June 2011
    Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
    The situation you describe is the mirror image of that prevailing in Australia, where media representation of Climate change has been overwhelmingly in the AGW, science is settled vein. The surveys of public opinion show a trend towards scepticism. Media coverage has tended to follow public opinion rather than driving it.
  20. Dikran Marsupial at 04:30 AM on 9 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    okatinko@28 Hansen is assuming that climate sensitivity (dt/df) is essentially the same during the last ice age as it is in the current interglacial, so dt/df \approx dt(A)/df(A) \approx dt(B)/df(B). This means you can reasonably approximate dt/df as the ratio of the change in t and the change in f between the two scenarios, in other words, sensitivity = dt/df \approx [t(A) - t(B)]/[f(A) - f(B)] If we take the limit as A goes to B, then by the fundamental definition of the derivative the approximation becomes exact. The second paragraph was dealt with in my earlier reply. The difference in your thought experiment is not a difference in forcing, and hence is irrelevant to a discussion of climate sensitivity.
  21. Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
    JeffT @39 and moderators, Wow. Thanks for that. In light of these astounding revelations I motion that Cadbury (and any of his sock puppets) be banned from SkS. This is a site for serious scientific discussion, education and learning. Now back to the science.
    Response:

    [DB] I have been aware of Jay's comments, at WUWt and RC alike, for some time now.  His posting privileges here will be determined by his adherence to the Comments Policy of this site.  But I well understand the frustration...

  22. Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
    It's not likely that Jay Cadbury is here for serious discussion. Below are excerpts from a comment posted at WUWT. Finding the full comment is an exercise left to the Googler. It's time to stop feeding the troll. "Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says: February 18, 2011 at 1:12 pm ( -Snip- )
    Response:

    [DB] What Jay has posted on other sites is not germane.  What matters is his conduct here.  All posters will be judged by their conduct here (or lack thereof).  And Jay will be judged by his.

  23. actually thoughtful at 04:17 AM on 9 June 2011
    There's no room for a climate of denial
    Paulm - how do we communicate that there is a world of good to do prior to ending/reducing/changing flying? If everyone would address non-travel CO2 in the next 20-30 years, we would buy ourselves time to figure out travel (which can actually be handled easier than most deniers are willing to acknowledge). See the US military's work on biofuel (one of many, many examples). Note that I am all for individuals taking action, and if the action that makes sense to you is curtailing flying - that is strictly to the good and a very effective personal action to limit CO2. It is also generalizable (it would still be good if everyone did it). The immediate required reduction can all be achieved through picking the low hanging fruit - solar heating/cooling, conservation, solar PV, no new coal plants, more efficient vehicles, wind, etc. Let's worry about how we get to the next stage when we are at least well on our way through the first stage. Right now we are faced with a population that doesn't want to take the first (or any) step. Apirate I am lookin' at you (said with a smile).
  24. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RW1 - "Let me ask you this, where in the diagram is the return path of latent heat in the form of precipitation? Surely, you agree evaporative latent heat of water and precipitation is a major surface -> atmosphere -> surface circulation current, right?" You don't understand latent heat transport? The fact that it's one-way? I'm, well, I'm appalled. Learn some high-school physics before critiquing those who have spent their careers with this material. P. Curtis - My compliments. Folks whose ages are significant integer multiples of yours seem strangely unable to understand what you have done so clearly.
  25. There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
    scaddenp @20, you say "All variables are varying at the same time so you need multivariate tools". True, I had a feeling I should have kept my MATLAB & System Identification Toolbox. Used it several times. Have you ever used it?
  26. Eric (skeptic) at 04:03 AM on 9 June 2011
    Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Tom, do you believe that the reef tourism industry would be unwilling to consider ideas that could save their reef from sporadic heat events? Also the "fossil fuel industry" and tourism industry have a lot of overlap, so the tourism industry is responsible for their direct and indirect emissions which come from shore tourism industry, airlines and other CO2 emitters. The solution can be organized by a consortium of operators. There should be no secondary effects since I am simply proposing cooling the water upstream when it gets too warm.
  27. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    DM#21 : but as I understand it, Hansen compares temperatures in two different situations A and B, which may not be as different as in my extreme example, but are nevertheless different : because glaciations are due to astronomical variations that do influence the local repartition of solar irradiance, and because the change of forcing due to ice coverage doesn't have the same spatial distribution of, for instance, GHG gases. So he is really evaluating something like (tA(fA) - tB(fB))/(fA-fB) , and not local variations with "the same situation" dtA/dfA or dtB/dfB. Is it not a concern to assimilate global differences with local derivatives ? as I said, "global differences" between boreal winter and summer would yield a negative sensitivity if computed in the same way as Hansen seems to do it.
  28. Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
    Eric (skeptic) @3, to the question:
    "How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?"
    and given the option of answering 1 to 7, with 1 rated as "Not at all" and 7 rated as "very much", 34.59% of climate scientists answered 7, 27.84% answered 6, and a further 16.49% answered 5, for a total of 78.92% of climate scientists who believe climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat". Of the remainder, 10.81% where uncertain (4) and 10.27% think global warming will probably not be "very dangerous". Amongst those, just 2.162% give no credence to any risk from global warming. That is a consensus in any man's language. Note that there is an ambiguity in the question. Does an answer of "4" indicated that you are moderately certain that global warming will be very dangerous, or as I have interpreted, as indicating that you no more think it dangerous than you think it not dangerous. The former is the more natural interpretation, given which the consensus is much stronger than I indicate, but given the possibility of the other interpretation, I have interpreted the results in the weakest way possible. Survey question is question 22 from here.
  29. Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
    Eric, it's pretty much a given that global warming is dangerous, the only question is how dangerous.
  30. Eric (skeptic) at 03:19 AM on 9 June 2011
    Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
    Dana, your first sentence talks about "dangerous global warming" but the link points to "scientific consensus for global warming". This is not the right thread to argue whether global warming is dangerous, only that the link you chose does not support that claim.
  31. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Eric (skeptic) @58, I have to admit that I am disappointed with your response. To start with your first step was to argue that the scenario was "not realistic". I do not know your qualifications as a marine biologist, but as I am going to have to take somebodies word on this, I'ld rather take that of genuine experts rather than some random guy on the internet. What is more, your two arguments are respectively irrelevant and wrong. The diurnal and seasonal fluctuation in pH is irrelevant for much the same reason that diurnal and seasonal fluctuation in temperatures are irrelevant to the threat posed by rising temperatures. Certainly they vary over a large range, but the increase in pH between the industrial and preindustrial means the lower range in pH values enters adverse extremes more frequently. In contrast, your argument from aquarium practise appears to be simply wrong. Googling on the issue shows that CO2 is used to dissolve aragonite into water to enhance coral growth, but that it is important that the CO2 is not allowed to enter the aquarium itself. This advice is:
    "Be careful not to inject excess CO2 directly into you tank as it can act as a fertilizer and help create an algae bloom. The effluent (liquid coming OUT of the calcium reactor) may have some residual CO2 in it. Its best to "blow it off" by letting it drip through something above the water where the CO2 can be exchanged for O2. We actually run our calcium reactor effluent into our mud filters where our macro algae is growing. That way any CO2 that makes it out of the reactor is rapidly used up by the macro algae, typically Chaeto sp., before it makes it into our main systems. You don't want CO2 to enter you main tanks, as it is acidic and will rapidly lower your pH."
    (Source) So while CO2 is helpful for dissolving aragonite (exactly the problem for coral reefs), enriched CO2 in the main tank causes decreased pH and algal blooms. More concerning is your indication of the libertarian solution to the problem. You first invent the existence (without any papers demonstrating feasibility or lack of adverse secondary effects) of a relatively cheap technical solution. And then you require the funding of that solution from the economic activity associated with the reef. In real life, if such a relatively cheap technical solution exists (a very big if), it is probably true that the fisherman and tourism operators on the reef will bear the financial burden of implementation. It is hard, however, to see that as a libertarian solution. This cost is imposed on the tourism operators and fisherman as a result of externalities from the fossil fuel industry. Your solution, in other words, allows agents other than those directly effected to impose costs on those directly effected without their permission. This is, in fact, a feature of most libertarian "solutions" I have seen proposed, but it contradicts the purported libertarian principles. Further, given the size of the reef and the number of independent operators involved, the implementation of your hypothetical cheap technical solution will require government regulation in any event, so this is not in anyway a market based solution. Finally, your solution to save the reef requires businesses which are already facing a cut back in incomes because of declining reef quality to take a further cut back in income in an experimental attempt to save the reef which may or may not destroy the reef through secondary effects so that the causes of the problem, the fossil fuel industry, do not need to take a cut in income. Please, I beg you, write to the various fishermen and tourism operators on the great barrier reef outlining your plan to save your income. The political fight to combat global warming in Australia could do with the kind of bolstering your solution would provide it.
  32. There's no room for a climate of denial
    Many AVOID the issue because it means a change to their/our whole life concept, style and comfort.... take for instant cutting back on all unnecessary emissions like most flying... https://www.facebook.com/pages/ClimateFlightAction/165484890164497
  33. Bob Lacatena at 03:02 AM on 9 June 2011
    There's no room for a climate of denial
    FYI, in the above graph you could just as easily substitute the words "political expedience" for "cowardice," and either "ethical need" or "selfless commitment" for "honesty."
  34. Bob Lacatena at 02:37 AM on 9 June 2011
    There's no room for a climate of denial
    14, Shoyemore, Good post. I couldn't find one perfect for your Cartesian grid, but still:
  35. Bob Lacatena at 02:27 AM on 9 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    22, SoundOff, Hmmm. Sorry if I overreacted, but you seem to have very quickly adopted Hansen's thousand year scenario as gospel for us, and hence an argument (whether you intended it as such, or not) for inaction. There are a few problems with that. First, it's only one paper. Second, you stopped reading too early. In the very next paragraph he goes on to say:
    Below we argue that the real world response function is faster than that of modelE-R. We also suggest that most global climate models are similarly too sluggish in their response to a climate forcing and that this has important implications for anticipated climate change.
    Third, your premise silently hinges on the idea that we'd stop at a mere doubling, and climate sensitivity is at worst in the middle around 3˚C. Even then, 60% of that is an uncomfortable 1.8˚C. But if actual sensitivity turns out to be 4˚C, and we go well beyond a doubling, then 60% of say 5˚C is 3˚C, and suddenly it is a lot of suffering for our own children and grandchildren. Fourth, Hansen's time frame estimate is based on runs of a single model trying to project something that's never happened in the history of the planet. I'm not saying this makes it entirely unreliable, but the error bars are logical as well as quantitative. Lord help us if the model hasn't recognized certain elements (such as a potential fast-methane feedback) that are difficult to model properly. I guess, in summary, I'd say that while people might look at that thousand year projection and honestly say "who cares, it's not my problem," I still think any reasonably careful, sane and caring person would look at all of the error bars involved, and then be too responsible to take that sort of risk.
  36. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Yes this is going off topic, but I will say that I agree with you that discounting can result in screwing future generations, and thus you can certainly argue that high discount rates are irresponsible (I tend to agree). Most economists don't use terribly high discount rates, which is why the vast majority agree with taking action to reduce emissions now from a purely economic perspective.
  37. actually thoughtful at 02:10 AM on 9 June 2011
    There's no room for a climate of denial
    John Russell - hey I have been guilty of that form of of denialism. For me it is always - well when I have money I will open those letters/bills (which I do). Thanks for the great insight. I think that is why I have a bias towards action - to avoid the overwhelming "problem is too large". Plus once you take a first step (maybe as simple as changing those proverbial lightbulbs) - the next ones are easier - you have psychologically joined the battle I think. Apirate that is a partial answer to your question. I laid out mitigation twice in the last thread - no response from you. I don't see the value of cluttering up another thread, only to see you ignore the responses again.
  38. Dikran Marsupial at 02:05 AM on 9 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    @dana1981 don't worry, I have learned over the years that me not liking something doesn't actually make it wrong! ;o) In cricket when you are batting, you don't leave scoring runs to your team mates lower in the order, you take responsibility and (try to) get the job done yourself. You can be reassured by the solidity of the lower order batsmen, but you shouldn't rely on them. Leaving future generations to deal with the problem seems rather irresponsible to me. Howver this is heading off-topic...
  39. Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
    will Fox run a story on their own extreme bias on climate stories? I'm guessing not :-)
  40. There's no room for a climate of denial
    Here's is another form of denial - compartmentalisation, a form of rationalisation to avoid cognitive dissonance. Freakonomics have a good article on this with the example of the Challenger disaster. Morton Thiokol engineers told NASA the space shuttle could explode if launched on a cold day. NASA managers took a "management decision" to go ahead - citing the "uncertainty" of the data (where have we heard that before?) about cold launches. Challenger Shuttle Now, everyone knows the mistakes the engineers made in presenting the data - they could have made a better case. But how often have we heard "It was a military decision" (to order an attack where men died needlessly) or "It was a political decision" (not to support an unpopular but necessary piece of legislation). I think Presidient Obama, to take one example, is making a "political decision" not to overtly support climate change legislation, probably calculating that damage to his electoral prospects would be worse for its chances in the long run. But he is avoiding the strong ethical imperative. These are not easy decisions. The "military decision" to allow a rearguard get slaughtered so that the army escapes total defeat is (possibly) a correct one. But the calculus is difficult, lends itself to opportunism and all-too-easily gets us off the ethical hook. Ethics and policy take place on Cartesian grid where it sometimes impossible to be squarely on the ethical axis. Unfortunately, it often easier to be on the "political advantage" axis at 90 degrees to the ethics.
  41. History Matters: Carbon Emissions in Context
    I understand where Muzz is coming from. I sort of thought the same thing when I read it. I think the bathtub analogy could've been used a little better. It isn't the fact that the bucket (anthropogenic CO2) was the most recent addition that makes it a concern or the fact that it is a small percentage of water in the tub overall. It is the fact that the water already in the tub (nature's CO2) is accounted for by nature. So maybe you could add to the analogy that the tub faucet is constantly running but that the tub drain is also draining at the same rate that the faucet is running. So if left alone, the tub will never overflow. But if you start adding buckets of water into the tub, then eventually you will overflow.
  42. Imbalance in US TV Media Coverage of Greenhouse Gas Regulation
    Kudos to Dana for another inciteful article. Do you suppose Fox News will "run with this story"?
  43. Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
    Believe it or not, there are still climate deniers posting on comment threads who apparently believe that sea ice has only two dimensions.
  44. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    SoundOff #22 - yes you're right, the IPCC equilibrium sensitivity is the same as Hansen's fast feedback sensitivity. My mistake. We may take your suggestion and do a post clarifying these different concepts. Dikran #23 - discounting makes some sense from an economic perspective, but it's a tricky question. There's quite a bit of debate regarding what the discount rate should be. The relatively few 'skeptic' economists (i.e. Richard Tol) think the discount rate should be incredibly high, which thus makes reducing GHG emissions now potentially more expensive than adapting to climate change in the future.
  45. DavidLeeWilson at 00:53 AM on 9 June 2011
    Climate Change Denial book now available!
    ok gents, I finally managed to get a copy, not from EarthScan who are going through some kind of commercial upheaval apparently but ... eventually I just went to Abe's on-line, no cheaper but immediate delivery but I am sorry to tell you that I don't have much positive to say about it, I speak as someone who has been thinking about this issue for decades and more, and not a denier in any degree you write like high-school seniors used to write, there is a word for it - sophomoric - and the evidence is in your paragraph structure which wanders all over the map, and your overall structure of which there is apparently none, and your tone which would be called 'precious', and your copious footnotes which are unfortunately footnoting things which hardly call for footnotes at all you say nothing in this book that was not better said in Clive Hamilton's recent 'Requiem for a Species', and you don't say it as well as he did I'm sorry, and sorry on more than one front too, can you really imagine someone who is not tuned into the issue reading your book? and if someone did read it who was not already convinced would it convince them? ask yourselves. people who use phrases like 'ad hominem' can often find some excuse to put what they don't want to hear into that category - and if that is what you do with this, no worries, be well, David Wilson.
  46. Eric (skeptic) at 00:34 AM on 9 June 2011
    Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Tom, thanks for the opportunity. As I said to scaddenp, for an economic solution, the reef and damages to the reef need to be valued. To say most corals and all reefs will be destroyed is not realistic or useful. The drop from 8.2 to 8.1 preindustrial to present is within natural variability (7.5 to 8.5 diurnal, seasonal and other variations), and is within coral tolerance (1 point of pH). There are many sources online about keeping coral in tanks and in most cases, CO2 is added to offset calcium added for faster growth. Predicted drop by 2100 is to 7.8 or 7.9. Temperature is a different story as we will gradually shift into a regime where temperature fluctuates above about 30C which starts to kill the coral. The reef has economic value as you suggested and some of that value should be used for its protection. The simplest solution is to use some of the proceeds from the reef for upstream shading to cool the water. This can be done with the cloud making ships suggested for other purposes or other means. If pH needs to be changed that is also possible although more difficult. What we can do with the reef being a limited and valuable resource does not apply to the atmosphere. Studies (e.g. http://www.arts.usask.ca/economics/faculty/papers/Bruneau_Echevarria_dp_2003-5.pdf) show a positive relationship between environmental quality and per capita income although with a small elasticity of income in the case of global environmental quality and CO2. Enhancing that elasticity requires a global perspective since nothing is accomplished when a consumer substitutes some other coal for Queensland coal. My suggestion, like in the other thread, is to deregulate and privatize coal substitutes and apply taxation and other policy where it can be done reasonably (i.e. keeping in mind the positive relationship between income and environmental quality).
  47. There's no room for a climate of denial
    Correction: yesterday's NYT.
  48. There's no room for a climate of denial
    Ugh - I posted that blob of text and then found out that Tom Friedman said much the same thing in today's NYT.
  49. There's no room for a climate of denial
    It's a very complex situation, very resistant to structuring, categorizing, and defining. One component is visibility. Consider disease. Some diseases express themselves as obvious bodily degeneration involving recurrent or constant pain, tiring, and depression. If the doctor says, "Hey, stop eating this and start eating this, and see what happens," that's easy to accept and perform. With other diseases, that's not so easy. How many lung cancer patients still smoke? How many smokers believe that smoking increases cancer risk massively but continue to smoke anyway? That's addiction, though. In the case of AGW, we have cultural momentum. Some will say that not doing anything is a fundamental human flaw. I disagree. My evidence is that different cultures understand their relationship to the environment in different ways, and this results in different cultural practices. Denial may be a human characteristic, but denial of a specific problem is not. It's possible to develop a culture that promotes a more sustainable relationship, and there is historical evidence that such cultures have existed at various times and in many regions. It is not possible to do this when the basic economic mode encourages--no, requires--unlimited economic growth and the dis-integration of a naturally integrated environment into individual-controlled parcels of resources. And then take into account the culture that has developed within this mode over the last 150 years. The idea that anyone can become an absolute ruler of his/her own destiny is fundamental to the current mode and its culture. The idea of people coming together to work toward a common goal, sacrificing some part of their own perceived individual freedom for the sake of long-term prosperity, is understood as wrong-headed and dangerous--"altruistic." Finally, and paradoxically, the culture encourages the belief that "if you can't see it, it doesn't matter"--a curious attitude for a culture dominated by religion (at least in the U.S.). People within this culture rarely understand the connection between the product they buy and the history of that product--where the materials came from, who designed it, who made it, how it got to the store, etc. Nor do they understand what happens to it when they sell it or throw it away. The culture encourages (explicitly if not systematically) people to think only about consumption, consumption divorced from production, distribution, and recycling. Chalking it up to human nature is just another form of "Oh well, that's life." Understanding the problem as simply cultural, and then saying, "well, we'll just change our culture," is fine, but the culture is going to be resistant unless the primary driver of culture (economy) is addressed.
  50. Dikran Marsupial at 23:41 PM on 8 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    soundoff@22 Actually, it isn't a rhetorical question, in economics it is called "discounting", and apparently it is an argument that is genuinely considered in discussions about mitigation efforts. 1000 years may be too long a timescale for you to personally care, but not for others. 1000 miles is enough distance for many not to personally care as well, but does that mean that problems that ocurr in (say) the next decade in the third world due to climate change are not our concern? No. IMHO, the "discounting" argument stinks.

Prev  1659  1660  1661  1662  1663  1664  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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