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  1742  1743  1744  1745  1746  1747  1748  1749  1750  1751  1752  1753  1754  1755  1756  1757  Next

Comments 87451 to 87500:

  1. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    @Sphaerica #93 You are doing it the same style as with RW1 in other posts. Don't provide your own calculation. I know that you are making a personal effort to help those people to understand, but they simply don't want to understand and the final result is negative. They present their own calculations and considerations, they tend to be more tight when they are criticizing one obvious mistake in the rival's, they tend to be sloppy when they have to introduce "their evidence" to contrast the post or the so-called "climate science". I mean they need all those numbers to pluck everything opposing their intended conclusions. The technique that Ken Lambert has used here is much more coarse and by following the path he proposes you are helping him to disguise his technique which includes criticism developed in the fringes of a reality-check calculation on part of one of the chosen rivals, taking what can be played down and/or declare a personal achievement(A), declaring the results out of scope or negligible (B) and distorting the line of argumentation just to jump to their chosen playfield using a variety of sub-techniques such as, but not limited to, telling that the rivals don't know what their talking about(C), affirming the they have the *real* (*=little cherubims) epistemological path to a proper answer -the twist starts there- (D) to finally -by using verbal lidocaine or the technique rod fishers use to wear out a fish- throwing a subdued admonition that point to dismiss methods and morals of the rival and start his own song starting with "I" (E) (Examples here) Sphaerica, this technique is not counteracted by an endless exchange of comments where one part continue to do bonafide calculations and reasonings and the other just try to constantly sneak their technique. You may think that you are doing well, and that can be true, but look what you are talking about and you will find that you where brought to a terrain chosen by them. The fact is that we'll probably have a couple of troubling months in front of us, as Washington & Cooke's book will be soon released and the publicity, be it little or be it huge, will drive here a lot of infuriated "skeptics" that will subscribe in dozens and attack in pack, so the episodes involving some Paul these days will be ten-folded. Those people will be counting on the toes and fros that I'm criticizing and you might be providing a culture medium if you and others spread to thin and continue to use reality checks as front row science and disregard counteracting the technique they use. Not only it is a huge waste of effort but it also promotes the idea of a sloppy climate science, exactly what the (so-called) "skeptics" pretend. From here: "I am glad your calculation agrees with mine that the effect of arctic ice melt is trivial (2.8% increase in arctic forcings since 1978)". A "What about the effects on the other 95.6% of the Earth's surface, like the 70% occupied by the oceans where we still can't find the absorbed heat". B From here: "What is your point in calculating the incoming and ignoring the outgoing?" C "Surely the whole discussion of AGW is about the *net* warming effects. One might as well suggest that we only look at possible changes incoming flux on *any* part of the Earth, while ignoring the changes in outgoing flux". D ("outgoing flux" and "cellar door", don't they sound charming?) From here: "Tom, wilfully leaving out relevant information of which you are aware simply is a distortion of the case to suit a particular bias". E
  2. Wakening the Kraken
    Sphaerica #17 My understanding of the issue seems right, then. It's only those Modtran figures that don't match. Maybe I'm failing to interpret its results properly. Ron #18 No, it's not the unit. Archer's Modtran uses ppm as well... Anyway, thanks for the responses.
  3. funglestrumpet at 06:48 AM on 24 April 2011
    Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    Just a thought regarding bringing people into line who are thought to be deliberately making misleading statements. I can sympathise with the desire that academic freedom should not be made to suffer as a result of any control mechanism established to counter such behaviour, so how about the following? Establish an open email forum for making accusations of academic misdemeanours. (Only open to bona fide scientists specialising in the field i.e. established peers of the person who is the subject of the complaint). Whilst only an email rather than a formal letter, it should follow a strict code of practice, which the scientific community decide upon. This is then made available to view publicly on some dedicated web site. The ‘accused’ should then respond, explaining their position. There then follows a series of exchanges with supporting evidence until the matter is either resolved, or in need of arbitration. All correspondence is automatically open to view by anyone, so that they can see how the debate is going. I think the press might get some mileage out of this, thus raising the profile. There would be the need for checks and balances. For instance frivolous complaints should be subject to sanction (scientific community to decide on exactly what that should be). There would need to be an international administration (U.N.?) where records would be kept etc. And they should also be responsible for passing on emails from other interested parties (restricted to those operating in the field) so that all correspondence is of value to the debate i.e. a filtering process might be necessary. (This secondary correspondence should be kept private to the sender, recipient and arbitrators.) Serious thought would have to be given to the arbitration panel, perhaps even formed from the judiciary with the power to call on guidance from learned scientific personnel. Finally, the issue is resolved and if the case is found proven, some sanction (scientific community to decide – possible publication of findings on the public website set up for the purpose?) This is only my loose thoughts on the matter, please treat it as seed corn for discussion. To the moderator. There seems to be quite a lot of discussion on this topic. How about a separate thread with invitations to post from other scientific fields – it will impinge on them after all.
  4. A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
    Harry S#51: "Texas then entered the spring of 2011 in a drought situation " Records show this most recent Texas drought started in October 2010. So its not quite so cut and dry, so to speak.
  5. Wakening the Kraken
    Don't forget Alexandre that although methane concentrations in this article have been quoted as ppm you will more frequently see them referred to in ppb. Seeing that methane has risen from ~850 ppb in 1750 and now is at ~1800 ppb it's not likely that you'll see rises in concentrations of 1 ppm. So for the example you previously used in #11 a 1 ppb increase in methane would only be an increase of .471 W/m2 which when multiplied by 19.96 would equal your stated 9.4 W/m2 for a 1 ppm increase in CO2. That's fairly close to the 20 times the warming potential correct? Of course if it did rise by 1 ppm compared to 1 ppm CO2 then the warming potential would be 20,000 times that of CO2 (that would constitute a very very large input of methane to the atmosphere).
  6. Wakening the Kraken
    RE relative GHG "strength" of CH4 and CO2 I've looked into this before, and while I don't remember all of the particulars, you did already touch on the important factors, which are that residence time, absorption band, and other factors all come into play. Basically, the answer is that trying to come up with a single scalar value that represents "warming" potential for a substance is a fool's errand (well, not really a "fool's"... the task has value, but you have to understand the limitations of what you're trying to get). Certainly it matters what current levels are, and what they're changed to, in both gases you are comparing. Time frame matters. Current opacity at various wavelengths matter. So adding methane may be more powerful for the next ten years, for example, but not fifty years from now. Adding it to an already souped up CO2 atmosphere is more powerful than adding more CO2. Etc. In the end, I think a simple scalar rating like that is like trying to rate the fastest car in a race. Some cars accelerate better, some corner better, and some have a higher top speed. Some can stay in the race longer without a pit stop. You can't just say "car #23 is faster than #52" because it depends on the track, the conditions, and the length of the race.
  7. Wakening the Kraken
    5, James Wight,
    Wasn’t the Holocene Optimum caused by Milankovitch cycles?
    Yes. And no. Strong positive feedbacks (not methane in the current theory, I believe, but CO2... although I'm not that well read on it) are a major and necessary factor to the Holocene Optimum. Milankovitch cycles started it but are not of and by themselves sufficient to begin or end a glacial period. CO2 was necessary to complete the transition. To learn more search for "last glacial termination" on Google, and look for things like this paper: Denton et al (2010).
  8. Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
    40, Alexandre, What I find even more frightening is that the human induced aerosols are helping us right now, by adding a strong negative forcing in concert with the positive forcing from CO2. The day we cut back on fossil fuel use, CO2 levels will still stay high for a century or more, both because of residence time, and because the ocean is becoming so saturated with it... any attempt by nature to reduce it in the atmosphere will simply result in nearly equal replacement from the ocean for quite some time. But aerosols will drop fairly quickly, and so that negative forcing will disappear, and temperatures will shoot up (or at worst continue to rise evenly but inexorably) even after fossil fuel use is reduced. We'll have to suffer through that further increase before the situation starts to stabilize. Not good. And yet Dr. Christy focused on misrepresenting this science from 35 years ago, rather than the complex and disquieting truth behind aerosols, both then and now.
  9. Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
    I'm not sure if this has been enough stressed on the original post, but AFAIK the "cooling prediciotns" were based in good science. It's just that the scenarios of aerosol emissions never actually happened. So first, most of the studies by that time already projected warming. Second, the cooling papers did not deny the warming properties of GHG. And third, I don't think anyone would say the emission scenarios used today will not happen in a business as usual projection.
  10. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    95, Ken, As Tom already pointed out, the annual average insolation in the Arctic is greatly influenced by the seasons, such as the 24 hour long sunless days through most of the winter. As I already said, the season we're talking about is at peak insolation when hours of daylight would be higher. Using the annual average is clearly wrong. This is a fairly obvious factor, and demonstrates a distinct lack of thought on your part. I also already used very conservative numbers for many other items, such as the change in albedo. Again, the impact to the climate of increasing summer Arctic ice melt will be anywhere from 0.67˚C to 1.3˚C. All other arguments are moot unless I've made a (real) mistake in my calculations. The question at hand has been whether or not the melting of summer ice in the Arctic will have any impact on climate. The proposal was that the increased positive albedo feedback would be significant. The argument was that the Arctic only covers 4.4% of the globe, so the feedback cannot be significant. The numbers show that the positive feedback is more than merely significant, but downright scary. Case closed.
  11. Harry Seaward at 01:03 AM on 24 April 2011
    A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
    Sweet @ 50 Three factors contributed to the Texas wildfires 1. Heavy rains from Hurricane Alex last summer caused a huge increase in biomass (plant blooming). 2. The winter of 2010-2011 was extremely cold and caused a massive die-off of plant life. 3. Texas then entered the spring of 2011 in a drought situation with March being the driest March in state history. Those 3 factors created a tinderbox situation that is fueling the fires. High winds and hot weather are exacerbating the situation. I suppose you could take those 3 factors and link them to AGW in some way and make a statement that these fires were caused by AGW. But, that is far different from using science to prove it. We can have a scientific discussion about this if you desire and are capable. This ain't handwaving and I'm no troll. This thread has meandered a bit between climate displacement and environmental displacement and the line between the two is a bit fuzzy. I believe that area-wise the current fires are greater in size than anything recorded. That alone can increase the effect impact to humans, however it must be considered too that the increasing population and building of homes in areas historically prone to wildfires have factored into financial losses. It is no different than building more and grander homes on beaches prone to being hit by hurricanes, or increasing human populations in areas prone to flooding like the Indus River in Pakistan.
  12. Wakening the Kraken
    Ron #14 Thanks, it does help. So the timescale for the 25 figure is indeed those 100 years. But I still don't understand that result I got with the Modtran. CH4 was just 50 times stronger there, and I assume it calculates just the immediate forcing, not averages over time. It should have shown something larger than that methane Global Warming Potential of 72 over 20 years I saw in your Wikipedia link. Am I still missing something?
  13. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Ken Lambert @91, in fact I do "get it", but you continue to ignore the relevant facts which allow me to get more than you will allow yourself to understand. Consider the cumulative incoming additional energy flux from ice albedo effects relative to 1979 for successive five year periods from 1979 to 2008: 1979-1983: -7.40E+020 Joules 1984-1988: -4.18E+020 Joules 1989-1993: 8.24E+020 Joules 1994-1998: 1.41E+021 Joules 1999-2003: 2.06E+021 Joules 2004-2008: 6.97E+021 Joules If you pay attention you will notice that for the first 10 years, the value is negative. In fact, for eleven of the first eighteen years between 1979 and 2008, the ice albedo effect was a negative feedback relative to 1979 levels (though a positive feedback if compared to 1950 levels). The reason for this is that 1979 set a new record for summer minimum ice extent, so natural variation took the ice extent above that record in a significant number of the following years. The most important consequence of that for this debate is that the cumulative increase in incoming flux relative to 1979 levels (ie, your chosen comparison period) does not become positive until 1995. In other words, the doubled figure which will only be "...2.8% of accumulated heat from 4.4% of the Earths surface area over the last 31 years of official AGW" will in fact only be accumulated energy over something less than 16 years. Further more, for most of those 16 years, the change in the summer accumulated energy flux was only small, with a 6*10^20 Joule increase in the 5 year accumulation. But the last five year period shows a 4.91*10^21 increase over the preceding years. That is nearly half the accumulated value for the thirty years in just the last five years! In fact 2007 alone accumulated more energy (2.54E+021 Joules) than any five year interval ending prior to 2005, and indeed, more than the 10 years from 1989-1998. 2008 (2.05E+021 Joules) is not far behind, and accumulated just 0.5% less energy than the five years from 1999-2003. Clearly the ice albedo effect was not such a big deal 20 odd years ago, but then again, nobody said it was. It is a big deal now. Thirty years accumulation at the average rate of the five years from 2004-2008 would accumulate 4.182*10^22 Joules. By your calculation that you say I don't get, that means it would constitute 5.6% of the Earth's accumulated energy. And that is with a figure very conservatively estimated, which ignores the additional energy gain in any season outside of summer, and in which three years of the five year average come from before the drastic 2007 reduction in summer sea ice. So what I get, but you plainly do not is that the ice albedo effect has gone from "ho hum" 15 years ago to a game breaker today. No matter what contortions you try, and no matter how much you want to include the low values of 30 years ago in your comparisons to mask the high values today, I will not forget this fact. And as clearly indicated in my point three @90 above, all indications indicate that it is going to get worse. In ten years time the ice albedo effect is likely to add 0.18 Watts/meter squared to the global energy imbalance (bringing its total effect relative to 1979 up to 0.24 Watts/meter squared. At that point, the 4.4% of the Earth you think is so trivial will be causing 22% of the total global warming. And that is significant.
  14. Wakening the Kraken
    Global warming potential Hope this helps you Alexandre. According to AR4 over 100 years methane has a warming potential of 25 times that of CO2 and 72 times that of CO2 over 20 years.
  15. Wakening the Kraken
    Wakening is hardly a strong enough word. Hydrates were always considered a 'drilling hazard' and oil companies were required to do a site survey to show that a proposed well would not encounter any deposits. They've been considered the 'fuel of the future' for quite some time, but the risk/economics weren't favorable. Now that's changed and we're poking 'em with a sharp stick: Results from DOE Expedition Confirm Existence of Resource-Quality Gas Hydrate in Gulf of Mexico: A series of test wells in >6000' of water found what may be significant quantities of recoverable methane in hydrate deposits. Make that two sharp sticks: Combine drilling into an unstable substance in deep water, where you are entirely dependent on those subsea BOPs should something go wrong. Exploration of methane hydrate and assessment of resources: A summary of Japan's exploration program for hydrates; a more technical report available here (large pdf). They've apparently made at least one commercial discovery.
  16. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Ken Lambert @95, the annual average for the arctic is indeed just over 50 w/m^2, so Sphaerica ought indeed to divide by three. But then he ought also to multiply by four to eliminate the seasonal parameter he introduced, seeing as how he would be using an annual average. Why is it, I wonder, that you never notice errors or adjustments that favour your argument, but always notice any regardless of their merit, that are not favourable to your argument?
  17. Wakening the Kraken
    Alexandre, "But that's not 20~30 times either, so maybe someone more knowledgeble can help us understand how that number is calculated." The 30 times figure is arrived at as follows: X = the reduction in outgoing longwave radiation if the concentration of CH4 increases from its present level of 2ppm to 3ppm. Y = the reduction in outgoing longwave radiation if the concentration of CO2 increases from its present level of 380ppm to 381ppm. X = 30Y The reason for this is that the curve is much steeper at low concentrations than at high concentrations because at high concentrations the absorption bands are saturated. Here is my reference: http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/methane-and-co2/
  18. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    sphaerica According to #73 the Arctic averages about 50 W/sq.m so you had better start by dividing everything by 3.
  19. Wakening the Kraken
    Byron Smith at 22:00 PM on 23 April, 2011 According to Modtran, 1 extra ppm of CO2 traps 9.4mW/m2, whereas 1 extra ppm of CH4 would trap 471mW/m2. That's 50x more, so I'd say the 100 figure can be discarded. But that's not 20~30 times either, so maybe someone more knowledgeble can help us understand how that number is calculated. Probably it's the CH4 degrading to CO2 you've already mentioned - over a longer timescale it averages out to a smaller number. Would that timescale be one century?
  20. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Adelady If that be the case then you have missed the point of this whole exchange between Tom Curtis and me. It is about the extra heat absorbed from the Sun in the Arctic due to decreased albedo from reduced ice coverage. Heat transported from elsewhere is an internal effect - not an external forcing. ie. it is warmer in the Arctic but cooler where the heat originated giving no net overall warming.
  21. CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
    Good letter Alan. Has inspired me to write more myself.
  22. Wakening the Kraken
    AFAIK, methane is some 20-30 times stronger than CO2 at present concentrantions, not 100+ times. It depends on the time frame used, since CH4 degrades to CO2. In shorter time frames, I have heard the 100x figure quoted. I note that the main article says "on a century timescale".
  23. Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
    Just to let you know - my copy of "Climate Change Denial" arrived in the post today. Having skimmed it, it looks a really good read, and Earthscan have done their usual good job on the production ...
  24. Wakening the Kraken
    Excellent but terrifying article. Thanks for bringing together lots of different research and painting the bigger picture. A couple of points: 1: We've already raised the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases enough to cause over 2°C of global warming from fast feedbacks alone. We can't rely on short-term anthropogenic aerosol cooling to save us from that... and given the positive feedbacks we're already seeing from just 0.8°C of warming, it seems wildly improbable to me that 2°C won't be enough to trigger carbon cycle and albedo feedbacks which take the warming completely out of our hands. 2: Where the article says "...total human greenhouse gas emissions (including CO2) since 1750 amount to some 350 billion tons", is that figure measured in tons of carbon or tons of carbon dioxide? I think probably the former, as CDIAC says that we've put about 1.2 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1750, of which around half remains, with the rest being absorbed by natural carbon sinks.
  25. Wakening the Kraken
    Artful Dodger at 16:02 PM on 23 April, 2011 Your data does not match my (limited) knowledge. AFAIK, methane is some 20-30 times stronger than CO2 at present concentrantions, not 100+ times. (like the main post and Wikipedia say). Yes, CH4 has a different absorption band than CO2 (which gives it all this GH potential), but the CO2 saturation argument dos not depend on CH4 emissions to be dismissed. Although CO2 cannot absorb any additional IR at 14um, it continues to increase absorption at wavelengths further and further away from this central frequency. (although, yes, with ever diminishing marginal impact per ppm added) Your last point is an interesting one. Could you please explain the math used? Or maybe point to a reference?
  26. Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    #79 SB I think it is fairly obvious that stricter ethical guidelines should be enforced. Not at all to silence scientists, but to make them clearly state when they are speaking as experts commanding public trust, and when they are not. And when they are sure about what they are saying, and when they are not. And the principle I mentioned, that what they say should stand up to peer review, modulo popularizations, is really simple. It also underscores the inherent degree of subjectivity in scientific judgments: Several referees may all come to different conclusions, but more often they tend to agree. When there has been a complaint, and the referees' judgment is clear: This scientist has, as an expert in the actual field, said something in public that would never have passed review if stated in a paper, a warning may be issued. And repeated violations could lead to firing etc. In the actual case of Lindzen, he would probably have been out by now by such rules. He could save himself by a number of measures, some examples: 1. Stating that this is about climate science, and he is a meteorologist, so he isn't really an expert in the actual field. 2. Acknowledging that there are empirically well-founded approaches leading to apparently correct predictions, but noting that he himself thinks the modeling should be done differently. 3. Stating clearly that he uses the models in a non-standard way, so discrepancies must be expected. 4. Pointing to weaknesses or inconsistencies in the work he criticizes, reducing its validity. In this case, he is entitled to state that in public, provided he can back it up scientifically.
  27. Wakening the Kraken
    Typo: temeparture/pressure Normally I'd thank you for this piece, but I'm very much in denial over this one. :-(
  28. Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    rhjames: what, all three of them? :-P But seriously, you need to go to the right thread to discuss the accuracy of the IPCC reports. [mods feel free to delete this post as off-topic]
  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis 1008 You asked: Given these clarifications, does your answer change, and if yes, to what? Unless I'm missing something, and assuming the constraints as outlined, the temperature for both plates is solely based on heating element....303K You said: The simple answer is that if Surface radiation goes above 2*S, or AtmUp, or AtmDn goes above S, then the system losses more energy than it gains, and therefore cools. I suspect we're arguing semantics, but how is that gaining energy cools? If Atm_up and Atm _dn are components of the an equally divided surface radiation, there is no cooling nor a decrease in entropy. The challenge for the alarmist is to find any partition of the system such that conservation of energy is maintained for that partition, and such that the Entropy decreases for that partition. That is, the partition must show an energy flow from E1 to E2 such that E1 = E2, but such that the Entropy of E1 is greater than that of E2. As an example, we have: 1) Insolation + Back radiation => surface radiation I said you said: You said equilibrium will be reached without back radiation being absorbed. Well, first note that in this model there must be back radiation because the "atmosphere" has an emissivity of 1 in IR wavelengths. Tom, do you agree equilibrium is reached WITHOUT back radiation? That is, with surface emission = 240 W/m^2 and only 240 W/m^2 (no additional back radiation) will system equilibrium be reached? Notice I'm not arguing the validity of forcing, at this point, but rather is equilibrium less forcing. So again, do you agree equilibrium is reached WITHOUT back radiation? You said: “With respect to the idealized greenhouse model it is the next step in complexity of atmospheric models from a simple grey slab model. It is still inaccurate...” Can you point me to the least flawed model. Not flippant or snide, but seriously...what is the best (least flawed) atmospheric model?
  30. Artful Dodger at 16:02 PM on 23 April 2011
    Wakening the Kraken
    Nice work. Here's a couple of additional points on Methane (CH4): * Since CH4 is at least 100x more potent as a GHG than C02, the effect of CH4+C02 is the same as 570 ppm CO2 concentration. * CH4 has a different absorption spectra than C02, and captures outgoing radiation in wavelengths where C02 is transparent (the C02 Window). * CH4 is one of the main reasons why the 'CO2 effect is saturated' mime is irrelevant to discussions of Global Warming: releasing CO2 causes warming which causes the release of CH4. * the abundance of Methane Clathrates exceeds that of atmospheric carbon by a factor of two. Over a hundred year time frame, CH4 decomposing to CO2 could take CO2 levels to 1,200 ppm WITHOUT us burning any more fossil fuels.
  31. michael sweet at 15:49 PM on 23 April 2011
    A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
    Tom: You have found close to or above 50 million refugees in 2008 alone. With the Pakistan floods 2010 must be similar. The total for 2008-2010 would be twice what Meyers estimated, or more. It seems that your actual numbers have quieted the trolls. If they had any real data to discuss, and not just hand waving and doubt, they would come on again. I note the lack of data from them concerning the Texas wildfires. I do not expect to see them again here. Thanks for your numbers. They will be a good resource to refer to in the future.
  32. Wakening the Kraken
    “Evidence supports the theory that sudden and massive releases of greenhouse gases, including methane, caused decade-scale climate changes - with consequent species extinctions - culminating in the Holocene Thermal Optimum.” Wasn’t the Holocene Optimum caused by Milankovitch cycles?
  33. Wakening the Kraken
    Poem from 1830 The Kraken by Alfred Tennyson Below the thunders of the upper deep; Far far beneath in the abysmal sea, His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep The Kraken sleepeth: faintest sunlights flee About his shadowy sides; above him swell Huge sponges of millennial growth and height; And far away into the sickly light, From many a wondrous grot and secret cell Unnumber'd and enormous polypi Winnow with giant arms the slumbering green. There hath he lain for ages, and will lie Battening upon huge seaworms in his sleep, Until the latter fire shall heat the deep; Then once by man and angels to be seen, In roaring he shall rise and on the surface die.
  34. Wakening the Kraken
    Great name for the chemical monster about to awaken. Finally we get a suitable name for an ogre greater than any myth or movie could ever deliver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken_in_popular_culture
  35. Wakening the Kraken
    And we can’t expect the negative weathering feedback to save us, because it takes 100,000 years.
  36. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    91, Ken Lambert, Sunlight reaching the surface of the earth equates to about an average of 184 W/m2. For 4.4% of the earth's surface, this equates to 184 * .044 = 8.096 W/m2. If the albedo change is from ice (.9 albedo) to open water (.1 albedo), or a change in absorption of 0.8, then 8.096 W/m2 * 0.8 = 6.4768 W/m2. If this change only applies to 3 months out of the year (1/4), that's 6.4768 W/m2 / 4 = 1.6192 W/m2. This does not multiply the number by any factor to account for the fact that the area is under 20-24 hours of high-incidence insolation per day. A forcing of 1.6192 W/m2 is close to one half of the 3.7 W/m2 forcing caused directly by CO2, which would itself cause 1˚C of climate change, and a total of 3˚C with feedbacks. Since those same feedbacks operate regardless of the forcing, we can assume a warming rate of 3˚C / 3.7 W/m2. For our high conservative estimate of 1.6192 W/m2, this translates to an additional warming of 1.3˚C. One could argue that the change in albedo from sea ice (.7 albedo) to open water would be only 0.6, and that the entire Arctic will never (?) melt for an entire 3 month span, so let's make another estimate of only 3% of the earth's surface, and an albedo change of only 0.6, giving 184 W/m2 * 0.03 (%surface) * 0.6 albedo * (1/4 yr) * 3˚C / 3.7 W/m2 = 0.67˚C So with a very conservative estimate, 0.67˚C is still very far from inconsequential when it is being added to other warming that is already at dangerous levels. [Admittedly, this is sort of double counting, since this feedback is already included in the estimated 3˚C of warming from the original 3.7 W/m2 of doubled CO2 forcing. But the point is still the same. This value is not insignificant.] Oh, and please certainly check my math, and my logic. I certainly could have made an error in there.
  37. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Ken, "Unless heat is transported to the Arctic from elsewhere on the planet ..." Until the last couple of decades, this was the *only* way for heat to affect the Arctic substantially - it's the major source of the heat that has melted the ice so far.
  38. Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    JMurphy - you challenge me to point out incompetence of the IPCC. I doubt you are serious - it's been well documented before, and to go into detail here would be off topic. They have even admitted publicly to many of their errors.
  39. Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    Peter said... "All other environmental issues, pollution, over foresting, over fishing, decertification, clean water and ocean destruction have fallen off the table thanks entirely to 'climate science.'" Hmmm, seems that Peter is unfamiliar with the massive amounts of environmental damage which are attributable to the extraction & combustion of fossil fuels-even if you completely ignore global warming. Mining of fossil fuels consumes large amounts of land & water-& frequently leads to contamination of both with toxic by-products. The combustion of coal produces significant amounts of air pollution-such as particulate emissions, as well as cadmium, mercury & radon gas. Combustion of petrol & diesel fuel also produces particulate emissions, along with benzene & nitrogen dioxide. A tendency to rely on raw over recycled materials-which also contributes to increased GHG emissions-is also a source of increased landfill size & resultant pollution. So actually, dealing with the various causes of global warming will have the effect of dealing with *all* of the environmental issues that Peter Wells lists as important. Of course, I could add that, even were this not the case, the last I checked humans were capable of "walking & chewing gum at the same time". To suggest that dealing with climate change somehow makes us incapable of dealing with other social & environmental issues is just another typical straw-man argument.
  40. A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
    Tom, I'd raise those numbers for Somalia. The UNHCR has the total number of internally displaced people as 1.5 million. Many of these are, of course, fleeing violence, but seeing as a UN official told the BBC about two and a half million people had been affected by drought I'd say a majority would be on the move for basic subsistence reasons.
  41. Stephen Baines at 13:30 PM on 23 April 2011
    Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    @ Alec #74 I may have been unclear. I'm not suggesting taking the same path as those who engage in a philosophical scorched earth policy. Quite the opposite. My suggestion is that maybe we need more strict ethical guidelines regarding comunication with the public when scientists are speaking as representatives of scientific institutions. Scientific debate should not be the same as legal or political debate, and that distinction needs to be preserved. There are drawbacks to that approach, however. As is obvious, my opinion is evolving...
  42. Stephen Leahy at 13:23 PM on 23 April 2011
    Wakening the Kraken
    Great summary of a scary situation. Two experts I interviewed in Feb said +2C globally may lead to large scale thaw of permafrost: Permafrost Melt Soon Irreversible Without Major Fossil Fuel Cuts
  43. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    Moderators are showing their bias and have snipped two of my reasonable and innocuous comments including the one you have answered Albatross. If that means ridding this site of all contrary opinion - then that is a great pity. Take note John Cook. I will email you privately on this matter again.
    Moderator Response: Comments snipped were due to inflammatory tone - a violation of the Comments Policy. Deleted comments contained accusations of dishonesty and complaints about moderation - each a violation of the Comments Policy.
  44. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    You still don't get it Tom. The Arctic cannot absorb any more heat than falls upon it at its Sun angles of incidence and minimum albedo. Let us assume that there is NO summer Arctic ice at all. Unless heat is transported to the Arctic from elsewhere on the planet, the 4.4% of the Earth's surface cannot absorb more heat than any 4.4% patch of open ocean at a lower ice free latitude. I doubled an average cumulative number to 100E20 Joules which is in close agreement with your maximum number viz "That is comparable to the cumulative additional energy flux compared to 1979, or 1.01*10^22 Joules." That is 101E20 Joules. Even at that level to rephrase my prior point: "Even if you **double** the number to about 100E20 Joules for inside the Arctic circle at 66 degrees N, the proportion is still only 2.8% of accumulated heat from 4.4% of the Earths surface area over the last 31 years of official AGW"
  45. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    Ken, It is not everything that I know, it is information that is freely available out there that I am referring to that those in denial about AGW will not be pleased about. I was, for naught it seems, trying to inject some humour-- I hardly see how that can interpreted/perceived as being inflammatory.
  46. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Dan#247: "we already have all the tech we need to move away from FFs" Yet it's not happening. We're still making things worse. Here is a report of state-by-state CO2 emissions from electric power generation in the US. Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants rose 5.56% in 2010 over the year before, the biggest annual increase since the Environmental Protection Agency began tracking emissions in 1995. Electricity generators released 2.423 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2010, compared to 2.295 billion tons in 2009, ... power plant emissions are still below the high water mark of 2.565 million tons set in 2007.
  47. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 143), "We're done. As muoncounter and Alec have pointed out, I've shown way too much patience, and you quite simply don't get it... seemingly because you refuse to. I can't help you with that. Conversation ends." Suit yourself. "Really, the mods should go back and delete every single post, because almost none of them relate in any way to cloud feedback, and where they do, they're tainted by your misinterpretation of Trenberth's simple energy budget diagram." All of the my posts are directly or indirectly related specifically to the cloud feedback issue. If anything, I was the one frequently pushing to keep the discussion on topic, while others digressed.
  48. A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
    Albatross @44 Thankyou, and I'm glad you appreciated the comment. I spent much of yesterday trying to narrow down how many environmental "refugees" there are, without a great deal of success. Part of the problem is classification. For example, there are about 50 thousand people currently displaced in Somalia at the moment, but do they count as environmentally displaced people because of the drought, or as traditionaly "internally displaced people" because of the fighting that has broken out between neighbouring villages over water rights? What of the 1.4 million Somali's in refugee camps outside the country who have fled over the last decade? Do they count as traditional refugee's because they have fled the civil wars and break down of law inside Somalia, or as environmental refugees because of the extended droughts which partly caused the breakdown of civil society in Somalia? I would say the former are EDP while the latter are not, but there is no hard and fast distinction. Partly it is a problem of the very loose definition of "Environmental Refugees", which includes both (what I would call) environmentally displaced people, ie, people rendered homeless or forced to live in temporary accommodation by deterioration of their environment including by sudden onset catastrophes, and what I would call Environmental Migrants, ie, people who have migrated either internationally or intra-nationally because of a deterioration of their environment. Myers includes both groups within his definition of "Environmental Refugees", but while a displaced person is only displaced until they find a new home, a migrant is a migrant for the rest of their life. There is nothing wrong per se with this inclusion academically, but for policy debate it does render his figures almost completely irrelevant. Looking at the first group, we can start putting some figure on 2008 (for which I have significant data) though not 2010 (for which I do not). Starting with the iDMC report we have 36 million people displaced or evacuated due to sudden onset natural disasters. To that we should add those displaced by drought, which is likely to be a significant number, but for which I do not have a figure. To that we must add (given Myers' very broad definition) the 10 million plus people displaced annually by dam construction and other infrastructure development. That brings us to more than 46 million environmentally displaced persons alone in 2008. To that we must also add the number of environmental migrants. That is far more difficult to quantify because decisions to emigrate are governed by a large number of factors. One attempt to determine the significance of environmental factors in immigration correlated a variety of factors including environmental factors. The dominant factors by a very large margin were pull factors - ie, factors determining which country is migrated to once a decision to migrate is made. This include contiguity (shared borders), common language, shared colonial history either directly (immigration to a former colonizing power) or indirectly (immigration to a former colony of the nation that colonized the source country). Clearly when people decide to migrate they migrate to nations in which they have some cultural connection. But as regard push factors, factors likely to lead to a decision to migrate in the first place, environmental factors are significant. Some (eg, lack of potable water, soil salinity) are more significant factors than low GDP in the source nation, or high GDP in the target nation. I think this study does not lend itself to a simple interpretation, but it does show that environmental migrants do exist. It is rather less helpful in quantifying how many exist, however. It could be interpreted to support any figure from around a million annually (5% of total immigration) to 3 or 4 times that figure, which in turn would lead to an estimate of around 10 to 40 million environmental migrants world wide, with a significantly larger number of internal environmental migrants. These figures are, however, nothing to go to the press about. Regardless of the insecurity of some of these figures, it is clear if we just consider environmentally displaced people alone (ie, the 46 million plus in 2008) Myers was in the right ball park. If we include environmental migrants alone, he has clearly underestimated the number of "environmental refugees", but whether by 10% or 50%, how knows. What is also clear that those ridiculing his figures have made no serious analysis of what was actually claimed; nor of how many "environmental refugees" actually existed in 2010. However, I am not inclined to give Myers a free pass on this. I think the choice of the term "environmental refugee" invited the misunderstandings that are all to evident in discussions of this issue. It is not that he was academically wrong, as he was clear in his definition. But he should have been aware of the rhetorical impact of the term, and chosen a more neutral one. He also should have, IMO, provided some clear subcategories, and figures for them as well. In this topic, the subcategories are far more interesting (even academically) than the grand total.
  49. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    Albatross #159 "Those in denial had better be careful what they claim concerning the ARGO data....that is all I'll say for now ;)" No one is claiming Argo is perfect - just there is nothing currently measuring the oceans globally which is any better. We all can only deal with the data which is published and available. ( snip ).
    Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped.
  50. Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
    #27 Berényi Péter Would you be happy if I were to have phrased it in the following manner: The way in which Lindzen and others portray the science to the public is of little concern to me (they are after all entitled to their opinions, whether correct or not).

Prev  1742  1743  1744  1745  1746  1747  1748  1749  1750  1751  1752  1753  1754  1755  1756  1757  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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