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  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  1796  1797  Next

Comments 89451 to 89500:

  1. arch stanton at 03:28 AM on 9 April 2011
    From The Halls of Montezuma
    I agree with Peter about the blood alcohol analogy. This part of his presentation seems geared towards new recruits rather than the somber crowd he seems to be addressing. OTOH his basic premise is that a “small” change of something minuscule can indeed make a big difference is true. While we’re talking about presentation…I would not say that 390ppmv is too dangerous and needs to be reduced (at least until some energy efficient, low cost form of C sequestration is developed) for 2 reasons: 1) I don’t believe it. We are indeed flirting with danger (we could argue about the definition of “flirting with danger” vs “dangerous” but regardless I put it as a lower danger than you seem to despite similar CO2 levels. Humans are adaptable, Pliocene time scales are vast. 2) More importantly: It feeds the fourth stage of denialism*: The attitude that all is lost so we may as well party on. Related to my point #1…Although we all know that that the sun was dimmer half a million years ago, I have never seen anyone quantify the earth’s core heat flux changes due to the decay of radio nucleotides. Has anyone here seen a paper or discussion addressing this factor? Is it significant? Thanks, arch *(1=”It’s not happening” 2=”It’s happening but it is not bad” , 3=”It’s bad but we are not causing it” 4="It’s happening, it’s bad, we are causing it but there is nothing we can do about it”).
  2. Arctic Ice March 2011
    Again, more strawmen and distortions and mispresentations of others' understanding....not biting.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Quite right, however it is best if you just ignore it and leave it to the moderators.
  3. Arctic Ice March 2011
    198: Albatross "That quote @197 was made 11 years ago. The AO has been reproduced in models for some time," Here is a more recent reference http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2011/02/dont_blame_the_arctic_oscillat.html "Scientists are trying to better understand the complicated processes that create these unusual, long-lasting flow geometries, otherwise known as AO phases. Some believe that the forcing comes from tropical weather phenomena, like El Nino or the Madden-Julian Oscillation. Matt Rogers' recently wrote about a mechanism proposed by researcher Judah Cohen linked to fall snow cover over Siberia. Andrew Freedman has written about possible connections to Arctic ice extent and global warming. Others believe the cause can be linked to the natural life cycle of really big storm systems, such as the blizzard that parts of the Northeast experienced the day after Christmas. Maybe it's all of them and while it is true that the AO index is a very useful statistical concept that gives a name to uncommon weather regimes, it does not explain how or why we get them." This is obviously not a well understood phenomenon. Again, claiming that "I see it in my computations" is very far from a real physical understanding - I'm surprised that you seem to think the opposite.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] None of which contradicts the assertion that the AO is reproduced in model output, so the last paragraph is at best a distortion of Albratross' point of view. I'm glad Albatross has responded correctly to your trolling. I have been very tolerant of your disruptive behaviour on this thread, any more of this and your posts will be deleted.
  4. Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
    Nice post Bud. We are hosting a discussion forum for educators about ETOM at iceeonline.org/forum. Dr. Alley will answer selected questions on the forum as his time permits. This is a moderated forum which is part of our CIRES climate education work at the U. of Colorado Boulder. Many teachers use videos to introduce a topic. ETOM has great potential for this purpose.
  5. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Ranyl, how would you measure it? If not through accounting? Is your question sensible?
  6. Arctic Ice March 2011
    excuse me but "the results of a model" have never been a proof of anything, as far as I know. Do you have any clear validation of this model ? At least the record below 4 Mkm^2 is a prediction. Let's wait ...
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Straw man: Nobody is saying that the results of a model are proof of something. Stop trolling.

    Models are used to tell us the consequences of a set of assumtions, nothing more, we all know that. Models are also used to generate falsifiable predictions, and are part of scientific method (Popper).

  7. Arctic Ice March 2011
    Logicman @203, I agree, unfortunately some people keep insisting that "extrapolating" is all that is being done. Results from latest model runs presented at the EGU this week by Maslowski et al. suggest 2016 +/- 3 years for a mostly ice free Arctic ocean. [H/T to you for that info]. Wow, an extent below 4 million km^2...I hope that you are wrong. Which product is that for? PS: Have you seen that Hudson Strait already has large swaths of open water?
  8. Arctic Ice March 2011
    Albatross: there's no need to extrapolate 30 strawman years. We are in the end game. Very soon, the last raft of sea ice will vanish under the summer sun before our eyes. The deniers will then insist that it is a natural cycle because it grows back in winter. After the ice fails to grow back in winter the deniers will point out to those stupid scientists who don't know such things that its a natural cycle because there used to be crocodiles in the Arctic. If the Arctic this year merely repeats average behavior of the last decade we will see the 3rd lowest September extent. I see no reason for average ice loss, but rather a more rapid than average ice loss. A record below 4million km2 is highly likely.
  9. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    How much carbon saving has there actually been? Measured actually emission savings not supposed savings through carbon accounting.
  10. From The Halls of Montezuma
    So David Titley is a true skeptic then, good for him. Peter @ 1, I agree. It is a very good analogy, he just needs to present it differently. The message is that trace amounts can make a significant difference. The legal alcohol level for driving is 0.08% --double the number he gave, but if we continue on this path that is where we are heading, in a metephorical sense of course.
  11. From The Halls of Montezuma
    Delighted to General Anthony Zinni on there. Zinni is a tough Marine, ramrod straight and nobody's fool .. he was George W. Bush's special envoy to the Middle East early in his Presidency, was commander of CENTCOM, warned early (before 9/11) of the dangers of terrorism coming out of Afghanistan, opposed the Iraq War, but supported the "surges" by Bush and Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively. His opposition to the Iraq adventure meant he was sidelined from the military after 2003. His track record of not pandering to anyone speaks for itself, and it is tremendously encouraging to a see a soldier and diplomat of his obvious quality and intelligence speaking up. General Anthony Zinni
  12. Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
    To follow up on Albatross #22, as I recall, in his testimony to Congress a few months ago, Christy commented on economic issues, which he felt qualified to discuss because he's the "Alabama State Climatologist". I didn't realize being a state climatologist made one an economics expert. In this hearing, Christy stated that he would widely re-introduce the use of DDT. His qualifications on this matter? He has lived in Africa. So I guess Africans are all experts on health and pesticide use. Kerry Emanuel did not answer the question, stating that it's outside his realm of expertise. That is humility. So I agree, "humility" is a pretty terrible descriptor of Christy.
  13. Arctic Ice March 2011
    I can't believe no-one has called the contrarian/s on this before. The sophisticated ensemble of AOGCMs which include feedbacks and reproduce internal climate modes such as AO and ENSO, are not mere extrapolations of a trend. To suggest this is ludicrous and a strawan. Besides nobody I know of who works in this field extrapolating the current trend in Arctic sea ice out 30 years or so, so another strawman. With that said, and to stay on topic, it will be interesting to see how the AO behaves this melt season (after the wild swings this past winter) and how it affects the Arctic sea ice. I'm leaning towards the second lowest extent on record, and record low volume in September (for that month).
  14. From The Halls of Montezuma
    Peter Bellin #1 In fact, I think current carbon dioxide concentrations are dangerous and need to be reduced. Totally agree. Pliocene had similar CO2 concentrations and perhaps 25m higher sea level.
  15. A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
    And I never said that fusion was right around the corner. I was saying that this WWS timeline was so long that we may even have fusion by the time it's completed. That was more of an offhand comment than anything else.
  16. Arctic Ice March 2011
    Nobody is "extrapolating" 30-yrs out. Model simulations in sophisticated AOGCMs that include feebacks and reproduce internal climate modes (such as AO and ENSO, they are not mere extrapolations as some keep insisting.
  17. A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
    @muoncounter- They're planning them, not building them (I think). It seems they've been planning them for a while (http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2007/gb20070321_923592.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily), but they aren't talked about very much anymore, except for the rare article and government paper. I can't find anything that says they canceled them, so I'm standing by my statement. @muoncounter- What I meant was that if we're going to talk about advances in renewable technology by 2030, we should also include advances in nuclear technology. And I believe that China was supposed to have a pebble-bed reactor commissioned in 2013, although I'm not sure. I still say that nuclear and renewables should work together. Again, renewables replacing many of the fossil fuels needed for mining, hydrogen cells for transport, etc. I've recently heard that it may be possible to produce pure hydrogen in a pebble-bed reactor, which could reduce reliance on oil. Also, Fukushima occurred because of the tsunami, not the earthquake. When the main power was cut, the diesel generators worked perfectly until they were hit by a wall of water. After that, the battery backups worked for the designed 8 hours. The problems arose when the switchboard area flooded and they couldn't hook up new generators. The easy solution to that is to build submarine doors and have an emergency backup power line buried underground to connect the plant to an emergency external source.
  18. Arctic Ice March 2011
    DM, Thanks for your efforts here. Perhaps also please try and and steer/guide contrarian back to the subject of this thread-- the current melt season, the subject of this thread.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No problem, good point, please pay attention to it everybody! ;o)
  19. Arctic Ice March 2011
    Gilles#196 "I'm not saying this is the cause of ice melting - I just present an example of obvious multidecadal oscillations, and there are others." Excellent. I'm not saying ice is melted by the exhaust from snowmobiles; I'm just presenting an obvious example. No one takes this sort of statement seriously. If you are proposing that 'oscillations' are the cause of an effect that has a long-term trend, do so in a scientific manner. Review the evidence (not just the vague pronouncements) and take it to a thread that discusses such oscillations. That is what an actual scientist would do.
  20. Rob Honeycutt at 01:56 AM on 9 April 2011
    From The Halls of Montezuma
    Peter @ 1... Perhaps a better analogy is strychnine. I believe a lethal dose of strychnine is well below 450ppm relative to the human body. Small portions of certain substances can certainly have large effects.
  21. Arctic Ice March 2011
    That quote @197 was made 11 years ago. The AO has been reproduced in models for some time, and the impacts of natural variability and various forcings (e.g., volcanoes, anthro GHGs) has also been investigated (e.g., Gillett et al. (2002), and very recent work has focussed on the impacts of Arctic sea ice loss on the AO and NAO. Also read AR4.
  22. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    I think in the first year of the carbon tax, we (everybody) got $120 rebated in cheques. I haven't received a cheque since then. It's too bad, because many of hte people here have forgotten that the tax is revenue neutral. They may need something tangible to be reminded periodically. I'd love for the tax to go up to $100, because I live in a high density area and can bike to work. For others, like those living out in the sticks, I can see why they wouldn't want to subsidize me. And I can see imagine still others who would travel across the US or Alberta border for gas if the tax gets too far ahead of other price in other places.
  23. Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
    There was no "global cooling theory" in the 70s, there was a concern (a hypothesis) amongst some scientists that should sulfate aerosols continue to increase rapidly that the associated cooling could pose a problem. It was a conditional prediction, contingent on sulfate aerosols increasing fourfold. Two compare that hypothesis with the theory of AGW and the current situation (as some contrarians are doing) is pure folly. This has all been discussed in the main post, but apparently it needs to be repeated here again. "May we all have so much of “humility” as Dr. Christy .." Umm, not even close. Christy frequently speaks to subjects that is is not even closely qualified to speak to (see his recent testimony to Congress); it took him and Spencer years to acknowledge that their UAH data were flawed and to correct it; only in 2012 is he making his UAH code available (long after GISTEMP), and goodness' knows what that will reveal; he frequently belittles and slanders his colleagues..... Kudos to the person who finds the first statement made by Christy that qualifies as misleading congress so that someone can take this further.....
  24. Arctic Ice March 2011
    concerning AO http://www.jisao.washington.edu/wallace/ncar_notes/ "An important challenge facing us now is to incorporate these AO-related changes into our thinking about human influences on climate." As I understand it : it is not yet done.
  25. Peter Bellin at 01:43 AM on 9 April 2011
    From The Halls of Montezuma
    I am uncomfortable with David Tilley's blood alcohol analogy, not only for the suggestion that people who don't drink are boring, and that getting drunk is fun. It also suggest the current carbon dioxide levels are OK (the analogy to the blood alcohol level of .04 %). In fact, I think current carbon dioxide concentrations are dangerous and need to be reduced.
  26. Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
    I think part of the communication problem with skeptics (and the broader public) on this issue may be the difference between recognizing cooling that had occurred by the 1970s versus predicting that it would continue into the future. They're very different things, for scientifically-minded people. I don't know if trends past-to-present and predictions for the future are so different in the minds of others. You see the problem in discussions of sea level rise, human health and welfare, and also a bunch of topics that aren't very climate-related. Arkadiusz #18 might be a good example of that issue, but specific to the 1970s claim.
  27. Arctic Ice March 2011
    DM : if you discuss about significance, you don't have to prove there is something else. You don't have to prove it is *not* real. It is just a matter of confidence. For instance, you say : "Secondly, the historical data do not necessarily say that the ice is insensitive to the change in temperature as temperature is not the only thing that controls ice loss, and those factors need to be considered." you admit that other things than temperature can influence ice melting - but this also means that current melting can be due to these "other things". Concerning AO , I'm not saying this is the cause of ice melting - I just present an example of obvious multidecadal oscillations, and there are others. i'm not trying to design my own theory - and when talking with astrologists, I don't try to "prove" any other explanation of why we have our personality either. The burden of the proof is for the one who claims he has a theory - and extrapolating a linear trend can hardly be called a "theory" in my sense. It is well possible that part of the melting is due to global warming and another part belongs to long period cycles - thus extrapolating would grossly exaggerate the rate. It is possible that on the opposite it's entirely due to GW and will even accelerate due to non linear feedback - I'm just saying that I don't see strong evidence for that. The more uncertain are the data, the easier you can predict catastrophes ...
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] "The burden of proof is for the one who claims he has a theory" says it all. You can't prove a theory by observation; that is well known in the philosophy of science (Popper). Tom Curtis has already pointed out to you that this is the well-known "problem of induction", and both he and I have pointed out the solutions to this problem that have been adopted in the world of science. If your point is only (essentially) that there maybe be stuff we don't know about that might be causing the ice to melt other than warming, then yes, you are technically correct, but science has developed means to deal with this epistemological doubt that have proven highly effective for a couple of centuries. If they hadn't, we would have no means of inferring a general principle from observations, and science would have made little progress. You have made your point, it is irellevant and displays a lack of understanding of scientific method, and any further repetition is now "off-topic".

    It is interesting Gilles mentions astrology as it was used to exemplify the difference between science and non-science by Popper. Gilles could usefully occupy his time reading up on Poppers work (e.g. here). He might even realise that what he is doing is rather akin to astrology (looking for correlations that "explain" the observations without worrying about a physical mechanism that might imply the correlation is due to a causal relationship. If you look hard enough you can always find a correllation with something - even if it is the motion of Pluto - not that anyone would make that argument ;o).

  28. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Gilles at 01:26 AM on 9 April, 2011, says: I just said it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either. First, I'm relieved that you agree it's not catastrophic. So further such experiments should not end the world or harm anyone. Second, no, it will not stop people extracting FF at this point. But it will improve the economic attractiveness of the alternatives, and help them gain scale. For now.
  29. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Sad that some here just cannot (or refuse to) grasp this simple concept. BC are clearly leaders and should be proud-- this is a proof of concept project (as CB noted) and so far it has demonstrated that a carbon tax can work. The NDP (the official opposition) also recently admitted that it was a mistake on their part to contest the carbon tax in the last election. Having been to BC, one thing is very apparent when one arrives. Taxi fleets have large numbers of hybrids, and cars in general are much smaller (and more fuel efficient). Now that does make a difference to emissions and pollution. The tax has also been an incentive to push to increase efficiency in other avenues. IMHO, the only problem with the tax right now is that the price is limited to $30 a tonne in 2012, in order for a carbon tax to be effective it has to increase incrementally until the population and industry respond and to substantially decrease emissions. Emission data from Environment Canada are only available until 2008, inclusive. This Wiki page might provide some more useful information. And no one is suggesting that a carbon tax is intended to stop extracting FFs-- please enough with the argumentum ad absurdum, this is not a Republican energy hearing ;)
  30. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    19 Alexandre - I never said it was catastrophic - gas is much more taxed in France than in US, that's kind of a carbon tax, and we survive - and have much more efficient cars than in US. I just said it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either.
  31. Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
    Arkudiusz Semcyszak, I am sorry but your English is so fractured that I often find it impossible to understand your meaning. Your interpretation of scientific papers suggests you have the same problem understanding normal English prose. Are you actually an English speaker? Or are you using a translation program? If the later, it is not up to the demands you are placing on it. If the former, would you please take more lessons so that we can have a coherent conversation.
  32. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    CBDunkerson at 00:42 AM on 9 April, 2011 The anedoctical account of John Hunter does not make justice to the overall acceptance of the initiative. The NYT article has some figures about polls on this issue: Environics Research Group Ltd. documented an almost 10-percentage-point rise in support among British Columbians for the carbon tax between when the tax was about to be implemented in 2008 and when it had been in place for a year in 2009, for example. Last month, researchers at three universities reported (pdf) that an even stronger majority, or 56 percent of Canadians, supported a carbon tax costing $50 a month. "Initially, some people heard the 't' word and went into a tizzy," said Robert Gifford, a professor at the University of Victoria and an expert in environmental psychology. "Then the end of the world didn't happen, and people just accepted the tax."
  33. Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
    Nick #17 - we'll be addressing both the myths that you mention propagated by Christy in future Christy Crocks. Arkadiusz #16 and #18 - please try actually reading the article that you're commenting on.
  34. Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
    AS @44 The conclusion of Turney and Jones 2010?
    The Last Interglacial is an excellent example of a super-interglacial, a period warmer than today, where sea levels were 6.6–9.4 m higher than today, providing a valuable insight into the future climate system. Unfortunately, previous estimates of global and regional temperatures have been highly uncertain. Here we have compiled 263 quantified ice, marine and terrestrial records spanning the Last Interglacial. Although only a first approximation of published datasets, our results suggest this period was approximately 1.5°C warmer than AD 1961–1990 (∼1.9°C relative to pre-industrial levels). A comparison between the reconstructed temperature and δ18O trends in the highest-resolved records preserves a stratigraphic lead in ‘local’ warming over the shift to interglacial conditions around the southern African coastline. These results imply an enhanced leakage of the Agulhas Current into the Atlantic Ocean, injecting warm, saline water into the meridional ocean circulation and amplifying global warming during this super-interglacial. The above observations suggest the LIG can provide important insights into the mechanisms of future climate and whether a 2°C stabilisation scenario can be considered ‘safe’.
    (My emphasis) As the authors conclude that the Eemian can provide the sort of insights I am taking from it, it seems hard to conclude the paper provides evidence that you cannot. Certainly taking the lowest extreme of temperature estimates with the upper limit of SL estimates to argue that temperature is not the explanation of the SL rise is unwarranted. Indeed, it is the sort of argument that has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience. Discussed in context the paper supports the conclusion that relatively low (1.5 degree) temperature increases could result in long term sea level rises as great as 9 meters. And as an aside, as the ocean is much deeper than 100 meters, a 9 meter sea level rise is not a 9% rise. Likewise for the paper discussed by AS in 43. It contains an interesting discussion of detecting seasonal temperature variations over the holocene, which should greatly refine future temperature estimates. But fig 3 deal only with Holocene temperatures. The authors do not call Eemian temperature records into question, but rather use them as a test of their theory of the main driver of regional SST in the Holocene. In other words, they consider them generally accurate, and reliable enough for hypothesis testing. AS's skepticism about Eemian temperature records is something he brings to these papers, not something he finds in them.
  35. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Great post, Dan. I think the (modest) success of the BC carbon tax thus far has flown mostly under the radar. Good comments by Andy S in #18 too. It's amazing people criticize a system which has caused a net decrease in taxes and encourages carbon emissions reductions. It's a great first step by BC.
  36. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Yeah, the tax being 'too low' to solve the problem isn't really the issue IMO. Rather, this BC tax is a great proof of concept in that it shows you can implement a carbon tax while simultaneously lowering the overall tax burden for all but a small pool of heavy polluters. The only problem is that this reality doesn't seem to be getting out. Instead you've got the insanity of people like 'John Hunter' in the article complaining about a tax which actually puts money in their pocket. The old saying, 'There are none so blind as those who will not see' comes to mind. Proving that a carbon tax won't hurt people economically doesn't do any good if they are so deeply in denial that they disbelieve it.
  37. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Dan, I agree with you that this tax is still low: it's far lower than what's suggested by Hansen, Stern, or even Nordhaus. The latter uses an economic model that underestimates climate impacts and calculates an "optimal" carbon tax of US$27/ton. The formers point to much higher amounts. I don't remember Stern, but Hansen's figure is US$115. OTOH, I also agree with you that one isolated region would only export emissions if it sets a too high carbon tax. So it was a commendable initiative of BC, and let's hope this encourages others to take these first steps too. Thanks for the post.
  38. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Tom Curtis #47 A pretty incoherent attempt at projection Tom. So I withheld the Trenberth information from everybody when I was correcting Sphaerica's gross error when he claimed that the incident angle of the sun at the north pole was 66 degrees? Hello? Are you and Sphaerica a tag team? Do I have to reply with everything I know about the subject to debunk a particular error of his, just so you might be able to incidentally correct your gross errors too?? Preposterous. Your comment: "a) Even if the Arctic receives no more additional energy than any other region of the Earth, it receives an additional 6.4*10^20 Joules per year energy (Trenberth); and b) The total annual energy budget of additional ice melt is about 1*10^20 Joules (Trenberth again), or about one sixth of what the Arctic could be expected to receive based on your argument." You still don't get it. Dr Trenberth's number for Arctic ice melt is 1E20 Joules/year. That is his measure of the net heat gain. No mention of any other Arctic contribution in his paper of Aug09 (Tracking the Earth's global energy). You quote Flanner's comparable number as 9-10E20 Joules/year. I say that even if you assume a uniform distribution of Dr Trenberth's total global heat gain of 145E20 Joules/year - then the 4.4% Arctic portion would be 6.4E20 Joules/year which is still a deal less than Flanner's 9-10E20 Joules/year. A uniform distribution would imply that both incidence angle and albedo were *average* for the whole planet. Now we know that ice and snow has much higher surface albedo than forest, land and ocean, so the average surface albedo for the Arctic would be higher than the average for the planet. Also we know that the average incidence angle of the sun in the Arctic (and the highest latitudes) is the lowest on the planet - certainly much less than the average incidence angle for the whole planet. So from these two facts we know that the Arctic has a higher surface albedo and a lower incidence angle than the average for the planet. Hence it must reflect more of a lower average intensity of solar radiation. Therefore the Arctic must absorb less (much less) than the uniformly distributed portion of 6.4E20 Joules/yr. Dr Trenberth's figure of 1E20 Joules/yr is about one sixth of the uniformly distributed portion of 6.4E20 Joules/yr and than means that the two factors I have described (higher albedo and lower incidence angle) have a large combined effect of reducing the heat gain to about 15% of the average for the whole planet. Flanner's number is simply impossible unless the polar Arctic has a way of attracting 50% more energy from the sun than the average 4.4% patch of anywhere else on Earth.
  39. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:03 AM on 9 April 2011
    Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
    Wikipedia: “In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming. [ 2 ]" [2]- it’s Paterson et. al. 2008.
  40. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Gilles at 17:03 PM on 8 April, 2011 Fair point. I guess the carbon tax is catastrophic AND innocuous, then... (new skeptcial argument for the list?)
  41. Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
    I listened to the interview with Dr. Christy, linked to by Arkadiusz. Head vice necessary... He basically says that the climate is changing up and down and that what they have measured over the last hundred years - just under a degree - is small. He then goes on to consciously or unconsciously repeat the relatively new denier meme that claims that even if we cut emissions tomorrow it would only cool us off by 0.1 degrees - a very small cooling effect. He quotes Tim Flannery's statement that "if the entire world cut their CO2 emissions immediately, the world together, that temperatures won't be detectably reducing for one thousand years" He also claims that if we built a thousand new nuclear power stations we wouldn't "affect the climate by more than a tenth of a degree after a hundred years" He is repeating the relatively recent denier meme that if we took the heroic/foolish efforts that the IPCC etc are mandating, that the climate would only cool off by 0.1 degrees, so therefore what's the point of doing all that to achieve so little? The deceptiveness of this meme is it "accidentally" leaves out that if we DON'T cut emissions that temperatures will continue to rise. He doesn't mention the probability of positive feedbacks or even the possibility that they exist, which is disingenuous at best.
  42. Models are unreliable
    Ggf: "I have not suggested that warming will not happen or that the consequences will not be bad. I am saying that i do not believe that climate models are capable of making predictions as to what will happen with a sufficient level of confidence to spend large amounts of money based on their predictions." You have to establish a position on the science before you can establish a position on the modeling. If you understand the science, then you understand the basis for what (and how) gets put into the models. If you understand things this far, then you shouldn't be saying, "I'm not saying that . . ." Instead, you should be saying, "Yes, warming must occur based on the physics, and feedbacks (positive and negative) must occur because nature is all of a piece, and the warming will happen in this time period if we do business-as-usual because of the residence time of GHGs and the nature of the feedbacks." If you understand that and you're still engaged in trying to find a reason not to mitigate, then you're in questionable territory. Again, the models tell us when and where the ICBM we fired will hit. They might be wrong by a few miles or a few minutes--indeed, significantly wrong, but that doesn't mean we're not responsible for the firing, nor does it mean that the ICBM will not eventually cause destruction. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that the models are totally wrong, and that brings us back to the science. "What i am also suggesting is that unless we can be confident that what is being proposed in terms of emissions cut will work we should be cautious about spending large amounts of money on what may be the wrong response." Have you ever had convincing evidence that a very expensive solution would work? What would convince you in the case of GW? How long would the models have to be within or near their error bars? If the modeled trend is below the observed reality over the next five years, is that a model failure that would also cause you to say, "No mitigation!" The models have been a little off in this way with Arctic sea ice--too much too soon.
  43. Arctic Ice March 2011
    ""multi-decadal" oscillation is not very plausible as there is no mechanism (unlike for example ENSO) explaining why/how it ocurrs, and it doesn't seem to even exist in the pre-satelite data." really? we have no explanation for multidecadal oscillations so they don't exist? you should write that to NOAA... http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/climate-ao.shtml
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] O.K, so the next step, what is the AO and oscillation in, excatly? One wonders of course why you didn't mention this earlier ;o) BTW, if you are wondering what I am doing, I am just trying to getyou to state your position on this clearly and unambiguous, with sufficient detail to determine whether it has merit. That is the way scientific discussions work.
  44. Arctic Ice March 2011
    "The historical data shown here strongly suggests there is no (quasi-)periodic variability at this timescale" First even the legend said they're not really reliable because of the lack of data. I asked for the error bars : where are they? are error bars also pointless and a "non-starter question" ? And even if you believe in these historical data, as I said, they show that the ice was pretty much insensitive to the change of temperature at the beginning of century. So the very same historical data contradict your model that " warming ... cause melting of the ice (and for albedo feedback to tend to hasten that melting)." At least you should address this issue. CBDunkerson : it seems that you're slowly discovering the existence of spontaneous limit- cycles ...
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] O.K., so the historical data are "unreliable", however it does at least exist, and it gives no support whatsoever to the existence of multi-decadal oscillations. That means it is still more credible than your hypothesis of multi-decadal oscillations, for which you have presented precisely zero evidence, and for which you have not even been able to propose a causal mechanism.

    Secondly, the historical data do not necessarily say that the ice is insensitive to the change in temperature as temperature is not the only thing that controls ice loss, and those factors need to be considered. It is also possible that the earlier warming did cause reductions in sea ice volume, but not extent.

    Now it is time to "put up or shut up", what evidence do you have that multi-decadal oscillations exist in sea ice extent or suggested causal meachanism. If you can't come up with something, then you objection is no more reasonable than "melting is caused by the orbit of Pluto", or "it is being stolen by little green men from uranus", or astrology.

  45. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    As a BC resident myself, I'll add two observations to Dan's excellent article. One is that the carbon tax was introduced by a right-of-centre government and was, for a while, opposed by the left-of-centre NDP. The other is that if any politician proposes to repeal this revenue-neutral tax, then they will, in effect, be arguing for an income tax increase. A carbon tax like BC's is simpler and administratively cheaper than a cap-and-trade policy. Since it also reduces income or payroll taxes, it ought to be popular among free-market enthusiasts who recognize that climate change is a serious problem. But, as Dan mentioned, the level of BC's tax needs to be much higher to gain real traction on carbon emissions. That's not possible until BC's trading partners start to adopt similar policies.
  46. michael sweet at 21:54 PM on 8 April 2011
    How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    It is interesting that skeptics want instant results from a carbon tax, while supporters point out that it takes time for people to install insulation to save on carbon emmisions. I suppose the skeptics think Paris was built in a single day! We can see in California that when energy is more expensive people use less. And they still have empty caves for new people to come and live in.
  47. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    I don't think a tax can produce a major recession - a tax is only redistributive. What I questioned was if it had really led to a measurable improvement of energy efficiency. And don't forget that improving energy efficiency doesn't guarantee at all that global emissions will recede - most likely they will keep increasing but with more wealth produced. Your figures show precisely that the increase is entirely due to developing countries, which are very far from thinking they can reduce their emissions -that are actually much lower per capita than ours. So whatever you spare here, there are plenty of poor people throughout the world who will be very happy to use it (I'm not saying it's bad).
  48. Arctic Ice March 2011
    logicman: "a warmer Arctic causes greater precipitation of snow which no longer melts entirely in summer. Within a decade or two it becomes obvious that a new ice age has started." I've wondered about this theory for quite a while. One aspect of it which I've read about is a possible 'shutdown' of some of the major ocean currents (due to changing salinity) causing less warm water to be transferred towards the Arctic. However, wouldn't that be a self-regulating effect? That is, loss of heat transfer from the tropics would cause the Arctic to start cooling again... which would cause more ice formation... which would again change ocean currents... which would allow the ongoing greenhouse warming to again become dominant... et cetera. Likewise the heavy snow bit you reference. As I recall that was a theory that the change in albedo from all that snow would be enough to prevent the snow from melting and trigger a re-freeze of the Arctic. But wouldn't that then cause the increased snowfall to stop be melted out by the ongoing greenhouse warming? Obviously loss of the Arctic ice will have a significant impact on weather patterns throughout the northern hemisphere (if not the globe), but I have a hard time seeing how it could result in a swing back to an ice covered Arctic without that then cancelling out the factors which were causing it. The only ongoing long term change we are seeing right now is the rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Doesn't that mean everything else will be feedbacks around that trend? Or are there really potential negative feedbacks strong enough to completely cancel out and indeed reverse the warm forcing which caused them?
  49. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Gilles @ 15: Canadell also points out that the financial crisis did not affect all countries equally. While carbon dioxide emissions dropped in 2009 in places like North America, Europe and Japan, they increased substantially in China and India. Looking ahead, the researchers note that the International Monetary Fund is projecting an increase of global GDP by 4.8% in 2010, which will lead to an increase in global emissions of at least 3% this year. from this ABC story, which also states emissions fell 1.3% as a result of the financial crisis. 15 seconds with Google was able to get me to that page. I'm sure if I searched a bit more, I could find some more concrete numbers for 2010 emissions. The point that Dan makes in the article above seems pretty clear to me: A modest carbon tax will not cause major economic disruption, and will provide an incentive for people to reduce energy usage. It may even save them money. Another way of looking at it: Now that there's a carbon tax in British Columbia, you can be sure that every business operating there (and many individuals too) is going to spend a least a little bit of effort on improving energy efficiency. A lot of the impacts of that will only be felt years down the track - kind of like fuel efficiency standards for cars. If you legislated today that new cars had to use 1/10th the fuel of current cars, it would take years before you saw a significant drop in total fuel consumption, and probably 20 years before you reduced consumption by 90%. On the flip side - if you refuse to implement better efficiency now, you'll pay the price for decades, in higher energy costs. I'm interested in finding out how much Mr Hunter paid for gas before he added insulation and turned down his thermostat. Was it more than he currently pays with the carbon tax?
  50. A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
    Vladimer, first you falsely say that renewable energy sources like wind, water, and solar are not currently technologically advanced enough to replace fossil fuels... and that therefor we should not pursue them on the assumption that they will eventually become so. Then you turn around and say that radical advances in nuclear fission power and even fusion(!) power are right around the corner and thus should be the path we follow. I refer your argument 2 to your argument 1. Why go with technology which may become viable rather than technology which already is viable?

Prev  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  1796  1797  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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