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  1846  1847  1848  1849  1850  1851  1852  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  Next

Comments 92651 to 92700:

  1. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Giles: "I may have forgotten some. Note that ALL so-called "alternative" energies require cheap and abundant materials above, all made with ... cheap fossil fuels." I suggest you read up on carbon footprints. Much of this work has been done and the issues you elude to have been taken account. Energy carbon footprints for renewables are well known and hence we know that the fossil fuel inputs for renewables are tiny.
  2. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gilles, Alex C : you seem also to persistently ignore that the POSITIVE effects of fossil fuel consumption are much more obvious and measurable than the NEGATIVE ones, The reason they're more "obvious" has a lot to do with selective attention (e.g., ignoring externalities and opportunity costs), and that in turn has a lot to do with politics and money. In other words, you're confusing ideology with reality.
  3. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Everett Rowdy: "Scientists tend not to operate in this manner which is partly why there has been little traction on advancing this issue." Which is why both the left and right need to be behind the scientists and be supportive. Remember that left/right politics were born in the industrial revolution, so the idea that one is green and one is not is complete rubbish, both have a long history of burning fossil fuels and ripping up the environment.
  4. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    and if you want me to be more specific, dana, fossils fuels are NOT easily and cheaply replaceable for such uses : transportation, metallurgy (steel, copper, zinc, and all kinds of material), fabrication of cheap cement, glass, paper, plastics, glues, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, synthetic rubbers, detergents, and to insure stable electric power production (where hydroelectricity is not available). I may have forgotten some. Note that ALL so-called "alternative" energies require cheap and abundant materials above, all made with ... cheap fossil fuels.
  5. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Everett Rowdy: "They are doing so because they oppose environmentalism" Then you/they don't have a clue what they are talking about. Everett Rowdy: "they dislike leftist politicians" Explain what relevance that has to cutting emissions or 'green' policies?? I live in the UK and most conservatives I know are pretty green and the local council which has been Tory for decades signed up for the 10:10 campaign last year. Your problem is that American politics have gone off the rails and has become ignorant of the reality of what needs to be done. You can plant trees commercially or by the state. It doesn't matter what the politics are as long as you plant trees. Same goes for emissions. Everett Rowdy: "they fear big government" Again this is completely irrelevant. If you don't like big government then find other ways of making the same cuts in emissions. That is your job, no one cares how it is done or is achieved. Be creative and do it your way.
  6. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    dana1981 : you're issuing unjustified statements. If you were right, please explain me why countries like Iceland still use fossil fuels, although they must entirely import them and that they have plenty of renewable electricity - much more than what they need for their personal use. Are they so stupid ?
  7. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Marcus : "Last of all, Gilles, the EU-27 countries achieved around a 15% reduction in total energy consumption-across all sectors of the economy (industrial, commercial, domestic & transport)-without any detriment to GDP growth." This statement is plainly wrong . CO2 emissions have improved thanks to the use of more efficient power plants (especially in the former Eastern bloc), but generally the energy consumption has increased.
  8. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gille - wealth correlates with energy consumption, period. There's nothing special about fossil fuels except that they're an artificially cheap energy source, which we've used for centuries. We can replace fossil fuels with other energy sources, and the economy will continue to grow.
  9. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Alex C : you seem also to persistently ignore that the POSITIVE effects of fossil fuel consumption are much more obvious and measurable than the NEGATIVE ones, for a very simple reason : for 200 years , the world economic growth has been correlated positively with FF consumption and negatively with temperatures. Shouldn't it have been the opposite, if you were right ?
  10. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Angus @103, It seems that you sincerely think that you are onto something here-- unfortunately, you are not. I do not have time right now to address this today (family comes first), but I'll do my best to reply on Monday. PS: "Eyeballing" graphs as you suggest is incredibly dangerous and not at all scientific.
  11. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    There is little need to convince politicians (on the left or right) that climate change is real and dangerous. Nor is it necessary to convince them that civilization as we know it might come to an end. The most effective strategy is to convince politicians that their careers are coming to an end if they don’t take effective action.
  12. Tenney Naumer at 05:30 AM on 14 March 2011
    Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    You know who I voted for! LOL This site is just so marvelous, such a valuable resource, and such great work by all involved.
  13. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    While rational thought is essential to good science, I think those who advocate addressing climate change need to recognize that most voters and politicians act according to their emotions and values. As the National Academy of Sciences has said, the science behind anthropogenic climate change is settled fact. People who oppose action in response to climate change are not doing so because they do not get the science. They are doing so because they oppose environmentalism, they dislike leftist politicians, they fear big government, they perceive intellectual elitism in the scientific world or they just like being contrarian. These are not positions that have been arrived at via rational analysis and peer review. It is futile to expect that demonstrating the science further will sway these people. If we truly want voters to consider climate change, we must appeal to their emotions and values. Scientists tend not to operate in this manner which is partly why there has been little traction on advancing this issue. Compounding the situation is that economic fear is much more immediate for voters and the short-term health of our economy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Where the scientific process can make a difference is with youth. Youth are not calcified in their values and not locked into ruts of confirmation bias (seeking only those news articles and opinions that reaffirm entrenched positions). Youth have natural intellectual curiosity that can be nurtured to wonderful heights in our educational institutions. Youth love challenges and love forging new ways than those of their elders. And of course, they have the most at stake. Granted, this is a longer term solution and time is of the essence. But at least scientists won't be wasting time at climate change hearings or arguing with adults.
  14. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    garythompson: a majority of Americans to have preconceived notions with any AGW message that is delivered. Can you point to any source for this claim? In every study I've ever seen, it's the "skeptics" who are decidedly in the minority, despite the constant stream of slander and disinformation from well-funded denialist groups. Unless I'm mistaken, surveys consistently show that most Americans support the Clean Air Act, the EPA and other environmental regulations.
  15. Rob Honeycutt at 05:12 AM on 14 March 2011
    The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
    Robert... I think you're one of the experts in this field who frequents SkS. Do you think it's fair to say that Bond events suggest that heat is frequently redistributed around the planet? I definitely got from the reading I did that this is a very complicated topic. In fact, global temperature during the Holocene, in general, seems to be a very complicated topic. I did two other posts (Crux of a Core 1 and 2) talking about the error of pointing to a single proxy as evidence of what global temperatures were. I wanted to use Bond events to start to paint a larger picture of the Holocene. What we don't see is various proxies going up and down in unison. We see somewhat chaotic signals where it's difficult to pinpoint why and how heat is being redistributed from one place to another. Correct? From the perspective on someone deep into the science of these events it's controversial. The exact why, how, where, are up for debate. From the perspective of the more general public it seems to me Bond events suggest that the Holocene is very stable compared to glacial periods, but still involves redistribution of heat around the planet.
  16. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Albatross @101, there does not seem to be much in your post that actually refers to my post @100. Your post seems to consist of quoting typical "skeptic" arguments and then disagreeing with them. Nevertheless, I respond as follows in attempt to clear up any misunderstanding with the data that was actually posted by me. Re "Aaah, the goal posts shift," I am not aware that the goal posts were shifted. In angusmac @100, I presented data from AR4 because both you and the Moderator were of the opinion that I was off topic in @66. Re, "I am not going to take your posted Figure at face value. Given the choice between a practicing climate scientist and you, I choose Dr. Schmidt." You don't need to take Figure 1 at face value. Just look at Figure TS.26 from AR4 here, then move, copy or eyeball the 2005 data to 2010. It is permissible to move the data because they are "indistinguishable" (Hansen, 2011). Voila! You have my Figure 1. Please note that the 2000-2011 temperature data follows the zero-emissions scenario and all done by "prominent climate scientists." Re Hansen (2010), "the global warming trend of 0.15°C-0.20°C per decade that began in the late 1970s." You have missed my point completely. If you re-read my posts @66 and @100, you will see that (on topic) I compare emissions scenarios with current and future temperatures based on Hansen (2006) and AR4. These studies show that their emissions scenarios diverge at 2000 but more importantly so do actual temperatures. The emissions continue to increase whilst temperatures follow the zero-emissions scenarios. Therefore Albatross, it would be useful (and I suggest on topic), if you amended the 1880-2010 temperature diagrams presented by you to compare them with emissions scenarios from the modern period, instead of just posting the temperature diagrams as stand-alone. AR4 uses 1985-2025 for its emissions/temperature comparison. It would be interesting to see your comparison for this period. In summary, I have presented data from two studies by prominent climate scientists, (Hansen, 2006) and AR4. These studies, when updated with current temperature data, show that actual temperatures are tracking their zero-emissions scenarios not their moderate/high emissions-scenarios. Hence my statement that, "I[t] would appear that Mother Nature is putting the brakes on for us" is corroborated by these studies because Mother Nature is not following the moderate/high emissions-scenarios. Nevertheless, I would urge caution in jumping to conclusions too soon; Hansen (2006) suggests that we could expect reasonable results for distinction between his scenarios and useful comparison with the real world by 2015.
  17. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    One must ask why do conservative think tanks like the Heartland Institute sponsor climate change conferences with a GW denial agenda, not to mention all the disinformation posted on their website..
  18. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gary @2, "Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office." What is also extremely disturbing is that these ideologues were elected to office. That does not reflect well on the scientific understanding and social conscience of the people who voted them into office. To be perfectly candid, that people here are defending the anti-science agenda of the Republicans sickens me.
  19. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Susanne #17 - Skeptical Science is also about climate solutions. If politicians are going to ignore, or worse, attack climate science, we can talk about it until we're blue in the face and it won't do much good. nofreewind - we're at the cusp of a transition to electric cars. It's going to take some time, but there are already plenty of options. Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, Coda, etc. I own an electric moped that I bought for $3k, about the same as a cheap used car. A perfect second vehicle. Tom Curtis - once again, we don't live in a democracy. If we did, we would already have a carbon cap and trade system in place. Further, a decent percentage of Republicans support cap and trade, yet virtually no Republican politicians do. They're not representing their constituents on this matter.
  20. Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    I'm sure this must be hugely gratifying for you and all of the people who support this site with posts and follow up information. Having spent a lot of time searching for reliable sources of information and seen the quality of much that is available I don't find the nomination even mildly surprising. Long may you run.
  21. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gary @2, "Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office." Most of the GOP politicians are not looking out for the interests of their present constituents, and especially future generations. Really telling and sad that you fail to see that. Also sad that you are also seemingly OK with the Republican's anti-science agenda and their repeated attacks on the science and scientists. That some of their own (like Markey) are even ridiculing them speaks to the travesty here.
  22. Rob Honeycutt at 03:50 AM on 14 March 2011
    Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    nofreewind @ 33.... You actually need to add a trend line to that data series you just posted.
  23. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    nofreewind: "I agree! But could you please explain how you propose to do that?" I haven't owned a car for over 10 years. As far as I know, I don't live in a cave and my computer has a silicon chip in it. Amazingly, I have food every day and I could if I wanted, travel to the other end of the country without stepping a foot into a car! Instead of whining about your perceptions of what modern is, I suggest you just get on with the job and change. 'Modern' doesn't actually equate to wealth or material ownership. That is a distortion of the word. The only thing modern refers to is 'the present' or 'now' and that can be anything.
  24. Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    Congratulations on this well-deserved honor. I hope my following comment is seen as a compliment: I've thought of this site as the Thomas Edison of climate blogging. I can hardly keep track of the quantity and quality of contributions here. jg
  25. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    >In order to de-carbonise the US road fleet, you need to reduce dependency on cars and those that are used need to be electric. Hence to reduce dependency on foreign oil, you need to decarbonise electricity and move the US road fleet over to cleaner tech. I agree! But could you please explain how you propose to do that? Only a negligible amount of people could even afford to buy an electric car. Do you expect our Governments to go into even more debt and place the burden of paying for these electric cars on our descendants, is that the meaning of sustainable, buy now pay later? Even if we did that, would most people use the electric car as a second car for limited use, thereby even placing more stress on the resources used to manufactured these theoretical cars? Or do you propose a mandatory complete restructuring of our modern civilization? For instance, you can see the difference between Japan and Haiti with earthquake damage. A poor country with a much smaller earthquake suffers extensive damage, for rich Japan the damage was comparatively negligible. (most damage was caused by unstoppable tsunami). Do you propose that our world uses all of its' resources to prepare for this AGW "theory"(IPCC says only 90% certain) thereby crushing our overall prosperity. 40K cars using very expensive alternative energy is what i term as crushing to an economy.
  26. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Marcus. I haven't seen an electric car for well over six months, do they even exist??? I heard rumors that a couple hundred of them were sold? There is absolutely no foundation to believe at this time that electric cars will displace any appreciable amount of oil. Is that what you use? The fact is that wind and solar only contribute a negligible amount of energy to our world, they replace even a more negligible amount of oil. Yes, I cherry-picked the temperature data starting after 1998. But those are the facts as we stand. Obviously you "believe" that a small percentage of a degree increase in temperature is a sign of man-made global warming, when oceanic currents, Nino/Nina, create monthly global temperature changes many magnitudes higher? Until the current La Nina is finished, when it wants to be finished, we are going even lower. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf 12 years(cherry-picked) of Hadley data, no global warming, just random noise undoubtedly created by ocean currents. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999
    Moderator Response: [DB] "no global warming, just random noise"

    Incorrect. Tamino shows here, using Hadley data, the the warming signal in the data (after compensation for cyclical exogenous factors - such as ocean currents), is statistically significant since 2000:

  27. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    HR, "Is it possible that Hansen can be both a scientist and an ideologue?" Why not frame the question differently: Is it possible for a scientist to express a personal opinion? The ideologues are then those who seize those opinions and trumpet them for their own agenda.
  28. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    #26: "... it alone of all governments reflects the equal moral worth of all people by giving all people an equal say in the governance of their nation." Tom, Perhaps you haven't been around US politics. The last guy who truly believed that statement worked in practice also said it would require that 'kings were philosophers and philosophers kings.' Anyone who believes this is something new really must read Oreskes' Merchant of Doubt. She very clearly traces modern-era political attacks on the rules, if not the laws of science, back to their Cold War origins. The difference now is that political willpower (Karl Rove) is matched by greed (Koch bros et al) and that combination has learned to play on popular fear (Beck, Limbaugh, Palin). Without an educated electorate, what chance does science, especially something complicated like climate science, have against that?
  29. Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    I voted for SkS. :)
  30. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gilles: the argument was not that fossil fuel use by any one country is correlated with an inability to respond to these disasters. Your attribution is also a false one, as fossil fuel use is not what causes a country to become better adapted, but the ensuing technological advancements and investing from other, larger countries. Since widespread fossil fuel use is the main driver of the global warming we have seen in the past ~40-50 years and on toward the future, it does not make sense that we start to dig ourselves further into this hole. Advances are needed in other energy fields, and a phasing out of outdated tech is what will help us become more sustainable in the future.
  31. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    When I was a boy we were taught about King Canute (Cnut) and how, sitting on the beach, he commanded the tide to stop coming in so it wouldn't wet his royal personage. This was presented as an act of arrogance by the mighty. The more nuanced story is subtler and paints Cnut as being a bit more rational than the majority of Republicans... Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws". He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again "to the honour of God the almighty King". (from Wikipedia). If only the Republicans and fellow travellers would realise that just wishful thinking and indulging in rhetoric won't repeal physics.
  32. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    nofreewind: "He emphatically states we need to use wind/solar to get off foreign oil, yet oil is only used to produce 1% of US electricity, much of it for peaking units to respond to summertime heat waves." That is a pretty silly statement. The US mainly depends on coal/gas/nuclear for electricity, with coal at the top and producing most emissions. In order to de-carbonise the US road fleet, you need to reduce dependency on cars and those that are used need to be electric. Hence to reduce dependency on foreign oil, you need to decarbonise electricity and move the US road fleet over to cleaner tech. It is quite basic, I suggest you get used to the idea.
  33. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gary Thompson: "Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office. And many of those voters don't subscribe to the EPA regulations that are being defined and enforced by unelected bureaucrats. This may be hard to swallow for the AGW crowd but this is how Democracy works and that is how the Republic of the USA was set up." Democracy actually requires a politician to think beyond the self serving, or it is a requirement outside the US. If you are saying that winner takes all, then clearly you have a serious problem in the US and democracy has failed.
  34. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gary Thompson: "Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office." I don't think you have thought that through.
  35. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    What a can of worms this post has opened. I disagree with too many peoples responces to select and resond to particular posts. So, instead I will lay out what I believe briefly, and very briefly why. First, democracy is not "the worst form of government except for all the others". It is not because it is inefficient, or that it places a barrier against the untramelled action of the exucutive that it is desirable. These virtues (the first dubious, the second very desirable) can be achieved by other forms of government; and espousing these virtues as the reason for democracy inevitably leads to the corruption of democracy. Rather, democracy is desirable as government because it alone of all governments reflects the equal moral worth of all people by giving all people an equal say in the governance of their nation. Because that is the reason for democracy, the duty of a representative in parliament is not to "reflect the informed opinion of the public", or "to listen to the experts", or to "vote in the interests of their electorate". It is to reflect the actual opinions of the electorate. They can do this by always keeping their promises to the electorate, and by making their views on all matters clear to the electorate so that when they are stepping outside the realm of promises, they can have reasonable confidence that their informed opinions reflect those of the electorate. So, sad as it is, and as much as I dislike these alternatives, Republicans who campaigned on a platform of opposition to effective measures against AGW should vote against such measures until they are next up for election. And Julia Guilard in Australia should not vote for a carbon tax until after the next election. And yes, this will result in Republicans indulging in the absurdity of voting against the laws of physics. Of course, leaving it there would be a very shallow analysis. If a representative hides behind the will of the people for their voting record, then they are under an obligation to ensure the will of the people is reflected in parliaments. That means that first, and above all, nobody but citizens should be given the constitutional means to influence government, either by donations, or by access in meetings (except as necessary to carry on the foreign affairs of the nation). And no individual citizen should be given privileged access. So if a Republican votes against measures to counter AGW because it is the will of the people, but accepts anything but small donations from citizens in their electorate, then their reliance on a principle of democracy to justify their actions is a sham. Likewise, if they do not take every effort to accurately educate their electorate, and rigourously prosecute deliberate attempts at misinformation, their commitment to democracy is a sham. A person who want the uninformed consent of another is treating that other as less than a rational agent. They desire not the consent, but merely the appearance of consent. So, what realists about AGW shoud be doing is demanding that their political allies be real friends of democracy, by supporting campaign funding reform, including restricting the right to political advertisement to named citizens only. They should be legislating a strong expectation of truthfulness by media, and by witnesses to Congress (or Parliament). They should be abiding by those standards themselve, and fiercely exposing the frauds of those opposed to action on AGW, both in the science and in their political posturing. But they should never commend to anyone that they break a promise to the electorate. And nor should they try to set up governance by experts in which the primary duty of representatives is to by guided by a select group of experts. After all, the history of George W Bush's administration shows that you will not get to choose who the experts are. And seeking to establish governance by experts will just alienate the citizens of the nation.
  36. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Also, nofreewind, to put the previous post into perspective-coal makes up only 23% of total energy demand across all sectors, natural gas makes up 24% of total energy demand-across all sectors, nuclear power makes up around 8% (electricity sector only-obviously), with the remainder being supplied by renewable energy (around 7%). So, in fact, oil makes up the single *biggest* source of energy demand in the United States, by a significant margin, when you consider the entire economy-not just the electricity generation sector-which accounts for less than half of all demand for energy in the US. So it seems yours was yet another improperly researched rant.
  37. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Its you who needs to check your facts nofreewind. Petroleum might be used for only 1% of electricity production-but it makes up around 39% of *total* energy demand-across the transportation (28% of total energy demand-of which 95% is supplied by petroleum), industrial (21%, of which 42% is supplied by petroleum), residential & commercial (11%, of which 16% is supplied by petroleum) & electric power (40%, of which 1% is supplied by petroleum productions) sectors. Given that 15 *million* barrels per day of the oil needed to supply those energy demands come from *outside* the United States, I'd say the good Senator knows far more about what he is talking about than you do. Still, nofreewind, I've come to expect nothing but unfounded propaganda from you-& I see you've not changed. Nor has your penchant for cherry-picking of climate data to suit your own propaganda. For the record, in spite of your cherry picking efforts, both the HadCru & UAH data actually show a modest *warming* trend (+0.0013 degrees per year for HadCru & +0.0072 degrees per year for UAH). Seriously, mate, you really ought to double check the data before you post-or you just end up with some serious egg on your face!
  38. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Democracy should work by reflecting the informed opinion of the public. This opinion can be quite different from the uninformed opinion of public. A forceful example of this was presented to me on UK TV many years ago when there was a considerable difference between public and political opinion on the death penalty (public were more pro than politicians) The TV show took a representative sample of the population and subjected them to expert testimony and lobby groups from both sides of the argument. The result - the sample opinion shifted and agreed closely with the political opinion. This rather uplifting story illustrates some key points; 1. In many ways politicians are there to do our thinking for the people they represent. We cannot hope to be experts in all areas of public policy. 2. Political representatives should be willing to be influenced by expert testimony and to even change their opinion based on new knowledge 3. The fact that political and public opinion differs does not necassarily represent a failure of democracy. It could reflect a badly informed public
  39. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    This post was full of quotes by Senator Markey. Funny you should mention him, because here i am still seething from watching him on MSNBC Friday evening. This Senator is on the Committee on Natural Resources and also Energy & Commerce. He emphatically states we need to use wind/solar to get off foreign oil, yet oil is only used to produce 1% of US electricity, much of it for peaking units to respond to summertime heat waves. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html This is the state we find ourselves in. He was the cosponsor of the Waxman Markey Cap n Trade bill, yet he doesn't even understand the very very basic facts or electricity production. Or, more likely, he knows the facts. This man has absolutely no credibility to make any statements regarding energy or climate policy. Waiting for Global Warming, of course Climate Change is already here. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998
  40. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    garythompson if your 'theory' on the American 'psyche' is correct- or that of Missouri, and we wait for the 'show me' for climate change to become a problem 'seen' it will be long out of control, too late for us to do anything. We will reach that point as C02 crosses 400ppm in a few years, where avoiding serious climate change will not be possible.
  41. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    1 Quick problem. it is an ex ENRON and Goldman Sachs profit scheme that doesn't even change the outcome other then spreading poverty more. Personally, I thought "Cool It" was realistic vision of how to best tackle Global Warming while allowing the #1 killer called poverty to not get worse. The only advantage of cap and trade I see from a devious perspective, not my perspective, is spreading the #1 killer to reduce population and people contributing to carbon emissions. Alternative energy is great, but all we are getting out of Washington is lip service and politicians throwing money at their pet projects that also fund their campaigns (GE), while ignoring what other competitors are out their.
  42. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    "I just remind you that the consequences of droughts, the number of wars, and the famines are STRONGLY INVERSELY CORRELATED with the use of fossil fuels, as any scientific data would show you." So you keep claiming Gilles, yet you've actually failed to provide a single shred of scientific data to back your claim. In fact, its been my experience that the things which alleviate famine & poverty the best are-improved education, more even distribution of wealth, access to contraception & improved health care (which doesn't need to be heavily energy dependent). Energy plays a role, of course, but doesn't actually have to be in fossil fuel form-as Iceland proves quite nicely. Also, a graph by the International Energy Agency (which I currently can't find the link for) shows very little correlation between energy use per capita & per capita GDP. Last of all, Gilles, the EU-27 countries achieved around a 15% reduction in total energy consumption-across all sectors of the economy (industrial, commercial, domestic & transport)-without any detriment to GDP growth. Of course, these same EU-27 countries have also significantly reduced their consumption of electricity from fossil fuels. So, come on Gilles, where is this "mountain of evidence" proving that fossil fuel consumption automatically translates into freedom from poverty.
  43. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    It would be a smart move to the US to shift off fossil fuels for three reasons: - geopolitical, to limit its dependance from imported fuel, from pollitically unstable countries (financing undemocratic regimes on its way) - economic, as the clean technologies will be commercially important on the next decades. - environmental, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, the US policy is being held hostage of lobbyists (voters are secondary here). Maybe that's an important vulnerability that democracy should work to overcome.
  44. hengistmcstone at 21:24 PM on 13 March 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    What's the difference between gross CO2 emissions and net CO2 emissions?
    Moderator Response: [DB] Traditionally, gross emissions are thought of as the total worldwide emissions of the natural carbon cycle plus the injection of the extra CO2 emissions mankind additionally adds into it, while net emissions are total CO2 emissions (natural+manmade) minus the CO2 taken back up by natural sinks. Currently, natural sinks manage to take up about half of the extra manmade CO2 emissions; the result is the net increase reflected in the Keeling Curve database maintained by the Mauna Loa research station. We are currently about 40% higher CO2 concentration levels than at any point in the past 800,000 years (the last time CO2 levels were this high the world was a much warmer place with sea levels about 20-25 meters higher).
  45. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Seems to me that if this post was a comment it would violate the comments policy. I refer people to Skeptical Science and I read it myself for coherent, sensible, and accurate information about the science of climate as it's currently understood. US politics is a quagmire, but surely that doesn't mean it can suck down every decent climate site on the Web. Please no more political posts. Save them for sites where the argument is about the politics of climate; there's no shortage of those.
  46. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    MattJ : "We have already delayed so long that large parts of the world will be afflicted by such severe drought, wars and famines will follow and decimate the population. " you forgot the earthquakes... I just remind you that the consequences of droughts, the number of wars, and the famines are STRONGLY INVERSELY CORRELATED with the use of fossil fuels, as any scientific data would show you.
  47. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    @garythomson- Your idealized picture of the American personality is quite false. Why, now I have to play the part of the man from Missouri and ask YOu for the evidence for your stance: don't tell me, show me that such is the attitude of the majority of Americans. I have to believe it is not, since in both recent elections, they showed a lamentable tendency to do the very opposite, believe what is groundless and false instead. And they routinely do this in many other ways in their lives, too. Advertising relies on it! For that matter, and even more pertinent to this forum, you are the one making false and groundless claims concerning AGW, not Hansen et al. In fact, as has been pointed out very often now in this forum, it -was- Hansen who made the predictable and verifiable claim that global average surface temperature would continue to rise if we continued to pump CO2 into the atmosphere. And his scenario B -has- been verified. The case is -already- ironclad, yet here you are pretending it is not, and demanding more evidence! The time for debate is long over. Billions of dollars will be lost and millions of lives lost, with billions ruined because of the tragic delay people like you are so stubbornly insisting on. We have already delayed so long that large parts of the world will be afflicted by such severe drought, wars and famines will follow and decimate the population. But by the time we convince you and your ilk, it will be too late to prevent yet more deaths.
  48. The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
    Hi all, I am posting in support of Agnostic@47. I recommend rereading that post rather than this. This is just a footnote. We are all aware that the surface Arctic Sea Ice is disappearing. As the surface sea ice disappears, the heat accumulating in the ocean has to do something. It is quite likely to begin to melt the seabed. This is composed of sea water that has frozen in the presence of an abundance of methane. When it freezes, it the water traps the methane in a chemical lattice. This substance is called a methane clathrate. When surface sea ice melts, 1 litre of frozen water (ice) becomes one litre of liquid water. This matters in various ways that are discussed all over the net... When the frozen seabed melts, 1 litre of frozen seabed releases 0.8 litres of liquid water, and 168 litres of methane. For "litre" substitute "cubic kilometre" in the sentence above, and you are then staring at the scale of this problem. I should note that, b-----r the greenhouse effect of methane. It is a poisonous gas, and explosive. Furthermore, if the East Siberian shelf does begin to melt, it is very possible that there are very very large, very shallow deposits of gaseous methane which have been capped for some millenia by the solid methane clathrates above them. Should any one of these gas fields collapse, and vent into the atmosphere then: 1. there would be some danger of the atmosphere becoming anoxic for the purposes of mammalian respiration; 2. there would be a near certainty of an Arctic ocean tsunami, which would be highly likely to cause much more extensive damage to the sea bed... For any Republicans on here who are now delighted to learn that their vehicles will shortly be working better due to a greater level of methane in the atmosphere, I should perhaps point out that the infernal combustion engine also requires an abundant intake of oxygen to work at maximum efficiency...
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Welcome to Skeptical Science. Your contributions to the dialogue at Neven's are appreciated and will be a welcome addition here. I must add some qualifiers and cautions to your observations: while what you point out would seem to be an obvious possibility, the probability is highly uncertain. Further research and monitoring is needed. But the fact that what you point out cannot be dismissed out of hand is a both sobering and cautionary tale to all.
  49. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    As the article says, "Nevertheless, the mere existence of the bill is an ominous sign of the Republican war on climate science, in which they believe they can overturn scientific evidence based on nothing more than the ignorant opinions of a few politicians." Unfortunately, this blatantly anti-science attitude has long lurked in the Republican Party, and has now become fossilized in it thanks to the Bush Administration. This was, after all, the administration that made political interference in government and government sponsored science the norm.
  50. CO2 limits will harm the economy
    I have a question. Some developed countries like Iceland or Japan are almost devoid of fossil resources (mainly volcanic countries whose ground is too young to contain sedimentary rocks). Obviously, barring any CO2 effect, this would be very interesting for them to develop without using FF. there is no interest in using them if they can make it without them, they're expensive to import : and actually they did it when they could ! Iceland has a lot of renewable electricity (hydraulic and geothermal) and is also mainly heated by geothermal sources. BUT..but... they still use plenty of FF for the rest and they produce as much (or more ) CO2 per capita than comparable countries. So if it were so easy to suppress the use of FF, why didn't they do it a long time ago ? maybe the brilliant engineers of MIT should explain them how dumb they are and give them access to their marvelous solutions ?

Prev  1846  1847  1848  1849  1850  1851  1852  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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