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  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  1862  1863  1864  1865  1866  1867  1868  Next

Comments 93001 to 93050:

  1. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    Charlie - if sealevel stays are 3-4mm per year, then I would say no problem. We can adapt fast enough. If it exceeds 10mm/year, that is another story but that is the prediction for latter part of this century. Frankly worrying about Manhattan seems a little twee compared to issues of storm surge, erosion and salt-invasion on the big deltas of the world.
  2. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    muoncounter: "Yes, it's called landfill". That's exactly what I meant. Do you expect our ability to fill in shoreline will be reduced or enhanced in the future? Here is a graph of the sea level rise at Battery Park, per NOAAs records. Note that it has pretty much risen at the same rate over the last 150 years, and has not yet drowned the city.
  3. It's too hard
    It's a bit of misdirection at work. What makes for a high standard of living is not ready access to fossil fuels. It's ready access to energy. If that energy just happens to come from, say, solar / wind / hydro / nuclear / biofuel sources, then, well, what do you know, the standard of living is still the same! I also agree with michael sweet's comment at #5: many developed economies are running quite nicely with far lower carbon intensity that the US or Australia. But, no, it's all about "I've got a right to drive the kids to school in a two-and-a-half-tonne SUV that gets 12 miles to the gallon!" The low-hanging fruit is definitely points 1 and 3 in the article above. The cost is minimal, but the savings in terms of energy are quite substantial! By "minimal cost", I really do mean minimal, e.g. with far stricter fuel efficiency requirements on new vehicles, total fuel consumption would drop significantly as older vehicles were replaced. What would the cost be? Approximately zero, financially, but certainly a lot of complaining from people who like to drive huge cars with thirsty engines... What about better insulation of buildings? Well, there are plenty of case studies pointing out that this is a net positive over the longer term, as you generally make back more than the cost of the insulation in terms of lower energy bills. This is only going to become more so as electricity and gas prices continue to rise.
  4. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    "Manhattan has consistently expanded in size," Yes, it's called landfill.
  5. The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
    A catastrophe for pseudo-skeptics would be higher taxes, more expensive fuel, or horrors, regulations. Raising the global mortality rate by several million a year is just fine so long as they are long way away and preferably Muslim.
  6. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    Man seems to be keeping ahead of the ocean. Manhattan has consistently expanded in size, even as the sea level rises. http://www.racontours.com/archive/coastline_anim.php
  7. The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
    I'm quite willing to agree that climate change is only one of the factors that might drive this mass extinction event (which already seems to be well underway). But making a bad situation worse is never a good approach. Reading some of the responses above to my comment, I was struck by a thought: it seems many of the AGW 'skeptics' have an attitude of "Hey, I got mine, why should I care?" This particularly applies to the biodiversity that is being threatened by mass extinction, although I've seen quotes suggesting that some of them don't hesitate to apply it even to their own children. I can only put it down to a profound ignorance of the role that ecosystem services play in ensuring the quality of life that we enjoy today.
  8. Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
    Dana, Didn't Christy also make the misleading comment that the Antarctic is gaining ice? I can't remember is he said that or that the Antarctic sea-ice is increasing. Either way, both are wrong and/or misleading. RickG, Yes, it was quite partisan and the Republican's especially seemed to intent on using their 5 minutes to make ideological rants or spout as many myths about climate science and AGW as they could. They should be ashamed, yet bizarrely they wear their ignorance like a badge of honour and (wrongly) perceive themselves as Galileos. Incredibly disappointing and discouraging that a nation who put men on the moon and which has made so many fine scientific discoveries has now sunk to this. What is annoying is that the EPA have addressed all their concerns in detail, see here.
  9. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    For the record, here's the Sea Level Rise Explorer map of Manhattan. The red strip along the southwest side of the island is the West Side Highway. Red is just a bit above current sea level. The PATH trainyards just south of 34th St are a particularly low point; the aircraft carrier referred to is part of a museum a few blocks north. The GISS office is uptown and uphill a bit (in the green), but with a good view of events. If you zoom the map, look for Broadway and 112St, about 1000' off the river.
  10. HumanityRules at 13:41 PM on 10 March 2011
    Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    "Your prior comment was deleted due to violations of the Comments Policy." Which one? It made exactly the same point as MattJ in #1 except with a little more sarcasm (and I thought fun). OK I'll quote MattJ and say I absolutely agree with him. "That still sounds implausible, not at all helpful to getting people to take the issue and the predictions seriously."
  11. HumanityRules at 13:34 PM on 10 March 2011
    Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    You don't like sarcasm?
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Your prior comment was deleted due to violations of the Comments Policy.
  12. HumanityRules at 13:32 PM on 10 March 2011
    Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    Erm maybe I should eat my words :) I thought I'd post a link to a webcam of West Side Highway so people could follow the progress of the rising water. I got this one which seems to show an aircraft carrier travelling down the road. It looks like we're too late! http://www.earthcam.com/panasonic/new_york_wshw.html
  13. Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
    I watched the hearing and was very disappointed with the proceedings. It seemed the policy makers (both sides) were more interested in making their own statements than trying to solicit and understand any of the science. It also seemed that both sides directed questions to get the answers they wanted to hear.
  14. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Fred S, Thanks for the reassurance; I guess nuclear plants are safe after all. However, on a more relevant matter for this thread: I note that your fair summary is clipped verbatim from 'The global warming scam'. Google "4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins" and you get the whole thing, kicking around the denier echo-chamber since 2005 or so. As you've seen from the response, that's not a much of a source. If you care about your own credibility, please investigate some real science.
  15. It's too hard
    Gilles, "if you really think that the influence of fossil fuel consumption on the standard of living is less obvious... " I most certainly did not say that; I simply said that your attempt at substantiating your point failed dismally. It would be far more beneficial for the conversation at large if you tempered your opinions with actual facts. That is really what this website is all about. Facts can be discussed and evaluated; opinions just hang in the breeze.
  16. Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
    "But there is a real place in the debate for those people, those with dirt under their fingernails, who are in the unique position to be able see whether the way the climate performs in theory is how it actually manifests itself on the ground." Yep, like the people I & my fellow employees talk to on a pretty regular basis-& you want to guess what their feeling is about Global Warming John? They're even more nervous about it than the scientists are-because they're seeing first hand the negative impacts that warming temperatures & more extreme hydrological cycles are having on their crop yields.
  17. Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
    "•Cereal grains including rice, wheat, barley, oats and rye average between 25 and 64 percent higher yields under elevated CO2 levels." Well perhaps-*if* the plants in question are getting sufficient nitrogen, water & trace elements, & are not also being subjected to abnormally warm weather. Also, recent FACE trial results (from Horsham in Victoria) suggest that-even in ideal conditions-any such gains are short-term only, as the plants quickly become acclimatized to the higher CO2 levels.
  18. Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    Timothy Chase: Please contact me ASAP. mandias-at-sunysuffolk.edu
  19. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    I am so tired of the right's penchant for equating predictions with prophecies. There are always conditions inherent in predictions that if changed outside the assumed or stated limits nullifies the prediction. It becomes neither right nor wrong.
  20. The Climate Show Episode 8: Kevin Trenberth
    I asked about the OLR "trend" in NOOA data. Gavin Schmidt's response: "it's almost certainly from the NCEP reanalysis. The trends are corrupted by changes in the observing network and uncorrected biases in obs make these trends not robust and untrustworthy. If you look at the ERA interim, I'm sure it would look very different." Note exactly the first time there has been issues with NCEP reanalysis trends that arent. While I note papers using the OLR from ERA-interim (eg Claudio Belotti, Richard Bantges and John Harries), I cant actually find the data so maybe not released yet. Anyone know better?
  21. Blaming the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    DB: Since you believe Tamino's use of the wrong SST dataset in an analysis is "de facto standard in climate data analysis", there's no reason for me to continue to discuss this matter.
  22. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Further to what RickG said. Fred, thought experiment - you could set up temperature monitoring network over say a small region, measure for a couple of years to get some averages, then start comparing anomaly temperatures from these stations to see how well they are spatially correlated. If the temperature anomalies are highly spatially correlated, then could reduce no. of station. If not, then you need to increase network to get better estimate of region temperature. Seem like a reasonable experiment to you? You would accept its results?
  23. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Agnostic - google for their "contributions" over at realclimate. See what you think (same old, same old despite helpful responses obviously ignored). Perhaps comments policy needs an extra clause: claims in responses must be substantiated by data and/or papers.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Indeed, some have a knack for saying less with more. As for the comments policy, repetitive unsubstantiated claims can and have gotten deleted in the past; that can also happen in the future. :)
  24. michael sweet at 11:27 AM on 10 March 2011
    It's too hard
    Gilles: According to this Wiki page almost all European countries and Hong Kong produce about 25% of the CO2 per capita as the USA. My observation is that their living standards are about the same as the USA. Can you provide data to support your extraordinary claim of standard of living depending on fossil fuel consumption, or would you rather continue to assert this claim without data? Obviously it is possible to live well with 25% of USA emissions, Europe is doing it now. You have provided little or no data to support your claims. Why should I believe your hand waving?
  25. Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
    The Penn State model is a useful educational tool for visualizing projected big picture impacts of climate change on agricultural production. Stockle et al. at Washington State University (USA) recently published the results of a similar modeling project focused on climate impacts on rainfed wheat, irrigated potatoes, and irrigated apples, three major crops eastern Washington, which has a cool semi-arid to sub-humid climate. They compared four climate models over using the IPCC A1B scenario (middle of the road CO2 emissions), linking them to a well-tested crop growth model. For each crop they ran 4 scenarios, 1) climate effect alone, 2) climate + adaptation (variety and planting date shifts), 3) climate and CO2 effect, and 4) climate + CO2 + adaptation. Modeled temperature increases by late century were around 3 C (compared with 1975-2005 baseline) and precipitation increases were projected. Only winter wheat showed yield increases from climate alone (at some locations), while spring wheat, apples and potatoes declined. Including CO2 effects and adaptation resulted in projected yield increases for apples and potatoes, but decline in quality could be an issue. In some ways this study approaches a best case scenario. The simulations assumed adequate nutrients (likely to be true) and sufficient irrigation water (more problematic given that snowpack is a major local irrigation source), and did not account for extreme weather events, or changes in weed, insect or disease pressure. The authors also noted uncertainty of the extent beneficial effects of CO2 as another caveat.
  26. A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
    "And I repeat : I do not take as granted the speculations about 2020. I'm just looking at ordinary people around me." I do so love how some people turn anecdotal evidence into general *fact*. This claim is as utterly pointless, Gilles, as your earlier question to me. Though I do know several people who own either an EV or an HEV, even if they didn't it wouldn't change the basic fact that an both classes of vehicle generate only an average of 13kg of CO2/100km (even if powered entirely from coal) compared to around 25kg of CO2/100km in a standard car run by a reciprocating engine. Of course, even if you ignore the benefits of the reduced CO2 emissions, there is the obvious reduction of benzene, ozone & particulate emissions at the source-which is good for the health of pedestrians & bike-riders who have the share the road with car drivers.
  27. A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
    Gilles, even an HEV has a lower CO2 footprint than a regular vehicle-a fact you seem utterly determined to ignore. If you use an HEV solely for the daily commute, then you probably won't even need to use the petrol-burning component-yet even if you do need to burn petrol, it will still be several times more efficient than in a reciprocating engine-which gets less than 20% thermal efficiency. Why don't you just come clean, Gilles, & admit that your dislike of HEV's & EV's is because you see them as a threat to your Oil Industry shares.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please dial back the rhetoric a bit. Whether or not someone has, or hasn't, "oil industry shares" isn't germane to the topic of this post. Thanks!
  28. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Fred, I think you are wrong about comparing temperatures of different areas of a plant to the planet. For measuring the average temperature of the planet, NASA/GISS uses a grid system consisting of some 8,000 grid boxes of which there are many measuring sites within each. Regions do vary greatly but that is what gives the global average. What happens in one region can affect another. But in your plant setting the average temperature of the building is not an issue as there are probably many areas with separate thermostats that are set and controlled specifically for those areas. They do not affect the rest of the plant. As for you reactor temperature that is very important to control. If it starts getting too high that is a serious problem. The Earth as well has critical temperatures that seriously affect the many environments.
  29. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    There are times when I wonder if Gilles and Fred intend making a genuine contribution to the debate – in this case the need to limit atmospheric CO2 concentration to 350ppm by 2100 and how this might be done – or, in the tradition of the best denialists, simply make misleading, unsubstantiated, or untrue statements? If the latter, it seems so pointless, particularly on SkS.
  30. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Also false, Fred, is your claim "The tabloids (and climate science) inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the 'New Glaciation.'" See the Argument "Ice age predicted in the 70s" about climate science predictions. What the tabloids published is entirely irrelevant.
  31. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Fred Staples, you wrote: "1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids (and climate science) inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the 'New Glaciation'. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown." Your claim of unknown cause is false, as explained in the Argument "It cooled mid-century."
  32. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    I will respond to all the comments, but I should first say something to muoncounter (55) so that he can sleep more soundly. I was writing about the measurement of ambient temperatures which related to working conditions, not core temperatures which related to nuclear safety. The problem was that, with relatively few measurement sites, and measurements which were neither continuous nor simultaneous, it was impossible to know the average temperature of the building. All that we could measure was trends at the measurement sites, and even these would be distorted by ventilation changes, doors opening and closing, etc. The parallels to global temperatures are obvious, which is why I made the point. However, think about the core temperatures, which are seriously important. We had (in my day) fixed points inside the core recording temperatures continuously. The maximum permitted core output depended on the average temperature, and the safety of the reactor depended on the highest temperature of an individual fuel element. Both these temperatures were strictly limited, but, by definition, not measured. Inevitably, we had to use a combination of statistics, probability, and sound theory backed up by laboratory based measurements. I hope that helps, but I am not sure that it will.
    Moderator Response: Respond to each point on the appropriate thread as the responders have pointed you to. A general thread such as this one is okay for starting conversations, but getting into more detail must be done on more relevantly narrow threads. Feel free to post comments here, simply linking to your responses on the relevant, narrow threads.
  33. It's too hard
    Muoncounter : if you really think that the influence of fossil fuel consumption on the standard of living is less obvious than that of the average temperature, I'm afraid I can't argue further with you. We are obviously not living on the same planet.
  34. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Fred says @70, "Since the UAH data shows no warming of the mid-troposhere since 1979 (the only significant warming period) this data alone would be sufficient to destroy the CO2 theory." SkS Readers, this statement is demonstrably false. Consider these data from RSS derived from satellites for the mid troposphere (TMT): Also, consider these data from the GUAN: From NCDC: "[radiosonde] Data collected and averaged between the 850–300 mb levels (approximately 5,000 to 30,000 feet above the surface) indicate that 1958–2010 global temperature trends in the middle troposphere are similar to trends in surface temperature; 0.13°C/decade (0.23°F/decade) for surface and 0.16°C/decade (0.29°F/decade) for mid-troposphere. Since 1976, mid-troposphere temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.18°C/decade (0.32°F/decade). For 2010, global mid-troposphere temperatures were 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 1971–2000 mean—the warmest on record."
  35. Rob Honeycutt at 09:43 AM on 10 March 2011
    Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Fred @ 70... Wow. You've cataloged quite a body of misinformation there. I take note that none of what you've stated is substantiated by research. One thing I always appreciate here at SkS is the fact that everyone (most) people link to actual peer reviewed literature to back up what they say. Anything less is hand waving.
  36. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Fred Staples, you wrote: "1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown." Your claim of unknown cause is false, as explained in the Argument "It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low."
  37. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Fred: The association with rising CO2 since 1977 might, of course, be a classic case of the correlation-causation statistical fallacy: A is happening, B is happening, therefore A causes B. Except the physics of CO2 is well known and tested. Joseph Fourier demonstrated the greenhouse effect in 1827. John Tyndall discovered that CO2, water vapor and NH4 were greenhouse gases while O2 and N2 were not in 1858. Svante Arrhenius calculated that doubling CO2 would warm the Earth by 4-6 deg C in 1896. The over whelming majority of climate scientists today agree that a doubling of CO2 will cause a warming of about 3 to 3.5 deg. C. I think your correlation-causation statistical fallacy is wishful thinking on your part.
  38. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    A follow-up on my previous post - global temperature decrease in the year with out summer was 0.4-0.7°C, with rather larger local effects in the NorthEastern US and Northern Europe. Again, compare this one or two year event - that trashed agriculture in the Northern Hemisphere - with a 2°C rise that persists for centuries. And then try to convince anyone that it's not going to be a problem for us...
  39. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Fred Staples - "1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown." (Emphasis added) That would be, to put it mildly, incorrect. There was a combination of a serious low in solar activity tied with multiple high end volcanic eruptions, including Mount Tambora in 1815, which injected volcanic dust into the stratosphere (aerosol forcing). Note the Northern European temperatures, relative to 1971-2000: This was a severe event, but limited to about a years duration, with temperature changes of about -3C in the worst areas. Makes you wonder what +2C temperatures persisting for decades or centuries will do to us, eh? As to the rest of your post - I suggest you look at (and comment upon) the tropospheric hot spot thread. Your claims on that topic are not supported. As to CO2 and your claims that it doesn't cause warming, I suggest you look at one of the (many) CO2 threads and comment appropriately.
  40. The Climate Show Episode 8: Kevin Trenberth
    That does not mean CO2 forcing doesn't exist, just that we cannot measure it. Pardon? For a CO2 forcing, you certainly can - but you have to look at the spectral data. See the papers at There's no empirical evidence. As to average OLR - that's interesting enough to ask the modellers, but as Huang and Ramanswamy show, there is not a straightforward relationship expected by the models. As to albedo - come on. We know albedo within limits of uncertainty and how variation in albedo operates in W/m2 as forcing is covered in IPCC report. These argument sound like excuses for no action rather a response to the science.
  41. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    The temperature record may not be accurate, but it is not necessarily rubbish, moderator, 49. The following is a fair summary of recent global temperatures. 4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown. AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown. 1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown. 1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown. 1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids (and climate science) inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown. 1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids (and this blog) notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation. We can say with certainty that CO2 could have had nothing to do with any of these episodes, except, perhaps, the last. The association with rising CO2 since 1977 might, of course, be a classic case of the correlation-causation statistical fallacy: A is happening, B is happening, therefore A causes B. You extend the fallacy by suggesting that if C, D, E and F are also happening, these are also caused by A if we cannot provide an alternative explanation. Einstein said, quite rightly, that "10,000 observations could confirm a theory, it only takes one to refute it." At RC you will find that the crucial "fingerprint" of AGW is the simultaneous warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. Since the UAH data shows no warming of the mid-troposhere since 1979 (the only significant warming period) this data alone would be sufficient to destroy the CO2 theory. Gavin Schmidts (of RC fame) response to me on this point is interesting: [Response: The MT (mid-troposhere) data has a very significant contribution from the stratosphere (which is cooling) and so is not expected to be rising very substantially. This is the whole reason why MSU-LT and the Fu and Johnson approaches were developed. - gavin] So, assuming that the UAH luminaries have not understood this argument, and are consequently publishing misleading data, is the stratosphere really cooling?. You can see the data in the Hadley centre radio-sonde records for the lower stratosphere. From 1958 to 1974 there was a fall of 1.0 degree centigrade, with a major volcanic eruption in 1964. Thereafter there are three distinct periods of level temperatures separated by the two volcanic eruptions marked on the chart. From 1974 to 1983, the beginning of the troposheric warming period, stratosheric temeratures did not fall. The El Chicon eruption was accomapnied by a step fall of about half a degree. Temperatures did not fall again until 1993, when a further drop of half a degree accompanied the Pintaubo eruption. Thereafte the temperatures have remained constant for 17 years. The overall fall from 1974 was (from the Hadley charts), about 1 degree, but in the years immediately following the volcanic eruptions temperatures rose by about 1 degree. It is a very big stretch to suggest that these step-wise stratospheric coolings (accompanied, as they are, by a reduction in ozone) explain the absence of warming in the troposhere. Nevertheless, it is on that stretch that AGW theory depends. As to "why isn't the rising CO2 having any effect", we would first have to ask why it should, which is where the burden of proof must lie. I have collected six different explanations from RC, of which only one is even plausible. We could perhaps discuss these in another post.
  42. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    JR, I think its pretty well understood when climatologists talk about a doubling of CO2 they are referencing a doubling of the pre-industrial amount of 280 to 560.
  43. Jesús Rosino at 08:25 AM on 10 March 2011
    Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    According to the quotes above, they just said "with doubled CO2" or "assuming CO2 doubled in amount". They didn't say "from pre-industrial levels". Thus it could be even taken as doubling from 1988 levels.
  44. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Regarding model predictions, I think this is what the "skeptics" is trying to distract people from: [Source here] Time to start applying the breaks.
  45. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    @NewYorkJ #6: I'm not sure how prone this particular highway is to flooding. Didn't Hansen's conversation in 1988 precede a major reconstruction of the West Side Highway? I had heard that at least part of the reason for this was that it was flood-prone. But I haven't lived in NY since the 60s, so maybe I heard wrong.
  46. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    Don't we have to wait 40 years after a doubling of CO2?
  47. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    One climate myth found on the internet, propagated by Anthony Watts Is there a climate myth found on the Internet that isn't propagated by Anthony Watts?
  48. The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
    RSVP, I don't know about everyone, but what I see is that humans are facing a triple threat of overpopulation, climate change, and peak oil. For instance, if there were only a couple million of us on the planet, we could consume several times as much fossil fuel energy as the average American and it would have little impact on the planet's climate. And, we could eat whatever we wanted and it would make little difference as well. My guess is that food production is pretty well optimized according to the average temperature and rain patterns that have existed for several thousand years. So, I'm guessing that if they change, and especially if there is no stabilization, and the change continues, there will be a drop in production. The earth's carrying capacity for the human population will be lowered. Looking at the trend lines, our need for food, as the population grows, is gaining on our capacity to produce food. A lot of our food production is heavily dependent on petroleum products including not just the gas to drive the tractors, but also fertilizers and pesticides. The three factors will combine to cause rises in food costs and shortages. As the price of food increases, at some point there will be an awful lot of angry, hungry people in the world, and they will blame their misery on someone else. At first it will be their own leaders, but will expand to include the ones who aren't hungry, most likely the Americans, Australians, and Russians since they most often have food surpluses. (Although there is an obvious counter-example to that this year.) Anyway, what was the quote I read, historically, when humans are faced with starvation or raiding, they raid every time. If some of the raiders have large armies or nukes, there could be a bit of an over-correction of the population versus carrying capacity ratio. It all comes down to how well a species can take energy from its environment. I should probably explain that I don't just mean energy that we use on the electric grid. To a predator, the prey is energy; to an herbivore, plants are energy; to plants, sunlight is energy. All species compete for energy. If a species is more adept at gathering energy than its competition, it has more offspring than its competition. Humans are the most successful invasive species I know of because they are so adept at consuming whatever is available. It would seem that our need to reproduce combined with our skill at utilizing whatever resources are available would lead to extinctions of many other species regardless of our impact on the climate, simply because we take to ourselves the energy resources that other species need. I am not saying we should be complacent about it, but I don't see how we can go from a few million to over 6 billion and counting without knocking off a few other species. I see climate change as a contributing factor to species extinctions as well as overpopulation, but I can make no claim is to which is more significant. I suppose what we are haggling over is the quantity of human life versus the quality of the lives that are.
  49. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    You need to take into account tides, atmospheric pressure, storms etc. Hence occasionally a small sea level rise, combined with tides etc, will result in flooding. The other point is that by not dealing with emissions now, you are offloading the cost of flood adaptation onto future generations. Increased warming means that sea levels will continue to rise, they won't stop once they reach a 'magic' number quoted in the press/media.
  50. actually thoughtful at 07:31 AM on 10 March 2011
    Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Gilles - 34 "Chinese and Indians don't get it" Both of the countries mentioned are investing very heavily in renewables. The point you seem unwilling to get is that renewable energy is the economic driver of this century. The policy in the US of letting other countries take the lead is dooming the US to losing its status as the dominant power in the world. And the saddest thing is it really, truly, isn't that hard to shift policy towards innovation and leadership. Even with our perverse governmental approach towards climate change (which continues to funnel billions into the system that are causing the problem (fossil fuel industries, transportation, sub-standard (from an energy efficiency point of view (see Energy Star for a list of standards that covers 20% of what is necessary)) AND starving the innovators of the funds necessary to develop, install and profit from renewable energy technologies) some innovation still survives. If the US wants to have economic dominance in the 21st century, it must lead in renewable fuels. There is no way out of that. And so far, the government has chosen to deal with other issues: wars in far off lands, healthcare, budget deficits and a host of other short term, minor concerns, while the world continues to heat up.

Prev  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  1862  1863  1864  1865  1866  1867  1868  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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