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  2034  2035  2036  2037  2038  2039  2040  2041  2042  2043  2044  2045  2046  2047  2048  2049  Next

Comments 102051 to 102100:

  1. Pete Dunkelberg at 04:39 AM on 6 December 2010
    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Camburn # 27 You found a 1997 paper: Zender, C. S., B. Bush, S. K. Pope, A. Bucholtz, W. D. Collins, J. T. Kiehl, F. P. J. Valero, and J. Vitko, Jr. 1997. "This article contributed by NASA's Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs.)"
  2. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Archiesteel@24: I am not possessed with uncertainty. I read the papers for what they propose. This is a bit on and a bit off topic now: 1. Does co2 play a factor in climate. Yes, to a small extent. 2. Do we need to stop burning fossil fuels? Yes, emphatically. They are a finite resource that can't be replaced. 3. Should we use CAGW as the reason to stop burning fossil fuels? Naw....the error bars with the models etc are not up to snuff to do so. Should we use our heads and stop because fossil fuels are finite?.....YES....it is very easy to see that to any person with an ounce of brains. I look at the science for what is has shown. I see the AGW science as infant and subject to an enormous amount of factors, some known, a lot to be learned. That is why you don't see the public engaged. I have found this forum to be an interesting forum. I also see that some refuse to acknowledge how much we do NOT know. Just as the link I posted from NASA shows. Forget the carbon tax, that is foolish. Even Mr. Hansen thinks that is foolish. Investigate the origin of that idea. Goldman Sachs should come to mind. A money tree for them. There are solutions with proven tech to stop using so much fossil fuels. It is time to impliment them for the right reason: Fossil fuel is finite!
  3. Renewable Baseload Energy
    360 archiesteel I will repeat what I said above - If I think an argument is nonsense I will say so. If you think that is a "sales pitch" that's up to you.
  4. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    archiesteel@24: I hit the wrong key...it should have been: CAGW. Catastrophic AGW.
  5. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    We can play "what if" to our hearts content. I have stated that we don't know a lot about clouds. NASA seems to agree. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BlanketClouds/
  6. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    #24: "Coral bleaching is a vivid sign of corals responding to stress," Let's walk down your stress list point by point: a. increased (most commonly), or reduced water temperatures -- emphasis added b. increased solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet band light) -- not happening, unless you live under an ozone hole c. changes in water chemistry (in particular acidification) -- yes, that happens when CO2 concentration increases and is the point of this thread c. starvation caused by a decline in zooplankton -- do they die due to lowered pH? d. increased sedimentation (due to silt runoff) -- local effects only e. pathogen infections -- chicken and egg here, increased stress leads to greater susceptibility to infection f. changes in salinity -- most likely local (we'd notice it globally) g. wind -- random, at best h. low tide air exposure -- sea level is rising i. cyanide fishing -- whatever that means So the winner is ... most commonly temperature, acidification "CO2 appears to be essential for coral photosynthesis?" Corals are Cnidaria ... (animals). We don't do photosynthesis.
  7. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    muoncounter #76 "Presumably you exclude heat that would otherwise be radiated " CO2 at best translates (skyward) the location of heat departure, but does not "retain" any more heat than its specific heat capacity allows. Here, two links to compare these values. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html Given that water vapor has double the heat capacity of CO2, and abounds in excess of 100 times the anthropogenic contribution in CO2, this retained "energy" you are talking about represents at most 0.5% of the total ambient. I suppose that is energy, but it doesnt seem like much.
  8. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    #77: "HR's point is... " If this: "either a solar or CO2 initial forcing will be accompanied by a strong H2O GHG positive feedback" was HR's point, it remains irrelevant until someone can explain the objections raised in #66. You cannot claim a point is valid if that point depends on a mechanism that is nonsensical.
  9. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    #22: "GCRs always reverse. But what if they don't?" GCR occurrence on earth is moderated by the interplanetary magnetic field; to a lesser degree by the earth's magnetic field. Thus the frequency of GCRs observed on earth is a 'magnetic field proxy,' which can be correlated with solar intensity. GCR intensity ended 2009 at a record setting peak and "early in 2010 the intensity decreased to 1997-1998 levels," where it remains through October 2010 (date of the report cited). The moral of that story: a solar min corresponds with a GCR max. We measure these things. For GCRs not to reverse (whatever that means) suggests that the sun will no longer cycle? And yet there are already signs of such a 'reverse'. "But if the solar factors align differently in the next 30 years," We can all play 'what if' ... if you like.
  10. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    65 (Actually thoughtful)
    we KNOW there is no notable solar input
    This is very true, but beside the point. The question is whether or not this particular argument is further evidence of a lack of solar input, and it's not. Any warming, of any sort, will be accompanied by roughly 2C of GHG positive feedback in addition to the initial forcing. That means that any warming will have these same signatures (although to differing degrees). The fact that part of the warming could come from a non-GHG forcing will only be evident in relative degrees of these effects, and there's no way to break it down (without a few hundred earths on which to experiment). HR's point is valid. It doesn't disprove AGW, but this particular argument for proving GHG forced warming fails.
  11. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    @Eric: GCRs aren't caused by the sun. You make a lot of long-term suppositions, which is fine, however we have to rely on the current data we have in order to speculate about the future, and the current data doesn't suggest anything but continued warming due to human activity, with a possible increase over that due to increased solar activity. I think skeptics are beggining to grasp at straws. That's the feeling I get reading these comment sections, anyway.
  12. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    @Camburn: why are you obsessed with uncertainty? The fact uncertainty exists is no reason for complacency. Say you are playing russian roulette: there is a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not the next shot will be the bullet. Does that diminish the risk in any way? The whole insurace industry is built on managing risk and uncertainty. The life of a professional poker player as well. You have to realize that uncertainty is no reason to dismiss the threat posed by AGW. (Oh, and by the way, what does GAGW stand for? It doesn't seem to be a popular acronym, as I couldn't find much when I googled it. Did you invent it?)
  13. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @quokka: "You can discount whatever you wish. That's your problem not mine." Actually, it's your problem, as you are the one engaged in advocacy. If people challenge your sales pitch, you have to take it into account, otherwise I and others who believe nuclear should be part of the solution are bound to re-evaluate their position. Your problem is the same as Peter Lang's (minus the insults, thanks for that): in your rush to dismiss renewables in favor of nuclear, you are actually doing a disservice to the latter.
  14. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    It's interesting to note but I did a search on a forum that I am a member of and now realize that I have been fighting this problem for almost four months. The thread is here: Original Thread But don't bother reading it. It's not necessary. Bob
  15. Pete Dunkelberg at 02:28 AM on 6 December 2010
    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Denialism has been mentioned, and the "deny harder" response noted. But often and by no means only here, I get the impression that people in the climate area think of it largely in 19th century terms. To grasp this modern world one must be acutely aware of denialism as a set of rhetorical tactics. If you bring your concept of denialism up to date it becomes easier to see that we are dealing with industrial strength denialism.
  16. Eric (skeptic) at 02:26 AM on 6 December 2010
    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    In the Clement et al abstract: "This observational analysis further indicated that clouds act as a positive feedback in this region on decadal time scales." The observational analysis they refer to is a link from clouds to temperature and changes in large scale circulation. If we call the latter, X, it is obvious that X controls clouds which control temperature over the short run. In Lauer et al, they say "iRAM simulates mean clouds and interannual cloud variations that are quite similar to those observed in this region." How similar is "quite similar"? What about diurnal? And like the other paper, they are not considering X as a control on clouds which control SSTs and temperature in general. To be clear, my statements are about the short run, theirs are about the long run. But if the short run causation is circulation -> clouds -> temperature, then I don't think that a different causation is supported over the long run either. In a-detailed-look-at-galactic-cosmic-rays.html, Dana shows a "minor" influence of GCR on clouds, but shows that GCR doesn't explain warming, both correct conclusions for recent warming. The problem is that GCR can also have a major effect on the clouds in the short run which is always reversed because GCRs always reverse. But what if they don't? Obviously other long term factors can compensate, one of which is GHG. In How-we-know-the-sun-isnt-causing-global-warming.html Dana takes a "divide and conquer" approach to solar influences. That works for recent 30 years or so for which we have good data, but doesn't help for example for explaining the MWP. In short, a variety of natural factors plus CO2 warming explains the past 30 years. But if the solar factors align differently in the next 30 years, we could be looking at a situation in which a combination of solar factors negates or overtakes the GHG warming (e.g. increased GCR causing increased clouds, decreased UV causing more blocking, etc).
  17. Pete Dunkelberg at 02:17 AM on 6 December 2010
    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Some people underestimate what climate models can do. But check comment 20 here.
  18. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    J Murphy@18: Thank you for the link. Again, I will state that the level of certainty in the models concerning clouds is not there. If you want to read papers that agree with your ideas as gospel, even tho the papers are 100% honest in their assesment of what has been learned, that is your perogative. After all, GAGW is still in the hypothosis stage and has not advanced to theory stage. There is a huge amount to learn about how clouds act/interact. On a global scale, there is nothing deffinitive as of yet.
  19. Pete Dunkelberg at 02:02 AM on 6 December 2010
    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    TimTheToolMan, This is a Model Intercomparison study, linked as usual to the appropriate data.
    Figure 1: Annual average TOA shortwave cloud forcing for present-day conditions from 16 IPCC AR4 models and iRAM (bottom center) compared with CERES satellite observations (bottom right)
    and not presented as definitive. Look at the last line:
    ...while much more research of the cloud-climate feedback is needed, he evidence is stacking up against those who argue that climate sensitivity is low due to a strongly negative cloud feedback.
    No study indicating sensitivity somewhat above 3 rather than below is a LOL unless you just don't care about the next generation, and Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs) seriously contribute to our understanding of climate. These studies lead the various modeling teams to dig into the internals of their models and keep improving their physics of one climate process after another. I don't see any LOL in this picture.
  20. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Camburn wrote : "There is really no evidence one way or another as of yet as to cloud feedback. There are suggestions going in both directions." Except there is far more evidence going one way than the other, as you can see at AGW OBSERVER : Papers on Cloud Feedback observations Papers on the Iris Hypothesis of Lindzen Anti-AGW papers debunked (including Spencer) But so-called skeptics prefer to stick with the lone voices, don't they ? Why IS that ?
  21. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Daniel Bailey@15: 1. We all know that GCMs do not handle the h20 cycle well at all. 2. When I read a paper, I read the error bars and the certainty of the paper. 3. There are papers on both sides of the cloud sensativity scenerio. Non of the papers show, with a credible certainty, that clouds are well modeled yet. Hence the results are uncertain. Show me this evidence that is verifiable and not modeled, but observed. A small area of the world is a start, but we all know regional variances do NOT make climate.
  22. Renewable Baseload Energy
    356 michael sweet You can discount whatever you wish. That's your problem not mine. It is a fact that "nuclear does not do load following" myth crops up frequently. What I said was technically correct and setting the record straight. I also pointed out that grid specific modeling would be needed to determine at what proportion of total capacity nuclear would become uneconomic. It is clearly not minimum system demand. What is your problem with this? How come wind is less 'wasteful' than nuclear (whatever 'wasteful' means)? If wind has excess capacity that cannot be utilized because there is insufficient demand when the wind happens to be blowing, then without subsidy it is in exactly the same position as nuclear run at a low capacity factor - high capital investment being under utilized. Except that nuclear has the outstanding advantage of being dispatchable and reliable and able to perform the very important role of stabilizing the grid. As I said the 'wasteful' argument makes no sense to me and seems to be based on assumptions about how demand can be manipulated to match unreliable supply. You could make exactly the same arguments for reliable supply where demand is managed to a limited extent by off peak rates. I make no apology for the word 'bamboozled'. If I think an argument is nonsense, I will say so.
  23. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    It's interesting how these posts help illuminate the broader context. On this thread (and others), water vapor is the dominant GHG and its warming effect is far more significant than any possible effects of CO2. Here, water vapor (a prime component of clouds) will keep us cool and comfortable as that irrelevant CO2 continues to build for years to come. Note to skeptics: Read some of your own stuff in context. Then make an attempt to be internally consistent every once in a while!
  24. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Re: Camburn (13) The obligatory "we-don't-know-anything-for-sure" drive-by. Despite your baseless assertion, evidence does exist. Unless you have something that shows what we've figured out thus far fails to meet some definition of evidence that you are operating under? The Yooper
  25. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    #75: "Heat as opposed to a redistrubution of temperature are very different things." Presumably you exclude heat that would otherwise be radiated to space from your 'redistribution' concept. But the 300-comments-and-still-growing 2nd Law thread has hashed that out.
  26. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Interestingly, this paper: Deep ocean heat uptake as a major source of spread in transient climate change simulations (found from here) indicates that model climate sensitivity is correlated with the model's depth of mixing in the polar oceans. Taking the two together it seems like modelled tropical cloud cover is correlated with modelled polar ocean mixing depth. Does anybody else find this a bit surprising?
  27. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    Hi All, I've finished a rough cut of my writeup and offer it to you for comment. I apologize for the roughness of it but you will not have any trouble understanding what I'm saying. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised Again, nobody has emailed me to tell me who they are and if they would like to be aknowledged. I do feel that I should give credit where credit is due. Bob
  28. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    There is really no evidence one way or another as of yet as to cloud feedback. There are suggestions going in both directions.
  29. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    #28: "Archer's estimate of the total amount of methane hydrates is on the low end of current estimates." As I said above, its the rate of release that's critical. Since clathrates are so well-distributed around the world's oceans, their volume is quite significant. But a methane release from an Arctic source may occur independently of one in the Gulf of Mexico. "information about it from sources with no known connection to ExxonMobil." Fair point. I note that Maier-Reimer was with the Max Planck Institute when those papers were written. Kheshgi also co-authored a paper with Bert Bolin, who I believe was Chair of the IPCC.
  30. macwithoutfries at 01:13 AM on 6 December 2010
    A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    The other thing to remember is that some of the theories and 'preliminary models' from Spencer and Lindzen are 'almost working' on the descendant part of the solar cycle, however will seriously break correlation during the next 5 years on the ascendant part of the TSI curve.
  31. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Camburn, Think it through. Charging electric cars is fungible. People will charge when the electricity is cheapest. The reason people do not charge up during the day is that it is more expensive (nuclear plants run cheaply at 100% all night:). If solar power was cheaper during the day people would just plug in at work. Then you car could go twice as far with the same battery! Load shifting can substantially change the baseload and reduce the need to store energy.
  32. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    Daniel Bailey #25 "if you feel you have something to add that shows waste heat amounts to more than 1% of GHG forcings, go back to that thread and comment on it there. " This comment (feel free to correct me if I am mistaken) implies that GHG's increases net heat (i.e. raising the energy level). Heat as opposed to a redistrubution of temperature are very different things. Even Arrhenius did not intend this. At the bottom of page 268 (the paper cited), it says, "The geographical annual and diurnal ranges of temperature would be partly smoothed away, if the quantity of carbonic acid was augmented." In the paper, the author is very specific about how the GHG affect latitudes differently, and especially poles and glaciers. Using these arguments to explain global warming is a distortion. The entire point of Arrheniu's paper is to explain a theory of how Nature modulates the coming and going of ice ages (not global warming), and in fact alludes to northern civilizations emerging as a consequence of naturally receding ice and not the other way around.
  33. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Quokka, The pro nuclear reference that scaddenp cites in 355 says that while nuclear can adjust its output, nuclear is not economically competitive unless they run the plant at high power output. This is because of the very high capital costs that nuclear has. To recover the capital cost they run at 100% as much as possible. Since they are pro nuclear, I presume they are accurate. I find your strongly worded statements "Your assertion that nuclear power plants do not and cannot load follow is prevalent myth that is not true" and "I must confess to be utterly bamboozled by this argument" to be a very strong turn off for the nuclear argument. If nuclear is so good, why do the pronuclear people here have to exagerate their position so much? When I see some statements that I know are exagerations I discount the rest of your argument. We need to consider all our options to get out of the mess we are in. It is necessary to consider the pros and cons of all possibilities to find the best solution. I noticed in scaddenp's pronuclear reference that wind was the lowest cost source of electricity in the USA. The USA has much beter wind resources than Australia, there is a lot of wind in the Great Plains. Previous posts on this blog refer to wind farms in Australia that are only 400 km or less apart having similar wind patterns. In the USA, Texas and North Dakota are over 1200 km apart and have mostly separate wind patterns.
  34. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    That seems to say that CO2 is required for photosynthesis. Yes, same for "sea plants" as it is for land based ones. The carbon in the CO2 molecule provides the basis for carbohydrates which are synthesized using energy from the sun.
  35. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    "David, as I understand it, people in denial (of any sort) grasp for anything that will allow them to keep their illusion that "everything's going to be all right". " Compare this to your own view which is that an unknown but dominant effect in the climate cant and wont help despite whatever becomes known about it in the future. This result is born from yet another model. Its made to sound definititive which is little more than a LOL.
  36. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    Most references I see on coral bleaching list increased temperature as the main stress likely to cause it. Reading the wiki on Coral bleaching seems to offer a contradiction Not really. Coral reef bleaching can be induced by a number of conditions- as listed in the Wiki page. The bleaching events I have previously linked to are truly massive in scale and correspond with anomalously warm, and sustained, sea surface temperatures. Hence the ability to predict these large bleaching events in advance. If you pore over the peer-reviewed literature you will see a lot of debate about the cause in earlier years, however as global warming, and warming ocean temperatures have continued, the evidence identifying warming SST's has strengthened. Try reading the first link I provided at @ 19. The lead author, Eakin, has published a lot of work on corals, and the study gives a good overview.
  37. actually thoughtful at 20:45 PM on 5 December 2010
    The human fingerprint in the seasons
    Phil @ 68, I think I completely understand HR's point - which is why I can show the fallacy of the argument. Read my comment again - I point out that you DON'T need TSI to understand the current post, but it does, INDEPENDENTLY verify that TSI hasn't increased. As to your closing paragraph (perhaps I don't understand your point 100%) - the visual picture that paints is each excited water vapor molecule (heat) interviewing the molecule that bumped into it: "Excuse me - are you excited from TSI?" "Why yes, how did you know?!" [excited molecule jumps up and down, exhibits clear additional excitement] OR "Excuse me - are you excited by a glancing blow from CO2?" "Why yes, how did you know?!" [excited molecule visibly slumps, clearly showing less exitement] Then, of course, your last sentence seems to say the opposite. Can you clarify what you are trying to say?
  38. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    f Found some more current research on wind born problems for coral reefs, from a Government source http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1970&from=news_side "African Dust Poses Threat to Coral Reefs and Human Health:  Contaminants carried with African dust to the Caribbean and the Americas may be a threat to marine organisms and humans, according to preliminary results of a new study by researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey, Oregon State University, and the University of the West Indies. The scientists compared contaminant levels in sources of African dust and downwind regions. Of the more than 100 persistent organic pollutants screened for in the samples, including banned and common-use pesticides, six pesticides (chlorpyrifos, dacthal, endosulfans, hexachlorobenzene, chlordane, and trifluralin) were detected in samples from all sites. Concentrations were significantly higher in Mali. DDE (a breakdown product of DDT) was also identified in Mali, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Trinidad samples. To date, DDT and carcinogenic dioxins and furans have been detected only in samples from Mali. Many of the identified contaminants are thought to be toxic to corals and other marine organisms and can interfere with reproduction, fertilization, or immune function. For more information, contact Virginia Garrison at 727-803-8747, ext. 3061 or ginger_garrison@usgs.gov." "The Origin of Aspergillus Sydowii, a Common Disease of Caribbean Corals:  Coral reefs are increasingly suffering outbreaks of disease, causing dramatic declines in population abundance and diversity. One of the best-characterized coral diseases is aspergillosis, caused by the fungus Aspergillus sydowii. A. sydowii is a globally distributed fungus commonly found in soil, so its presence in marine systems raises questions about its origin. By using microsatellite markers, researchers analyzed the population structure of A. sydowii from diseased sea fans, diseased humans and environmental sources worldwide. The results indicate that A. sydowii forms a single global population, with low to moderate genetic differences between the disease found in sea fans and the same fungus from environmental sources. Past researchers have suggested that A. sydowii originates from African dust blown into the Caribbean, and have identified Aspergillus from dust samples, although often only to the genus level. To test this, researchers isolated fungi from dust samples collected in Mali and St. Croix. Although a diversity of fungi was documented from African dust, including seven species of Aspergillus, none of the samples contained A. sydowii. Taken in conjunction with recent molecular evidence suggesting lack of a single point source of the fungus, this research suggests  that there are likely multiple sources and introductions of this pathogen into marine systems. For more information contact Krystal Rypien at 858-534-3196, krypien@ucsd.edu or  Virginia Garrison at 727-803-8747, ext. 3061 or ginger_garrison@usgs.gov." "The Emperor Has No Coral? Results of research on coral reefs in the Florida Keys reef challenge the highly popular notion that present declines in reefs in Florida and elsewhere are related to human activities. High-resolution sub-bottom profiling, reef drilling, and mapping of benthic habitats along the reef tract present a paradox in coral growth patterns: reefs that are dead or dying -- and therefore not building -- outnumber live and building reefs about 100 to 1. Yet growth rates of all common coral reef species should have kept pace with the well-documented rise in sea level over the past 6,000 years. Why did so few reefs keep pace or build up with the rise in the present sea level? Geological history may provide an answer: two 500-year periods of non-growth of coral reefs occurred in the region 4.5 thousand years ago and 3,000 years ago. These periods of non-growth indicate times of environmental crises that predated modern human presence in the Florida Keys. The present period of rapid coral demise has spanned only about 30 years. For more information, contact Eugene Shinn at 727-533-1158, eshinn@marine.usf.edu or Barbara Lidz at 727-803-8747, ext. 3031, blidz@usgs.gov." Chris Shaker
  39. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    I didn't think it could be that simple, thought I was missing something. These guys really believe that cloud cover will carry us through until fossil fuels run out? And then carry us through a lot longer until CO2 levels fall (how?). You have got to be joking, is the obvious comment, but sadly I know they are not.
  40. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    Most references I see on coral bleaching list increased temperature as the main stress likely to cause it. Reading the wiki on Coral bleaching seems to offer a contradiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching It says, "Bleaching occurs when the conditions necessary to sustain the coral's zooxanthellae cannot be maintained.[4] Any environmental trigger that affects the coral's ability to supply the zooxanthellae with nutrients for photosynthesis (carbon dioxide, ammonium) will lead to the zooxanthellae's expulsion.". That seems to say that CO2 is required for photosynthesis. Yet, they also state, "Coral bleaching is a vivid sign of corals responding to stress, which can be induced by any of: increased (most commonly), or reduced water temperatures[5][6] increased solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet band light)[7] changes in water chemistry (in particular acidification)[8][9] starvation caused by a decline in zooplankton[10] increased sedimentation (due to silt runoff) pathogen infections changes in salinity wind[6] low tide air exposure[6] cyanide fishing" How much stock am I supposed to put in the 'acidification' mention when CO2 appears to be essential for coral photosynthesis? Chris Shaker
  41. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    Rob: I searched for, found, and read that paper after watching an educational TV program that covered the fungus, possibly a Nova? Chris Shaker
  42. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    Chris , I find it insightful to actually read the studies linked to. The authors are proposing a hypothesis (back in 2000). They claim that two bleaching events in the Caribbean (1983/1987) coincide with increases in dust transport into the region. They lay the foundations for their hypothesis, that's the extent of it. In those two years (1983/1987) anomalously warm waters occurred too. Furthermore 1988 was a year of Caribbean coral bleaching and according the graph in Shinn 2000, this was a year of very low dust import into the region. In the meantime, coral reefs the world over have begun to bleach, as sea surface temperatures rise (see links at @ 19 for instance). I would certainly be interested to see how the authors of that study explain that away on African dust. I don't doubt that the transport of dust into the caribbean region has an influence of the marine life, however the evidence for warming waters as the cause of coral bleaching has strengthened to such a level that scientists are now able to accurately forecast bleaching events: Coral bleaching forecast - Coral Bleaching Likely in Caribbean This Year - Sept 22 2010 And reality: Caribbean Coral Die-Off Could Be Worst Ever - 14 Oct 2010 And yes, coral diseases are a major problem, often after bleaching events have occurred.
  43. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Peter Lang - you were promoting nuclear on economics ground alone. I looked to see what expected nuclear pricing would be. Extremely confusing. I found this reference World nuclear which at least made sense with number that I know well. I gather you think the newer technologies like IFR and LFTR would be cheaper still?
  44. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Thanks all. David, I suspect the logic goes that in the short-term, cloud feedbacks will prevent dangerously rapid warming, and in the long-term we'll eventually move away from our reliance on fossil fuels. After all, they're limited resources anyway (particularly oil). I suspect the (wishful) thinking is that we'll run out of oil before climate change becomes too dangerous. And of course there's always the 'warmer is better' mentality - I'm not sure if the Lindzens and Spencers subscribe to that, but many skeptics do.
  45. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    David, as I understand it, people in denial (of any sort) grasp for anything that will allow them to keep their illusion that "everything's going to be all right". To maintain the fiction is all that matters, even if it means saying the sky is green and the sun rises in the west...
  46. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    What I have never understood about the Lindzen-Spencer position is what do they see happening in the longer term? The clouds don't stop the CO2 build up, so even if they were right, the rise and rise in greenhouse gas concentrations would overwhelm the cloud effect. Or do they imagine cloud cover getting thicker and thicker for the rest of the century keeping pace with rising CO2? And what would be the effect of that on agriculture and the environment? The only relevant negative feedback would be one that began removing CO2 faster than we could pump it into the atmosphere, and there is, sadly, nothing that can do that. And yet people keep quoting Spencer as if this clouds are some kind of serendipitous mechanism that will providentially save us all, no need to worry, keep burning fossil fuel as fast as you like. Or am I missing something in the logic of all this?
  47. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    Muon, Yes, my graph is essentially a running mean with a 66-year window. (I think this is less than clear on the graph because the curve is justified on the left edge of the aggregation window rather than centered.) The data are noisy and if you can't explain the noise, the best thing to do is average it out. I like to use multiples of 11 because I surmise that the solar cycle will have some effect, and it is about 11 years long on average, and using a window over one complete wave, or multiples of the wave, is the best way to smooth out the noise induced by that wave. As a matter of preference, when I am making a picture depicting the larger effects, I like to average, or otherwise smooth out, the smaller ones. Tom, I read your posts and I hunted up some other material, and I agree it is true that the stratosphere will be cooler than it was even after a new equilibrium is reached largely because of the blockage from below and increased radiative energy loss from above, but I don't believe it is the only game in town. I do have some quibbles: I don't think it is very accurate to categorize the whole troposphere as optically thick. The mean altitude of emission is 5-6km, and that is about half the average altitude of the tropopause. So, the troposphere is getting optically thin at some point below the stratosphere. Optically, I don't think there is a clear cut-off between thick and thin; so, this is somewhat a matter of how they are defined. In a state of equilibrium, a body emits the same amount of energy as it receives. If slightly more insulation is added to the body, then the emission will be less than it was until a new, higher equilibrium temperature is reached. You can't raise the energy level within a body while keeping the inflow the same unless you reduce the outflow. In the case of the earth, the reduction of outflow would be observed as stratospheric cooling. The pattern of a warmer surface and a cooler stratosphere this effect causes would be be hard to distinguish between H2O and CO2. I think you are taking the blanket analogy a bit too literally. If it makes you like it any better, you can say that it is a body in space (like the earth is a body in space) that is tightly covered in a thin insulating layer that does not appreciably change its surface area. I mean, if you define the surface area by using the optical TOA, what is the difference in surface area between an earth with 287 ppm CO2 and one with 385 ppm CO2, and what is this difference in comparison to the total surface area? Without doing the math, I can ballpark it as pretty dang negligible. So, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to introduce the idea that adding more insulation to the body appreciably changes the surface area from which it emits. Convection doesn't transfer energy in space. A cold-blooded animal is a poorer analogy than some generic body of matter receiving energy because said animals in time achieve the same temperature as their surroundings. In contrast, of course, the earth is continually receiving energy from the sun and stays considerably warmer than the surrounding space, if you could say that space has a temperature. Blankets also limit radiative energy loss.
  48. Philippe Chantreau at 17:57 PM on 5 December 2010
    A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Bill, you make it easy to misinterpret. What exactly are you trying to say, in a few words? This: "My similar statement was not based on the visual graph but was a rough rule of thumb mathematical estimate of the effect of reducing the ice loss percentage by 30 to 40% from subtracting the antarctic ice gain from the arctic ice loss and by increasing the extent by 50% by adding the Antarctic maximum extent to the Arctic maximum extent." What is the point of such manipulations? The only way to assess the significance of global sea ice loss is to examine real global sea ice data. Do it daily, monthly, whatever but I doubt that building fictitious quantities by adding numbers at various times of the year can show much about reality. "Since albedo is an ongoing year round phenomena." In the same sentence, you mention Arctic sea ice, so I assume that the albedo statement pertains to Arctic sea ice. Are you serious? I have very little time to devote to climate blogging these days. From a cursory read of your posts above, it does not appear that your assertion that the global sea ice decline is not statistically significant was supported by a real data analysis. Was it the case or not? What I read from you does not appear any better, a priori, than eyeballing a graph. I contend that data analysis from either NSIDC or CT will show that the decline in global sea ice is statistically significant. I have not the leisure of going at length about it. Tamino looked at the numbers again not long ago: "For the Southern Hemisphere, summer minimum has increased at about 9,000 km^2/yr while the winter maximum has increased at about 14,000 km^2/yr. For the Northern Hemisphere, on the other hand, the decrease in winter maximum has been about 42,000 km^2/yr and the decrease in summer minimum has proceeded at about 81,000 km^2/yr." The differences between these rates leaves little doubt IMO but feel free to attempt proving otherwise.
  49. Renewable Baseload Energy
    The one great advantage of renewables from my perspective is that they circumvent one of the major unknowns of the next century or so. Just how much hotter and drier it will get, and how long will they stay that way, before things improve. Renewables need no cooling water for operation. If France and the USA have already had to take plants offline when rivers ran hot or low, we really don't want to put too many of our eggs in a basket that needs reliable flows of cooling water. And I'd be very reluctant to put a coal or nuclear plant that has to operate 80 years from now at the shoreline to use seawater.
  50. A Cloudy Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Well done Dana. Of course it's not good news, but it at least gives some support for the "instinct" that low cloud sensitivity was more wishful thinking than anything else. On the bright side, someone else just possibly might do further quality work in this area with a better outlook. (If only.)

Prev  2034  2035  2036  2037  2038  2039  2040  2041  2042  2043  2044  2045  2046  2047  2048  2049  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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