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  2122  2123  2124  2125  2126  2127  2128  2129  2130  2131  2132  2133  2134  2135  2136  2137  Next

Comments 106451 to 106500:

  1. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    Thanks, CBD. (There's something wrong with that link but I gather this is what it's supposed to be: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html )
  2. It's the sun
    CBD #701 KR #703 archiesteel #704 "So no, KR probably 'does not get' that flat forcing factors do not change the climate. Because they don't" Flat forcing is not 'zero' forcing CBD & KR. The numbers I presented show a F.Solar of about 0.4W/sq.m from the IPCC Fig 613 Chart which is also available in numerical form (worked elsewhere by kdkd)from AD1950 onward, and 0.1-0.2W/sq.m before that. A 'flat' 0.4W/sq.m integrated wrt time will give you a linearly increasing number of Joules/sq.m - the unit of energy. Energy is what you need to heat mass. Note the units of specific heat of water (or other mass)are Joules/kG-degC - NOT Watts/kG-degC Linearly rising energy in Joules will linearly raise the temperature of a given mass (without phase change). Hence rising temperatures with 'flat' non-zero forcing are quite consistent with the 'Temperature vs. Solar Activity chart on the Basic version of this thread' Add to that a 'theoretical' roughly linearly rising forcing F.CO2 and you will get a squared function non-linear rising curve of energy wrt time. This is Grade 11 maths. What counts is the sum of and proportions of the energy added by the two sources. I calculated previously that on the IPCC data the energy proportions were about 55/45 CO2GHG/Solar since AD1750. The question then becomes how reliable and accurate are these forcings. We have some proxy and direct measurement for TSI and F.Solar. KR: "Now, if there's a linear offset in TSI measures (direct or using sunspots as proxies), as you have argued, there would be a difference in slope between measured TSI responses and temperature over the entire temperature/TSI record, not just the last 60 years" Wrong - see above. Non-zero constant forcing produces linearly rising temperature for a given mass. How long do we have Satellite TSI data? - since 1978? Again high precision - low accuracy. Will tell you the deltas within an individual satellite record - maybe spliced together between satellites (maybe not too) - but no good for accurately measuring absolute TSI (SORCE TIMS is a good example). Archiesteel - don't know what your technical training or background is - but kdkd will tell you that it is risky to call me on the sums.
  3. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    chriscanaris writes: Ned @ 27: 'It's not reasonable to assume a high value for climate sensitivity in order to get a large MWP, while also assuming a low value for climate sensitivity in order to minimize the effect of AGW.' With respect, Ned, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm simply looking at the range of possibilities which flow from the AR4. On one scenario, clouds may exert a negative feedback greater than the positive feedback of CO2. Is this so? At this stage, we can only guess. I'm afraid I must not be explaining my argument well. You're free consider scenarios where negative feedbacks from clouds are larger than expected. The logical consequence of that is that those scenarios would presumably have a climate sensitivity on the low end of the range (< 3C). But the point is that under such scenarios it would be hard to get a warm MWP or a cold LIA. (If you make the negative feedbacks strong enough, it would be hard to get any glacial/interglacial cycles.) The problem arises when somebody (not necessarily you, just a hypothetical commenter) claims that the MPW/LIA variance was large and simultaneously claims that climate sensitivity is low and/or there are large negative feedbacks from clouds or whatever. This is the climate-skeptic equivalent of trying to have one's cake and eat it too.
  4. Increasing southern sea ice: a basic rebuttal
    Redirecting HR to another page when the article makes specific reference to land ice seems a touch pedantic. However, I don't dispute the GRACE data underpinning these assertions other than to note that ice loss may be proceeding at a steady pace rather than accelerating as per Velicogna (see here). However, ice loss is ice loss unless we come up with evidence of a major flaw in the GRACE methodology. At the same time, satellite data suggests that Antarctic waters are cooling, not warming. Trenberth's missing heat notwithstanding, I find this counterintuitive. Perhaps the hole in the ozone layer is still doing its work - Sigmond and Fyfe (2010) comprises a model rather than the last word on the subject.
  5. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    VoxRat #81: See this article. Basically, while some temperature feedbacks (e.g. ice albedo) would take centuries to fully materialize most of the warming for a given CO2 level would be evident within about 40 years.
  6. Berényi Péter at 00:41 AM on 21 October 2010
    Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    #63 skywatcher at 23:43 PM on 20 October, 2010 the large excursion that is not represented in direct measurement data is still present when smoothed You'd better check your facts. Tellus B Volume 57, Issue 4, pages 351–355, September 2005 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0889.2005.00154.x Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis THOMAS B. Van HOOF, KARSTEN A. KASPERS, FRIEDERIKE WAGNER, RODERIK S. W. Van De WAL, WOLFRAM M. KÜRSCHNER & HENK VISSCHER "A significant CO2 change during the 13th century AD is evident from direct measurements of CO2 in gas enclosures in the Antarctic ice core D47 as well as from stomatal frequency analysis of fossil oak leaves. The independent detection of this CO2 shift, and the good agreement between the different records, provides persuasive evidence for the reality of this event."
  7. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Why dont they mark the ice sheet covered area GREY and stop wild guessing? If you're calculating a global mean temperature anomaly, and you leave the high-latitude Arctic out of your analysis, you're effectively assuming that the Arctic has the same temperature anomaly as the rest of the globe. Which seems like a more reasonable estimate for the temperature anomaly at the North Pole: a weighted average of temperature anomalies at other Arctic sites, or the average temperature anomaly for the whole rest of the world, the vast majority of which is outside the Arctic? Incidentally, interpolation is a well defined mathematical process, and the GISS algorithm for doing this has been replicated nicely by others (e.g., Clear Climate Code). Let's reserve the term "wild guessing" for cases where people are ... actually guessing.
  8. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    I have a question I think is reasonably relevant to this post. (If not, maybe someone can direct me to a more relevant one.) Is there any published data or theory on how long it takes for the global climate to equilibrate after an increment in [CO2]? To put it another way: can we assume that if we stabilized the the [CO2] today at the current level, that temperatures will have stabilized by, say, next year? Next decade?
  9. Increasing southern sea ice: a basic rebuttal
    HR #8: The same Duncan Wingham you MIS-cite here has been at the forefront of some of the subsequent studies (e.g. Pine Island Glacier) which have shown the coastal mass loss that Jeff talks about. As the lead scientist on the Cryosat-II mission he will also likely play an important part in figuring out what is going on with the Antarctic sea ice... as well as finally nailing down the volume losses for the Arctic sea ice, Greenland, and Antarctica.
  10. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    - And im sooo sorry for my Danglish, but maybe you guts has the format to figure out the message anyway? K.R. Frank Lansner ...My name has been spelled wrong 2 times in this skepticalscience writing, I think I can cope :-)
  11. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi John and company :-) Simple question: When everyone (?) can see, that its rather risky business for GISS to guess what temperatures are in the ice sheet near the North pole just using land temperatures over 1000 km away - why do GISS do this? Why dont they mark the ice sheet covered area GREY and stop wild guessing? K.R. Frank Lansner
  12. It's not bad
    This web site is unbelievably passionate and detailed to the tune that it comes across as believing that global warming is the biggest threat facing humanity. Where is the evidence for this? I know it's a threat but is it definitely, beyond doubt the biggest threat? I would hate all this effort to go to waste if we realised too late that overconsumption, for example is the biggest threat and the focus on global warming means we are taking our eye off the ball. Is the biggest threat not over consumption? Should we all be debating about how to consume less and do more to change things for the better? Thanks JMurphy, I know what this web site is about and I am still trying to figure out if the activity is in or out of proportion to the threat posed by GW. As I said in earlier comments, perhaps taking more action is better than sitting at a computer typing about it. Perhaps the biggest threat facing humanity is apathy - I don't know.
  13. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    BP - why should you trust that obscure paper, which relies entirely on a proxy (and which has been almost exclusively cited only by it's own authors and those who wish to promote a certain point of view) rather than papers that rely on the actual measurements? Did it ever cross your mind that those results could be incorrect? I'm not suggesting they i>are incorrect, just suggesting that a single paper evaluating data from a proxy necessarily has more errors than multiple papers relying on direct measurements... The key here is the large excursion that is not represented in direct measurement data is still present when smoothed, suggesting that the stomatal data may be in error here.
  14. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Adrian: Fill a pot with ice cubes. Add water. Put a thermometer on top of the ice and water. Put the pot on the stove. Turn the stove on. Watch the thermometer. So long as the ice remains the surface temperature reading will be right about 0 C. All the heat being generated by the stove goes into melting the ice. Exactly the same thing is happening in the Arctic. Until that ice is gone the temperature will stay right around 0 C. In the Arctic it gets a bit warmer (1 C) because wind and currents can move the ice around and cause areas of open water, but those are minor weather fluctuations with no statistically significant trend. This can be clearly seen in Figure 2 above... the red annual trend in the DMI data is clearly increasing while the green summer trend is nearly flat. The enhanced greenhouse effect is present year round, but in the summer the extra energy it causes has not yet melted away the ice in the small area covered by the DMI data. Do the ice in the pot experiment. It should help you understand that anyone claiming that lack of warming over an ice covered ocean contradicts AGW is lying to you. So long as satellites show that area covered by ice the temperature CAN'T go up... but that doesn't mean there isn't more heat - any more than the lack of temperature increase at the water surface of the pot means that the stove isn't generating heat. It should also be pointed out that the DMI results are "extrapolated" just like the GISS results... just from a smaller/more geographically concentrated set of measurements.
  15. It's not bad
    happivibe wrote : "What I am saying is the sea runing out of fish by overfishing may be a more pressing issue than AGW/CC as it may affect humans more and first. Don't you think this is equally as big an issue? Do you think overfishing receives less coverage even though it is just as important as AGW/CC. Maybe it is more important. Do you know? Does anyone know? Has this been raised before on this site - does this mean it is being overshadowed?" Last thing first : The goal of this site is stated to be "to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming." If you want to know more about over-fishing, there are more detailed sites available, like OverFishing.org, the UN's FAO (SOFIA), and Greenpeace. There is also this study, which shows fish size decreasing, in relation to global warming - perhaps related to the smaller fish sizes being noticed in connection with what is normally regarded as being solely due to overfishing : Global warming benefits the small in aquatic ecosystems But, even here on Skeptical Science, there is a link given on this thread which will take you to ClimateShifts.org, who "cover a range of other threats like overfishing and pollution and other aspects of marine biology and coral reef science". So, not ignored or lessened in importance or overshadowed, really : just the nature of this site, so to speak.
  16. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    chriscanaris - you keep suggesting clouds might have a large negative feedback, and that therefore the climate sensitivity would therefore be lower. But I don't see you reconciling that with the evidence presented in Knutti and Hegerl for both observational and modelled equilibrium sensitivity being rather similar. As angliss put very well, we know from palaeoclimatic data the value of the equilibrium sensitivity (within it's error constraints, which seem to range from scary to terrifying), and this necessarily includes clouds, therefore all that can change is just how we get there. The only impact clouds can have is some temporary alteration of the manner in which we get from our present climate to the new equilibrium climate. It seems pretty unlikely, given a total lack of evidence to the contrary, that the trajectory from our lower equilibrioum temperature to our higher equilibrium temperature would involve an initial negative or very low slope excursion from that trajectory (which would then have to accelerate to make up the difference in order to reach the new, higher, equilibrium temperature).
  17. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    kdkd @ 57: What false premise? I didn't create the numbers - I merely quoted AR4. I was actually surprised by the data - they don't get much prominence in most AGW sites though I'm aware Roy Spencer talks a lot about this stuff. I've never delved into his site barring a very occasional glance but these data suggest I ought to take him more seriously. However, your suggestion that I should be more careful in how I express myself lest I be seen as trotting out sceptical talking points does test my patience. Such language is redolent of heresy hunting. Facts are facts and numbers are numbers. As scientifically minded folk, we are not bound by articles of faith nor should we be wary of doctrinal transgressions. I come to this site for science and not for spiritual sustenance. For the latter, I go to church :-).
  18. Berényi Péter at 23:24 PM on 20 October 2010
    Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Posted by John Cook on Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 at 18:07 PM If for some reason, temperatures over the Medieval Warm Period turn out to be warmer than previously thought, this means climate sensitivity is actually greater than 3°C. The climate response to CO2 forcing will be even greater than expected. So to argue for a warmer Medieval Warm Period is to argue for greater climate sensitivity and greater future warming due to human CO2 emissions. Houston, we've had a problem. Reconstruction of climate forcing in Crowley 2000 may be bogus. He assumes an essentially zero CO2 radiative forcing prior to 1600 AD and a very small one before the 20th century. However, in reality it may not be the case. This paper uses density of stomata on fossil leaves, tiny pores doing gas exchange to reconstruct historic CO2 levels. Geology, 01/2005, vol. 33, Issue 1, p.33 DOI: 10.1130/G20941.1 Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles Kouwenberg, Lenny; Wagner, Rike; Kürschner, Wolfram & Visscher, Henk Long term average of preindustrial CO2 might have been pretty stable around 290 ppmv, however, they say there were large century scale fluctuations which are invisible in the ice core record due to late bubble enclosure time in the firn-ice transition zone (and diffusion in ice proper, I must add). The most robust feature of their millennial CO2 analysis is a decline after 1000 AD followed by a sharp increase during the 13th century. After that time CO2 forcing based on their data matches Crowley 2000 reasonably well, but for the MWP there is a huge mismatch. The excess warming goes right against changes in forcing and there is no way solar forcing could compensate for it. Strong negative forcing (~ -1 W/m2) between 1160-1180 went with higher than average temperatures while a 1 W/m2 increase of CO2 forcing during the next century is accompanied by steadily decreasing temperatures. A multidecadal transient solar burst of such magnitude and at just the right time is out of the question. Therefore most of the medieval warming must have been unforced variation. Climate can do that, for a strong random walk component with red noise statistics is always present. However, as soon as the possibility of century scale unforced changes is acknowledged, the entire conceptual framework your climate sensitivity calculations are based on collapses.
  19. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    #75 Have you said how you believe warming is happening then?
  20. Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
    Mark, Great post, it would be nice to include the deception used on page 34 of the (perhaps soon to be withdrawn) Wegman Report. Reference http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/10/dummys-guide-to-strange-scholarship-in_17.html
  21. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Sordnay #25: "Just wondering, on your first graph, is CRUTemp NH, but what is exactly this serie? a 12 month mean of CRUTempNH does not rise more than 0.657" You're looking at anomalies calculated from different baselines. Same data, different 'zero point'. "Anyway, looking again to the first figure, the recent temperature anom. would be about the same as the drop estimated from around 1480-1550 (eyeballing) without a net forcing and in time period somewhat similar to recent anom, a bit higher. What is the reason for this drop?" Cherry picking. You've looked at the noise and picked out the highest peak and lowest drop. Shifting 20 years earlier or later yields radically different results (indeed, the temperature INcreases). Judging by figure 2 the ~1550 drop appears to have been caused by volcanism. The ~1480 peak could have been due to any number of weather factors... like the large up and down swings between them which invalidate the entire premise that this was some sort of trend comparable to the current warming.
  22. It's not bad
    hi jmurphy I have already said I know they are not mutually exclusive. That is really not what i am saying. What I am saying is the sea runing out of fish by overfishing may be a more pressing issue than AGW/CC as it may affect humans more and first. Don't you think this is equally as big an issue? Do you think overfishing receives less coverage even though it is just as important as AGW/CC. Maybe it is more important. Do you know? Does anyone know? Has this been raised before on this site - does this mean it is being overshadowed?
  23. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    #75 "The difference between direct radiation into space and radiation that eventually reaches the same place having bounced around our atmosphere a bit first is the measure of that delay." We experience delays in communication systems daily. These may last two seconds at the most. Are you trying to say that two more seconds of lingering heat after the Sun sets is causing global warming?
  24. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    doug_bostrom #76 "Would you mind naming just one element, compound or mineral found on Earth that is not capable of emitting IR?" My reference to "materials that do not emit IR" is like speaking about people with no brains, or as you say, the "slow-witted". Since you have read my earlier posts, you know very well I was referring to the relatively lower emissivities of N2 and O2. At any rate, to answer the question, IR is can only be emitted from the surface of things, all else is incapable of this, which just happens to make up about 99.99999% of the Earth's material. Hope this helps.
  25. Roger A. Wehage at 22:08 PM on 20 October 2010
    Record snowfall disproves global warming
    Below is a scatter plot of the monthly snowfall in Houghton, Michigan by year prior to 2010 as given here.
    From Climate Change
    The data shows a relatively uniform amount of snowfall in the months of October and November across the 120 year span. In these months the lake would generally be warmer and not frozen over, so evaporative moisture would be available, but temperatures more likely to be too warm for snow. Then in December, January, and February the monthly snowfall steadily increases as the years get closer to 2010, but only up to a point. These would be the months of colder temperatures and partially to fully frozen lake surface. As John pointed out, less snow tends to fall in extremely cold temperatures, and in this case, less snow also falls when the lake is frozen over. So in the far out years both extremely cold temperatures and frozen lake were likely to have occurred more often. In intermediate years of higher snowfall, the temperatures started to moderate and the lake froze over later, allowing more evaporation and more opportunity for substantial snowfalls. Then the plot shows significant declines in monthly snowfall in these months from around 1980 to present. Most significant are the months of January and February. My guess for this is that the lake had little ice in December, allowing more evaporation, and the temperatures were periodically cold enough to allow substantial snow and other times rain. Then the lake partially froze over in January and February, reducing the evaporation rate, and the temperatures were sometimes ideal for snow and at other times for rain. The trends for March and April snowfall are less clear over the 120 year span. However, both months do appear to have a peak around the 1980 timeframe where the total annual snowfall peaked. These snowfalls were probably less associated with lake effect than with ideal snow conditions. In those years when the lake had significant ice, melting probably didn't start until May.
  26. It's not bad
    hapivibe wrote : "I have no data. I am telling you what i see but i hope you will allow me to write what i see as it doesn't say all comments must be backed up by data anywhere on this site, does it?" Of course you don't need data for everything you write but you did come on here suggesting that there was an obsession with data and AGW, to the detriment of those other causes you mentioned. Now, it would appear that you don't actually have any proof of that - it is just your observation of this site and what you see in the real world ? Well, we can all use our own experiences to come up with our own opinions (especially with regard to AGW, over-fishing, the destruction of the rainforests, etc.) but those opinions are more credible and reliable when they are based on some form of fact, evidence, data, etc. I don't need to directly experience any of those to generally accept that the problems exist and need to be faced sooner rather than later. Anyway, have you looked at the Intermediate version of this thread ? There are more linkages (and links) given there between AGW and all the causes you mention, showing that they are not seen in isolation or as mutually exclusive and separate. There is also more at Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?, and Comparing what the IPCC and peer-reviewed science say about Amazonian forests
  27. It's not bad
    Hapivibe - I should have further explained what a sea urchin barren is - when the sea urchin populations increase to such an extent they strip the shallow coastal waters of kelp and other seaweeds - hence a barren seascape.
  28. It's not bad
    Hapivibe - that's true - let me expand. what i mean is we can't see into the sea to see it's health or how depleted it is - it's pretty mysterious as we only see the surface I'm now in my 4th decade of diving. I live in New Zealand. I can tell you the sea life is diminishing. Overfishing is responsible for the spread of sea urchin barrens here, because the main predator, crayfish (spiny lobster) and snapper, populations have plummeted. The effects of nutrient run-off (nitrates & phosphates predominately) and siltation are also apparent in inner harbor waters. New Zealand is often trundled out as a poster child for sustainable fisheries management. I shudder to think what is happening in other parts of the world.
  29. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    One of the ways you can see the greenhouse effect at home is simple. Take a remote temperature sensor (IR) and point it skyward on a clear day or night and on a cloudy day or night. The clear sky (absolutely no visible clouds) will register -50F or lower. The cloudy sky will register in the 30F range. The same sensor pointed at the sun will not register much different. This is why you have dew fall at night and ice on the windshield in the morning when the air temps are above freezing. At least in my area the really hot weather (hot and humid) comes in the summer when hot, humid air from the GOM blows in. The heat in this air is imported from the Gulf by horizontal convection (wind) and remains hot day and night. Much of Europe would be much colder if it wasn't for heat transfer by way of horizontal convection in water (Gulf Stream) and then wind blowing that heat to cover the land. This is the general picture of the greenhouse effect, not to be confused with the particular picture the OP is saying skeptics hold, that the greenhouse effect due to CO2 doesn't exist.
  30. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    Miraculously, even though temperatures during the year can get far below zero, somehow due to this process energy is mysteriously accumulating. A miracle to the slow-witted, perhaps, but not for those who understand that temperature is expressed on a continuum, not as a binary state, that while a thing may still be said to be cold, it may yet be warmer than in times past. If so, it can only be doing so in the materials that do not emit IR, not in those that do. Would you mind naming just one element, compound or mineral found on Earth that is not capable of emitting IR? If you can't, will you promise to always listen carefully? AGW depends on this pin ball machine model where the IR is bouncing around as if lost and unable to escape. Amazing how close you can get to surrendering and admitting you understand this process, while still eluding the final moment of capture. For this I must be burned at the stake for "throwing stones". No fear, not only does nobody see you as a fitting candidate for martyrdom, all you need do is wish different physics into being and you'll be entirely impossible to ignite.
  31. It's not bad
    that's true - let me expand. what i mean is we can't see into the sea to see it's health or how depleted it is - it's pretty mysterious as we only see the surface. not sure why i said we don't live near the sea, that was a mistake. i meant we are not close to the drift nets, for example that plunder it. we don't see that. re. rainforest i really mean amazon rainforest. is the rainforest close to you reducing in size or is it protected?
  32. It's not bad
    i propose that the rainforest and the sea are far away from westerners who comment on this site. Illustrating the hazards of assumptions, we live about 5 miles as the crow flies from the sea, about 40 miles from a temperate rain forest.
  33. It's not bad
    cool doug and dappled. i feel better that it's not just words xx ahhh!!!please, no kisses on this site, it's for proper scientists don't you know! scientists need love too : - ) ?
  34. It's not bad
    Well, hapivibe, to me "would have thought" sounds kind of like "assume." We all know what "assume" means. I can tell you that in my case we have a bit of computer gear here that necessarily runs all the time, having to do w/offsite backup. Problem, eh? Especially it's a problem because while the local climate means that a little less than 90% of our juice comes from hydro, the same climate means that photovoltaic systems are not affordable for much more than crosswalk flashers and things on that scale. What does work here is domestic hot water preheat via solar collectors, so I installed a system that eliminates a substantial amount of electrical input for hot water heating, thus indirectly eliminating about twice the electricity consumed by the 24/7 computer hardware. What's great about the DHW thing is the knock-on, catalytic effect it had on some of our other behaviors around the house. The absolute consumption (~1000kWh/year) of the computer hardware versus the DHW output reminded us of how just a few extra things turned off add up over time. In my mind, turning off unnecessary load sort of equates to more sunlight on the solar collectors. Strange, but that's psychology. Meanwhile, this next couple of years will be most interesting because we've got two automobiles that are arguably ready for retirement. They've reached 20+ years of age and while they're in good repair and don't have the lousiest gas consumption, we're finally at the point where buying an electric vehicle is no longer going to be a technology application experiment folded into day-to-day living. Given our typical requirements for driving, this means we'll shortly no longer have to purchase gasoline except in those rare instances when we decide to rent a IC car for road trips. A big win there. That leaves as usual the problem of air travel, the huge, airy elephant in the room. This is a nice example of how we're embedded in context and the dilemmas that can pose. While many of my relatives in the U.K. are dead, some are not. They are sort of a case of an "endangered species" but all the same I have qualms about visits. We go over that way about every 3 years on average, which is definitely not sustainable when we generalize and consider the hundreds of millions of aging aunts and the like pining for visits from nephews, grandchildren, etc. That's a toughie, it's an inheritance and difficult to just turn off.
  35. It's not bad
    hi jurphy thanks for getting back to me and thanks for your interest: i think the smoking analogy has gone off topic a bit so i wont reply directly to that i propose that the rainforest and the sea are far away from westerners who comment on this site. species extinction does not affect us directly nor are we told when we are consuming more than our fair share and it is sadly only a minority of people take direct action to change things. global warming is a more frightening concept as it may affect all of us indiscriminately and therefore is has captured the imagination of people as an issue and it may get more media coverage due to this pscychological aspect than the other issues i proposed. I have no data. I am telling you what i see but i hope you will allow me to write what i see as it doesn't say all comments must be backed up by data anywhere on this site, does it?
  36. It's not bad
    Hapivibe @ 44 - Also, if fossil fuels are running out, does this timing coincide nicely with the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels? Easily accessible oil may be running out, but there's plenty of coal, tar sands and shale left. Enough perhaps, to turn the Earth into a rather different looking planet. Finally, I would love an assurance that the people on this site putting masses of effort into collating data and facts actually live in a sustainable way ie. you practice what you profess Yup, but by no means an "eco-saint". It's a very long list of practices my wife and I undertake to reduce our carbon output, but I don't judge others badly because they don't put in the same effort. Hopefully we'll all get there in the end (fingers crossed!)
  37. Roger A. Wehage at 20:36 PM on 20 October 2010
    Record snowfall disproves global warming
    I believe that here is an excellent example of what John is describing related to temperature effects on snowfall. Below is a plot of the annual snowfall in Houghton, Michigan listed in tabular form on the above website.
    From Climate Change
    Houghton's snowfall is primarily influenced by moisture from the lake (lake-effect snow) and temperature. The graph clearly shows three trends, a relatively constant annual snowfall from 1890 to around 1935, an increasing annual snowfall from around 1935 to around 1980, and decreasing annual snowfall from around 1980 to 2010. I don't have access to average annual winter temperatures, but it is likely that average winter temperatures were colder between 1890 through the 1930s and have been rising steadily until today. Assuming the above, then during the colder years from 1890 to the 1930s the lake likely froze over earlier and thawed later, allowing less moisture to evaporate into the air and reducing lake-effect snow. From the 1930s to around 1980, as winter temperatures increased, the lake started to freeze over later and thaw earlier, allowing more moisture to evaporate, which increased lake-effect snowfall. After around 1980, as temperatures continued to rise, more of the moisture was likely falling as rain, so the average annual snowfall started decreasing again.
  38. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    Graham... "greenhouse effect slows down the radiative transfer through GHGs re-radiating LWR" IR travels at the "speed of light", some 3 x 10E8 meter per second. Maybe you can explain where the delay is coming from? More relevant to what you mention, you can model the spinning Earth as getting hit with a heat pulse. Temperature rises and falls. Your CO2 affecting the droop, such that it doesnt get as low with less CO2. Miraculously, even though temperatures during the year can get far below zero, somehow due to this process energy is mysteriously accumulating. If so, it can only be doing so in the materials that do not emit IR, not in those that do. AGW depends on this pin ball machine model where the IR is bouncing around as if lost and unable to escape. I believe warming is happening, but I do not believe it is happening for the reasons you do. For this I must be burned at the stake for "throwing stones".
    Moderator Response: The delay is simple to explain, so simple that I believe you already understand it but refuse to stop digging. However, for the sake of completeness, the delay is the same as in any journey - if you take a detour or backtrack, the journey takes longer. The difference between direct radiation into space and radiation that eventually reaches the same place having bounced around our atmosphere a bit first is the measure of that delay. The rest of your post is of a standard consistent with your first, and I decline to indulge your contrarianism any further.
  39. It's not bad
    hapivibe wrote : "I know the issues are not mutually exclusive - I am proposing that they get overshadowed." And what is the basis for your proposal ? In what way do you think those issues are being overshadowed ? Is money, effort, etc. being taken away from those issues in some quantifiable way ? What's your evidence ? By the way, my previous analogy of the doctor telling you about cancer or the health-damaging effects of smoking (while being a smoker him/herself) did not involve HIM/HER having lung cancer - it involved them telling you about the detrimental effects on your life from smoking, especially if it had caused YOU to develop cancer. Would you ignore/disregard that doctor's opinion or diagnosis just because that doctor was doing something that he/she is advising you not to (anymore) ?
  40. It's not bad
    Hi dappled water I know the issues are not mutually exclusive - I am proposing that they get overshadowed.
  41. It's not bad
    Hapivibe @ 44 - Destruction of the rainforest which is needed for species diversity Destruction of the rainforests will also negatively impact the climate. The Amazon alone has between 86 to 93 billion tonnes of carbon locked up in it's vegetation and soils. Our oceans are being overfished And acidified too, from the combustions of fossil fuels. Which will affect fish populations at some point. So, as you can see, these issues aren't mutually exclusive.
  42. It's not bad
    Hi to JMurphy: I would be pretty miffed if my doctor had lung cancer and continued to smoke. to doug_bostrom the amount of activity this site has means that people are really bothered by this issue(s) and I would have thought that people would want to take further, bigger action towards sustainablility than just writing on web site and I am wondering if this is the case.
  43. It's not bad
    Witnessing myriad discussions focusing on whatever shreds of countervailing evidence are available as alternative explanations for what is at root a fairly simple, bulky and ultimately powerful process leaves me completely unsurprised that you find discussions here dominated by minutiae, hapivibe. Bloating the importance of little things by employing large rhetoric is the sharpest tool in the kit of people who for whatever reason wish to ignore the CO2 problem. You're absolutely right that we're imposing a heavy load on the systems we depend on. Getting a grip on the CO2 problem is a key part of not further exacerbating our failure to account for our impact on the planet. More, there's little reason to believe that solutions to the problems you mention are somehow mutually exclusive, rather it's probably reasonable to suggest that integrated approaches would be more beneficial. As you suggest, apathy is our enemy, an old human failing seemingly only overcome in moments of crisis. Looking at the various graphs of depressing facts, what's the largest contributor to fossil fuel GHG emissions? Coal is the most abundant and presently active feedstock for CO2. There's plenty of coal and we're burning more of it than ever. We're not going to run out of coal fast enough to rely on depletion of fossil fuels as a solution to CO2 emissions. There's no data so far indicating we're going to stop burning coal. Depletion as a solution to CO2 emissions on the timescale of concern here seems a dead-end. Your demand for assurances about sustainable living is of course impossible to answer affirmatively, either for "the people on this site" in general or you yourself. In communicating via this site you and I and the rest of the gang here are employing a myriad of devices and systems that are not presently built or operated in a sustainable way. What some of us may be able to say is that we try to be mindful of those occasions as are available-- in the context we find ourselves living-- which afford choices regarding making more or less of a mess. Come to think of it, your demand for pledges of sustainability is rather curious. What is it that you think "people on this site" profess? I'm wondering, do you believe that subscribing to mainstream physics and the scientific method in general is some sort of statement of moral superiority? Perhaps I misunderstand, though.
  44. It's not bad
    hapivibe wrote : "Finally, I would love an assurance that the people on this site putting masses of effort into collating data and facts actually live in a sustainable way ie. you practice what you profess." Why ? Would you disregard the opinion or diagnosis of a doctor who smokes, especially if you were being told that your cancer was caused by smoking ? Or if you were told to give up smoking because it is badly affecting your health ?
  45. It's not bad
    The amount of debate an attention to minutiae is unbelievable on this site. It is good in a way but I am curious as to why the issues on this site evoke more discussion than almost anything else I can think of. The possible downsides to this arguing about AGW/climate change are that it overshadows other very important issues that affect people and planet. Other issues that are important irrespective of AGW are: Destruction of the rainforest which is needed for species diversity Our oceans are being overfished We use too much of the world's resources on average per person Species extinction Political apathy resulting in necessary change not happening quickly enough Also, if fossil fuels are running out, does this timing coincide nicely with the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels? Finally, I would love an assurance that the people on this site putting masses of effort into collating data and facts actually live in a sustainable way ie. you practice what you profess.
  46. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    51.dana1981 Thanks for the condescending reply but at least it directed me to some useful info which was what I really wanted. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf So this basically confirms what I said was correct. From section 2.8.5.3 (Efficacy and Effective Radiative Forcing - Solar) "These studies have only examined solar RF from total solar irradiance change; any indirect solar effects (see Section 2.7.1.3) are not included in this efficacy estimate." Section 2.7.1.3 rates the scientific understanding of some of these possible indirect effects as low and very low. Let's not mention what the Haigh paper might do to all this. The incorrect statement here is your suggestion that we can't have it both ways. Having it both ways is still an option until we fill the gaps in our knowledge. Which is all I've been arguing here. I thought the concluding statement about volcanic RF in section 2.7.2.2 was also enlightening. "Because of its episodic and transitory nature, it is difficult to give a best estimate for the volcanic RF, unlike the other agents. Neither a best estimate nor a level of scientific understanding was given in the TAR. For the well-documented case of the explosive 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption, there is a good scientific understanding. However, the limited knowledge of the RF associated with prior episodic, explosive events indicates a low level of scientific understanding" I wonder just how many bold staements one can make on this subject.
  47. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    gpwayne #72 "no interest in" (facts) Would you be just a little concerned if the fan on your CPU died? Why isnt radiation sufficient to cool that big chip? Or if you happen to burn you finger, why not just point it skyward? No, you put it in water because the fact is, convection provides a faster channel to dump energy. Our lives are governed by facts, even if we are successful living off of hype.
    Moderator Response: [Graham] Your straw argument does not pertain to climate change or the planet's energy budget, primarily because it is the current speed with which equilibrium is reached that determines the acceptible limits of our climate (acceptible being what we are used to, what we humans have come to depend on, what we know sustains our agriculture etc). The absence of convection does not preclude heat transfer by radiation, in the same way the absence of water vapour does not inhibit the movement of LWR through a gaseous medium such as a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen. The speed of the transfer is, in fact, the point at issue, because the greenhouse effect slows down the radiative transfer through GHGs re-radiating LWR at specific wavelengths in random directions, thus impeding the direct transfer of heat back to space.
  48. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    chriscanaris #56 The risk is that if we make unwarranted assumptions that a number is large and negative, if it's small, or positive then we will end up basing policy on a false premise. If you don't want to be seen to be trotting out unsupported climate sceptic talking points, then you need to be more careful in the way that you express yourself ;).
  49. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    kdkd: 'Your strategy suggesting that we should account for this unobserved large negative feedback mechanism would seem unnecessarily risky...' What's the risk? '...assuming that it might provide a get out of jail free card seems unwarranted.' Who said it was get out of gaol free card? Not me.
  50. Throwing Stones at the Greenhouse Effect
    KR at 15:06 PM on 20 October, 2010 Yes, it is proof of a transition, not of the greenhouse effect itself. Im a believer in accuracy in these things is all. Its not my call end o the day. But it seems a simple alteration, to: evidence of an enhanced greenhouse is etc... as e said. But ill say no more on the matter ;-)
    Moderator Response: [Graham] Joe - I too think your point is valid and accurate, but it does seem to me a rather arcane point for the basic version. I always struggle with these posts, trying to walk the fine line between brevity and over-simplicity. In this case, since the distinction is clearly addressed in the intermediate version and I can't figure out how to qualify my remark without expanding into more explanations (and qualifications) I've elected to leave it as it is. I do acknowledge your comment however, and agree you are strictly correct.

Prev  2122  2123  2124  2125  2126  2127  2128  2129  2130  2131  2132  2133  2134  2135  2136  2137  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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