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  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  Next

Comments 107701 to 107750:

  1. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom, With respect, you are simply not listening or comprehending the replies to your posts. You keep citing cold weather events, that is confirmation bias. I'll repeat it again, only one nation around the globe has set all time record cold low in 2010. In contrast, so far this year 17 nations around the world set all time high records, and 2010 is on track to be the warmest on record. In the USA warm temperature records are out pacing cold records by over 2:1 so far this year, and similar stats are emerging elsewhere. We are not rapidly changing the tilt of the earth's axis Tom, there are still going to be seasons, including cold snaps during the winter months. The long term trend is global temperatures is up, and for the past 30 years the planet has been warming at almost 0.2 C/decade. The cold weather in parts of Europe and Eurasia last winter were because of the Arctic Oscillation (internal climate variability) flipping into an extremely negative phase, which meant the Arctic was relatively warm while the aforementioned areas were colder than average (not all time record lows as far as I can tell). Sorry, but unless you up your game and stop moving the goal posts, I'm tuning out.
  2. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom Loeber wrote : "Mr. Murphy, there is so much. The record cold that destroyed the livelihood of Mongolian herders, killing their livestock, the record cold across the whole south of China that was said to be the worst in more than 700 years, the record cold and snow in Washington state and descending into Oregon that helped kill my mom two years ago. The NE US and Europe cold that Professor Hansen explained away as weather not climate. England is stated as having their coldest winter on record within the last two years. I could give you a list as long as my arm of record cold events, widespread and on all continents and it appears since they just don't fit your hypothesis you can't see them." Firstly, last Winter here in the UK was the coldest since the late 70s overall. Hardly the "coldest winter on record". Feel free to post evidence that shows otherwise. Mongolian herders were indeed affected by a very cold Winter following the previous season's drought - a double whammy, as some of your other news articles for other countries have shown. Record cold ? Only if you want to believe so. I have read news articles about the cold Winter in China, a couple of years ago, suggesting the coldest since anywhere between 20 to 100 years. 700 years ? Over to you. You are still relying on news outlets for your opinions, but also, it would appear, your own personal loss. I can understand how this would make you want to see everything in catastrophic terms.
  3. We're heading into an ice age
    Mr. Murphy, no one is perfect. John Hamaker was apparently totally unaware of noctilucents though they appear to be a very strong indication that his theory is largely sound. Did you get a chance to see that movie I linked to earlier? Those small and large scale experiments in remineralizing soils offers so much to help us secure this planet. How come it is not a UN sponsored strategy? Seems remineralizing soils rather than using fossil fuel derived fertilizers would help the situation no matter what theory you believe. Hmmm, could fossil fuel companies wanting their cash cow of fertilizers to remain unchallenged be playing any role?
  4. We're heading into an ice age
    KR, extreme weather but over wide areas of the planet? When extreme weather becomes the norm should we still discount it? I am not denying global warming. I do think if the planet does snap into ice age conditions that will be a singular event and it will be climate and weather. I think there is a great deal of evidence that is happening but seems most are going to have to learn the hard way and that means a lot of death and destruction, maybe too much for humanity to survive, IMHO.
  5. We're heading into an ice age
    I've just looked up that Hamaker fellow and it appears he was predicting a shortening of growing seasons, before we fall head-long into an ice-age. Any proof ? An increasing number of studies have reported on shifts in timing and length of the growing season, based on phenological, satellite and climatological studies. The evidence points to a lengthening of the growing season of ca. 10–20 days in the last few decades, where an earlier onset of the start is most prominent. Observed changes in growing season length Field and satellite data at the community and biome levels indicate a lengthening of the growing season across much of the Northern Hemisphere (1–6) and—where data exist—in the Southern Hemisphere (5, 7, 8), yet life history observations of individual species suggest that many species often shorten their life cycle in response to warming (9–12). Not a very good start for Mr Hamaker, it would appear...
  6. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom Loeber - There will always be some extreme weather with unfortunate consequences, including the events that affected your family (which I'm very sorry to hear about). However, singular events are weather. If you are looking at climate (long term trends), you need to look at the statistics and numbers of many events, hot and cold. If you look at the relative numbers of hot and cold events, maxima and minima, you will see that individual cold weather doesn't disprove global warming. There are simply more extreme highs than extreme lows over the past 30 years. What we personally experience has strong effects on our beliefs - how could it not? But if you want to look at global changes, you need to look beyond personal direct experience to the global data.
  7. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom #82: Noctilucent clouds are believed to be CAUSED by global warming... and thus hardly constitute a 'fly in the ointment'. From what I can gather I think you are arguing that noctilucent clouds indicate cooling and thus are contrary to global warming. Of course, noctilucent clouds are found in the mesosphere... which of course cools as greenhouse gas concentrations increase and 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere.
  8. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Note that I also made a point of listing the EPA's references for their responses to the skeptic 'verbiage' (USGCRP, IPCC, and NRC) in anticipiation that certain individuals would dismiss their findings offhand, as gallopingcamel did.
  9. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    I'm finding that as I learn more I have less to say. Most of what I would say has already been said, in particular the comments relating to how something can be a pollutant merely by being out balance with what the current biological systems have adapted to, and the mind-numbing verbiage that are the critiques and responses to every comment the EPA received. GCamel, I suggest you read them before guessing what they might say. Then, if you are feeling industrious, find an independent, reliable source like a university science web site or physics and/or chemistry textbook to find confirming or controverting evidence. I'm trying to think of an analogy to CO2 being a pollutant that hasn't been used before, that would also strike home for the average person. Digoxin was pretty close, but while I happen to know what it is, not everyone does. It is a insidious because it is present naturally and its harmful effects are indirect. Like good old sodium chloride (table salt), it's required for life, but if someone were dumping some on my yard I be a bit peeved. But that doesn't work well because CO2 levels have to be very high before they become directly toxic. CFCs are relatively close because the harmful effects are indirect, but CFCs don't really occur naturally, at least in any quantity that I'm aware of. So, I'm still searching.
  10. We're heading into an ice age
    The Milankovitch theory does not explain noctilucents. They get in its way so I see, such as in the following article they are ignored, not even mentioned... Tom, if you'd actually read replies to your comments, you'd already have learned that noctilucent clouds are not being ignored. A further two minutes w/Google Scholar would also help you realize that the flies are actually in your ointment, screaming with their tiny voices for your attention.
  11. We're heading into an ice age
    Mr. Murphy, there is so much. The record cold that destroyed the livelihood of Mongolian herders, killing their livestock, the record cold across the whole south of China that was said to be the worst in more than 700 years, the record cold and snow in Washington state and descending into Oregon that helped kill my mom two years ago. The NE US and Europe cold that Professor Hansen explained away as weather not climate. England is stated as having their coldest winter on record within the last two years. I could give you a list as long as my arm of record cold events, widespread and on all continents and it appears since they just don't fit your hypothesis you can't see them. It is my opinion that the greatest danger we face is epistemic relativism. Might does not make right. Majority opinion does not determine truth. Observe to formulate opinions ad infinitum. Don't opinionize to formulate what you can and cannot observe.
  12. We're heading into an ice age
    My understanding is that when Milankovitch first proposed his theory he suggested gravitational influences from stars other than our own play a part in the comings and goings of ice ages besides eccentricity of orbit, influence of other planets, etc.. That seems pretty outrageous to me, tantamount to astrology. BUT that theory totally absolves humanity from having to watch what it does to the atmosphere as far as avoiding the threat of tipping the climate into its most stable state, ice age conditions. Most likely people reading this have college and university experiences. Look at who provides scholarships, awards and "prizes" more than any other source of money. It is the fossil fuel and the otherwise military associated companies that play a major role in determining funding, who gets degrees, who gets well paying jobs and who gets to be teachers. Do you think this does not lead to across the board mistaken assumptions that downplay the danger of burning fossil fuels? The way I have come to describe it, the interglacial is like a house of cards. It takes a long time to build but can collapse fast. The Hamaker hypothesis appears to fit the evidence better than the Milankovitch theory. Unlike the Milankovitch theory, the Hamaker hypothesis has led to experiments that strongly suggest its relative validity, real time experiments. The Hamaker hypothesis is not just dependent on the interpretation of past events like the Milankovitch theory is, solely. Many small and large scale experiments show soil remineralization greatly increases biomass and carbon dioxide sequestering. The Milankovitch theory does not explain noctilucents. They get in its way so I see, such as in the following article they are ignored, not even mentioned, though earth albedo is found to be the driving factor and not solar insolation Interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles, and Carbon Dioxide 2/10 Scientific understanding has been found to be quite wrong before despite a vast majority of established scientists, teachers, lecturers, politicians etc. holding most vehemently to the mistaken assumptions. It is even more easy to have those mistaken assumptions when they absolve any danger of the promulgation of the main money making enterprise of the richest fraction of the population. Noctilucents, a fly in your ointment, gentlemen.
  13. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Also, Doug hits the ball out of the park in this comment: What's really ironic and kind of funny in light of your word choice is that many more pages of what many of us think of when we use the term "verbiage" were donated by "skeptics," forcing the EPA to explain again the science behind the policy. The comments portion is an exhaustive encyclopedia of wrong thinking about climate science and science in general. Exactly. The reason the EPA's document is so lengthy is that they made their scientists sit down and write patient, careful responses to every single objection or criticism, no matter how ill-founded. The end result is actually rather reminiscent of Skeptical Science itself, as has been pointed out previously.
  14. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    GC #87 EPA initiatives intended to improve the environment are often wrong headed and costly. I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again. What is it with "skeptics" and argument by assertion? If you want to make this case, you need to demonstrate -- not just announce -- that the EPA's policies are "often" wrong and costly. It'd also be helpful to provide hard evidence that EPA policies routinely lead to worse outcomes than doing nothing. None of that would demonstrate that they're wrong on CO2, of course, any more than Dred Scott demonstrates that the SCOTUS is wrong on CO2. But at least your argument would have a little bit of substance, as opposed to none.
  15. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    gallopingcamel writes: Ned (#86), Great graph! I am sick of all those graphs that exaggerate effects by suppressing the zero. Thank you. There is no definitive rule for what's appropriate in scaling graph axes. In some cases, extending the axis to 0 is appropriate. In other cases, it merely serves to obscure information that could be presented more clearly by a different choice. In this case, the Y axis needs to cover the range from below 180 to around 1000 ppm. Given that range, there's no particular cost to extending the Y axis down to 0. In general, humans are often able to extract the most information about the shape of a graph when it is scaled such that the absolute values of line segments are centered around 45 degrees (W.S. Cleveland, The Elements of Graphing Data [1994]; discussed in E. Tufte, Envisioning Information [1997], p. 25).
  16. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    GC, the majority of the EPA's "verbiage" as you describe it is an exhaustive recap of the myriad scientific details justifying policy. In other words, EPA is demonstrating a compelling case. What's really ironic and kind of funny in light of your word choice is that many more pages of what many of us think of when we use the term "verbiage" were donated by "skeptics," forcing the EPA to explain again the science behind the policy. The comments portion is an exhaustive encyclopedia of wrong thinking about climate science and science in general. I'm guessing you made that blunder because your odd attitude to government did not permit you to actually visit and read any of that information. Your other remark about EPA is just vacuous. I know you can do better; I've seen it.
  17. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    chriscanaris, unlike CO2 in the atmosphere, which mainly causes problems and so needs to be regulated, junk mail mainly leads to profits and jobs, and is already regulated : Direct marketing generates £205 billion in annual sales for UK Plc
  18. gallopingcamel at 02:03 AM on 6 October 2010
    Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Ned (#86), Great graph! I am sick of all those graphs that exaggerate effects by suppressing the zero. doug_bostrom (#63), I have to admit that you do your home work. The EPA probably imagines it has covered its vulnerable extremities with all that verbiage. I bet there is even more documentation to justify the mandatory addition of ethanol to our gasoline. EPA initiatives intended to improve the environment are often wrong headed and costly. The EPA's reputation will soon be on the level of the Department of Education. Come to think of it.....that is a good thing.
  19. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    @KL (149): then you agree the "flattening" was simply a temporary reduction likely caused by the PDO's cooling effect? "What Ned and archiesteel are trying to claim is that I don't understand climate responses to the AG radiative forcings." It would be hard to tell if you understand it or not since you seem to make a point of posting confusing (and confused) arguments. Of course the forcings (including solar) were not at "zero" in 1750 - the sun was shining, wasn't it? Similarly, there was already CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere, so the GHG forcing wasn't zero either - but that completely misses the point. The *increase* or *decrease* in the forcings is what counts.
    Moderator Response: Please follow KR's excellent example and move all further discussion of whether or not solar irradiance forcing is responsible for modern warming to the thread on Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?. Thanks.
  20. It's the sun
    Ken Lambert - To follow up on the theme of comparing anomalies, the discussion on CO2 is not the only driver of climate is quite useful, especially this chart: This starts from a baseline of 1880 (where the "zero" is set), showing deltas (changes) from those values. Note that solar irradiance deltas are trivial compared to greenhouse gases and aerosols. Once again, TSI is not the driver of recent warming. TSI changes simply do not match the temperature record.
  21. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Here's a graph showing CO2 levels over the past 800,000 years, compared to the current concentration (around 390 ppm) and the range of projected concentrations in 2100 based on the various IPCC scenarios: CO2 concentrations in the Dome C, Vostok, and Law Dome ice cores, for the past 800,000 years (purple line). Atmospheric concentrations 1959-present shown in orange line at right, with current (2010) value of 390 ppm indicated by dashed line. Red circles indicate range of projected CO2 concentrations in 2100. This might provide some context for the importance of regulating CO2 emissions. Failure to limit emissions would shift the chemistry of the atmosphere to a condition certainly not seen in the past 800,000 years and probably not for quite a long time before that.
  22. gallopingcamel at 01:10 AM on 6 October 2010
    Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Many thanks for your thoughtful responses. My speculations in #73 are based on the link to the NOAA web site. However, I did take the time to download the actual data from NOAA and plot it using my spreadsheet program. You can do the same by clicking on the "Data" link. Here is the URL again: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html Alley's data was published 10 years ago, so an update covering recent years would be helpful. That is one of the reasons for my planned visit to NCDC in Asheville in two weeks time. I don't expect to meet with Alley himself but there are several other people who worked on central Greenland. A related question for my Asheville visit concerns the "station drop off" at high latitudes. Given the "magnification" of warming and cooling effects at high latitudes, why have the number of reporting stations fallen? For example, the GHCN only includes Resolute and Alert in its database when it comes to the Canadian arctic and the situation is similar for northern Russia. It has been my experience that people will tell you many things in conversation that are not evident by reading their published papers, so I hope to be able to share some additional insights next month. With the above in mind do any of you have questions for the staff at NCDC?
    Moderator Response: Comments about station dropoff belong in a different thread. You know how to find it.
  23. Roger A. Wehage at 01:06 AM on 6 October 2010
    Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
    Fearing unfavorable public reaction, it is unlikely that the United States government will do anything significant to mitigate CO2 emissions in the foreseeable future. But they may spend hundreds of billions on star-wars type geoengineering ideas. Here is Representative Bart Gordon's Plan B for the Climate. Rep. Gordon said, "Within the next month, I will release a report titled Geoengineering the Climate: Research Needs and Strategies for International Coordination." Watch for that report for more details.
  24. It's the sun
    Ken Lambert - In regards to your ongoing insistence on unmeasured solar influence, I will point out that some of your issues with 1750 are based upon an inconsistent and incorrect view of "baseline". Forcings are set to zero starting at 1750 in many discussions as a point of reference for anomalies, not because of an equilibrium state. According to the historic and paleo reconstructions, without industrialization we should have seen 1750 onward continuing the Little Ice Age slope, and cooling (not equilibrium). By comparing TSI, CO2, aerosols, and other elements to the numbers at 1750 we can see how they've changed over time, and hence determine which changes are more relevant to the changing climate. But it's absolutely NOT a zero sum game starting from a blank slate equilibrium - which you for some reason keep insisting upon. And finally, given the historic record of changes in solar forcing, your insistence on "it's the sun" is not supported - there have not been changes in solar output consistent with the temperature record over the last 30-40 years. The sun is clearly not the base cause of global warming.
  25. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ken Lambert - I would strongly recommend taking this discussion, and your unsupported theory of unmeasured solar forcing, to the "It's the sun" thread, where it's appropriate. I have placed a reply on that thread.
    Moderator Response: Thank you.
  26. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    All the Ken-world viewers note this on significance periods: 14 years is better that 10 years is better than 8 years is better than 5 years and 1-2 years is not much good at all.
  27. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Sorry Moderator, I didn't see your comment while I was posting.
  28. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Ned: Ad hominem? No. I assume most people make the decisions they do in good faith. They sometimes get things wrong as no doubt you believe I have today. Unfortunately, as one who's had a fair bit to do with courts as an expert witness, I have a somewhat jaundiced view of our Anglo-Saxon adversarial court system even when judges do the best they can. However, judges are also constrained by the evidence placed before them. In this instance, I have no quarrel whatsoever with the Supreme Court's rulings - I think they had sound reasons for viewing anthropogenic CO2 as a pollutant. Doug: You used the word 'legislate.' Technically you're right - elected legislators legislate or make law while courts interpret legislation. In interpreting legislation, however, Courts create legal precedents (effectively clarifying law and in some instances giving it novel expression) which can only be overturned by specific legislation. Doug: I'm not speculating on your personality. Again, I always assume you are contributing here in good faith and with good will. However, I thought you were being inconsistent which all of us, myself included, inevitably sometimes are. I may be wrong, of course. JMurphy: I think this site is a superb forum for debate which is consistently stimulating and thought provoking. We could do with more such spaces. As for revenue suffered by firms from loss of advertising, I can count on my fingers the number of times I have purchased items based on unsolicited mail. The sheer inefficiency and waste for so little revenue with such substantial environmental impacts does upset me. Cutting down trees to turn them into pulp for advertising is certainly not my idea of a carbon sink. Using energy for unnecessary production of paper is not a good carbon sink. What's worse, you're probably right - much of that paper never goes into recycling but ends up in landfill. As for those who can't walk or cycle, Sydney has been crying out for thirty years for a better public transport system - no government of any stripe seems willing or able to take defective action. It'd be great to see fewer cars on our roads. Not no cars - just fewer cars and more efficient cars.
  29. Arctic sea ice... take 2
    CBD, thanks for the numbers update. That '07 'increase' probably reflects the winter levels transitioning from '06 to '07. We know what the summer of '07 did. For all practical purposes, the last chance of a 'recovery' ended that year. We are left with the prospect of being one bad (for the MultiYear ice) summer away from a late-summer/early-fall-navigable Arctic Ocean. With its attendant habitat loss for the walrus, seal and polar bear (the Arctic Fox is the poster-child for the forgotten species, but will probably endure best). Keep an eye on the MY ice advection out the Fram this winter. That, plus a strong dipole next year, will officially mark the dawn of a new era in international commerce...and species loss in the Arctic. As Doug & Riccardo delineate, the times they are a-changin'. Now. On our Watch. The Yooper
  30. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Yooper, Ned, Archisteel, Adelady, kdkd et al: It must be bash Ken-world week. Clearly if you visited my posts on other threads - you all might glean that I have some reasonable understanding of the numbers and state of climate play. This is what I said to Yooper on 20SEP: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=56&&n=374#comments Comment #63 "The critical measurement is the TOA imbalance which nets all the heating and cooling forcings. Ref Fig 2.4 of AR4 which gives a total net anthropogenic forcing of +1.6W/sq.m. To this number is then added the climate responses which mainly consist of radiative cooling (from a raised Earth temperature of 0.75 degC as per S-B) of about -2.8W/sq.m and WV and Ice Albedo Feedback of about +2.1 W/sq.m. (Ref Dr Trenberth Fig 4 'Tracking the Earth's global energy) The sum is then +1.6 -2.8 +2.1 = +0.9W/sq.m All the heating and cooling forcings are acting in concert. S-B is emitting IR, Aerosols and clouds are reflecting incoming Solar heat, while CO2GHG are supposedly trapping Solar heat at lower levels (the mechanism is more correctly slowing down the transfer rather than 'trapping' heat) which tends to raise the equilibrium temperature as the analogy of a better insulator increases the T1-T2 temperature difference for a given heat flux transferred. What is certain is that CO2GHG forcing (currently claimed at about 1.6W/sq.m) is logarithmic with CO2 concentration, and S-B radiative cooling is exponential (proportional to T^4). Where these forcings and the others cross is where the forcing imbalance is zeroed and the new equilibrium temperature approached. The CO2GHG theory hangs on the interaction of WV and CO2 in the atmosphere and what will be the surface temperature rise for a unit rise in the IR emitting temperature of the Earth as seen from space." end quote What Ned and archiesteel are trying to claim is that I don't understand climate responses to the AG radiative forcings. The point I am making about Solar forcing and energy over time is that the components of the Radiative forcing (Fig 2.4 IPCC AR4) are separated for analysis and quantification, but they are the INSTANTANEOUS energy flux (power) forcings in W/sq.m circa AD2005. There is a history over time for these forcings going back to the pre-industrial 'zero' date of AD1750. There will be a curve for each and the area under that curve represents the total energy contributed by each. Simultaneously there are the climate response forcings which also have their curves going back wrt time ie: "which mainly consist of radiative cooling (from a raised Earth temperature of 0.75 degC as per S-B) of about -2.8W/sq.m and WV and Ice Albedo Feedback of about +2.1 W/sq.m. (Ref Dr Trenberth Fig 4 'Tracking the Earth's global energy)" Again these are AD2005 numbers for the instantaneous value of the response forcings. Summing ALL the curves should give a combined effect of a composite curve over time, the area under which represents the total of the energy absorbed or lost to the earth system at any point in time since AD1750. Temperature (with appropriate lags) should in theory follow this time integral. Now, where Ned does not 'get it' is that when looking at the Solar forcing COMPONENT of the +1.6W/sq.m of net AG forcings, my contention is that this is underestimated if the Solar forcing of the Earth was not 'zero' in 1750, because all the other AG forcings were 'zero' as far as we know. If CO2GHG forcing was not zero in 1750, the same argument would apply to its area under the forcing curve. It would also be underestimated. If you disagree with the methodology of looking at each COMPONENT AG radiative and Solar forcing and then summing them (and their time history curves), because they in reality all acted in concert together with climate response forcings to produce the net result; then you must disagree with the IPCC method and that of Hansen, Dr Trenberth et al, who explicitly use this method to separate out the components. Without this separation - no theroetical analysis of the relative value of each AG forcing could have been made and all we would know is that the current TOA imbalance (CERES April 2010) is +6.4W/sq.m which would indeed cause us all to fry in hell. A correction back to 0.9W/sq.m would be impossible without the theroetical analysis of the components and their apparent magnitudes.
  31. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    "Supreme" Court. Does this word tell you something, chriscanaris?
    Moderator Response: Please, everybody, no more on the Supreme Court.
  32. Arctic sea ice... take 2
    CBDunkerson, 2+ years old ice is the green area and it's still decreasing after 2007. What strikes me is the huge amount of >2 years ice that melted away this summer, continuing the decrease started in 2007. And, according to NSIDC, the oldest sea ice virtually disappeared.
  33. Arctic sea ice... take 2
    CBD, I was looking at the bit of the graph where the 1-2YO (blue slice) ice nearly vanished; I think I didn't make myself clear. What I find striking is how nearly constant that constituent has been over the time span of the graph, only to go through the sharp drop in '07 leading to '08. Smacks of something changing a lot, quickly.
  34. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    chriscanaris wrote : "I could think of far better substitutes for the Supreme Court. Robust and honest debate conducted in a spirit of mutual respect. Practical actions such as not stuffing my mail box each day with a mass of advertising which goes straight into recycling thus saving a few forests - good carbon sinks. Walking or cycling to and from work." Where would such a debate take place ? Why should firms suffer the loss of income gained from that advertising ? Where are they going to get the replacement income from ? How many people actually recycle that advertising ? What is a "good carbon sink" and where might they be put ? What about those who can't walk or cycle to work ?
  35. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Oops, I'm in nearly complete disagreement with you, Chris, in particular with your speculation on my comfort with and commitment to our system of government. Presumably you're upset with my employment of the word "happily." It sounds as though you've misconstrued my happiness, or I communicated it poorly. Serves me right for daring to use such an emotional adjective, eh? Also, you don't agree with me that courts can't legislate physics. I didn't say that, and in any case courts don't legislate. As you've volunteered to speculate on my personality, I'll offer in return that your writing is better when it does not sound so eager. Getting back to the matter at hand, your reply was arranged around abstract politics largely to the exclusion of the facts being discussed in this thread. If you want to continue down that path here I won't be able to follow you. Have at it if you must.
  36. Arctic sea ice... take 2
    PIOMAS also updated... September 2010 average ice volume of 4,000 km^3. Which is way down from the previous record low of 5,800 km^3 in September 2009. Obviously if that rate continued the ice would all be gone within three years. Even the average rate over the past ten years has been -1000 km^3 per year, so four more years at that rate. So yeah, Maslowski's projection (2016 +/- 3 years to nearly ice free) is looking pretty good. Indeed, these numbers suggest it was conservative. However, NSIDC is still saying 20 to 30 years... presumably based on the extent trend, which is much less pronounced than the volume trend. We'll know within a couple of years which is going to be the ultimate determinant. My money is on volume. Doug, actually as I read the chart the 2+ year ice percentage increased slightly in 2007. The first sharp dip shown is for Sept 2008, then a smaller one for Sept 2009, and now a third even smaller dip for Sept 2010. This is consistent with ice volume having declined since 2007 while extent increased slightly. The fact that these are percentages also changes how we should look at them somewhat... 55% of the 4.3 September 2007 extent is still more than 15% of the 4.8 September 2010 extent, but not as much more as the percentages alone suggest.
  37. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    chriscanaris tries to find fault with the US Supreme Court's decision that yes, the US EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. While I normally find his comments enlightening and thought-provoking, this one seems to be a bit of an exception. Suggesting that the Court's clearly objectionable 1857 Dredd Scott decision somehow casts doubt on its judgment in the current case would seem to be the perfect example of argumentum ad hominem. In fact, it's even worse than the normal employment of ad hominem insofar as the individuals on the current USSC had nothing to do with the Dredd Scott decision. It's also worth considering that, if you look at US history, the constituency whose interests Taney et al. were promoting (conservative southern whites) is the same core constituency that the opponents of emissions regulation are serving. A map of opposition to government meddling in slavery in 1857 would look a lot like a map of opposition to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 (I'm not trying to suggest that "AGW skeptics" are somehow equivalent to plantation owners, merely pointing out how spectacularly poor chriscanaris's analogy is.)
  38. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    CBDunkerson #74 "An increase in human population increases the amount of carbon cycling through humans... but not the total amount of carbon in active circulation." This is correct. Therefore, had alterative non-combustion forms of energy been harnessed for the entire Industrial Revolution (if this were even possible), and if the population somehow still grew as it did, then there would be less CO2 in the atmosphere since it would have been sequestered by the growth pattern, and I assume the world would be cooler according to AGW. With a cooling world, farming would be hampered some and therefore less prone to growth. Again, its very hard to imagine how heavy industries could have emerged historically without fossil fuels (nearly impossible even with current technologies, which of course did not exist). At any rate, my point was that fossil fuels have primed the system, and the carbon is out there. Not only "out there", but as hard as it may be to accept, and quite ironic, our own bodies contain this "anthropogenic" carbon.
    Moderator Response: Please discuss the role of human metabolism in Earth's climate at the "Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?" thread.
  39. An underwater hockey stick
    doug_bostrom wrote : "JMurphy JohnD's email quote appears to been sourced here. It's worth reading the whole thing, a familiar refrain as we've yet again been treated to a rhetorically expedient selection. There's some discussion here further indicating things were not as simple as they've been portrayed." Ah, so, as usual, what johnd leaves out is more important than what he writes ! Interesting as to how the models are all recognised as providing output that cannot be truly trusted in advance, and that some are better than others at different times, predictions, etc. What a surprise...not, and what a surprise that a so-called skeptic would cherry-pick...not ! It's also interesting to remember that the source you gave was also involved in claims (last year ?) that 'Japanese scientists disbelieve AGW' - it all went back to a similar email exchange at JAMSTEC that involved a group of people in discussion. Amazingly, the words then were cherry-picked to determine a belief very different than what was actually contained in the whole exchange. Well done for going to the trouble to find the original - something one rarely gets from so-called skeptics, unsurprisingly.
  40. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    #70:"Breathing does increase CO2 levels in direct proportion to the increase in population. " That is provably false. US population increased in 2009, yet CO2 emissions decreased. See the breathing thread for a reference.
  41. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Doug, the Court in Dredd Scott looked at what seemed equally mundane questions to many at the time in question - did it have the requisite jurisdiction, could citizens be deprived of their property, and the like. I agree with you 100% that a Court can't legislate on the laws of physics. I'm sure you're every bit as unhappy as I am about Cuccinelli's efforts. However, you seem to be happy to involve the Courts when you happen to agree with a specific outcome. I could think of far better substitutes for the Supreme Court. Robust and honest debate conducted in a spirit of mutual respect. Practical actions such as not stuffing my mail box each day with a mass of advertising which goes straight into recycling thus saving a few forests - good carbon sinks. Walking or cycling to and from work. I'm sure you could come up with a lengthy list of other useful interventions which carry minimal cost but which if everyone did them would have substantial impacts.
  42. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    Re: Agnostic (35) The melt-curve needed to hit 1+ meter of SLR by 2050 will also deliver 3+ by 2100. Not saying it will happen, or not. Just pointing out the obvious. BTW, that jibes with Hansen's latest (catastrophic instabilities in the PIG, already underway, triggers a 5+ meter SLR deglaciation of the WAIS by 2100). If I wasn't half-asleep (and lazy) right now I'd link it. Google Hansen 2008. Think that's it. The Yooper
  43. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Chris in this case we're not looking at an issue freighted with mutating, evolving attitudes to race relations, etc., deep questions of ethics or morality. The Supreme Court was confronted with facts of science posed against facts of existing law and regulation; the Court was asked to determine if the matter of C02 was within the purview of the Clean Air Act. It was a pretty mundane decision compared to Brown vs. Board of Education etc. Regarding the sometimes spotty record of the Supreme Court, perfect it isn't but there's no substitute, it's the destination for questions turning on what folks see as fine points of law. We can expect for those unhappy with the disposition of facts to mount an effort to change those facts by changing the law. They may well be able to change the facts of the law, the real trouble is they cannot legislate physics.
  44. Arctic sea ice... take 2
    If 2011 sees the summer development of the Arctic DiPole, strong possibility of open water at the pole by melt season's end. Had there been favorable weather in July it could have happened this year. Hope the pole cams float. Maslowski's looking pretty good, too. The Yooper
  45. Arctic sea ice... take 2
    So, we'll see the final, really wild seasonal variations when/if that 1-2 year old ice is gone. What's interesting is that it's held fairly steady overall during the period shown, but was nearly obliterated in the famous '07 slice. I suppose that feature may show as an early harbinger once the data is extended, an early wiggle toward the final outcome. I must say, Serreze's prognostications look to be right on track.
  46. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    I detect a small problem in turning to the US Supreme Court as an arbiter on these issues. The Court has a chequered record: See the Dredd Scott decision, which had momentous consequences. Courts deal with the law but don't do a very good job of science and morality.
  47. Arctic sea ice... take 2
    There is some updated information, consistent with the PIOMAS results in the article, on Arctic sea ice age from the NSIDC; "At the end of the summer 2010, under 15% of the ice remaining the Arctic was more than two years old, compared to 50 to 60% during the 1980s. There is virtually none of the oldest (at least five years old) ice remaining in the Arctic (less than 60,000 square kilometers [23,000 square miles] compared to 2 million square kilometers [722,000 square miles] during the 1980s)."
  48. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP #70: "Breathing does increase CO2 levels in direct proportion to the increase in population." An increase in human population increases the amount of carbon cycling through humans... but not the total amount of carbon in active circulation. It can't. There is no possible way that we could exhale more carbon than we take in... unless you are arguing that human beings spontaneously generate carbon atoms. Indeed, since our bodies are partially composed of carbon and most humans bury their dead, living humans are a carbon sink on the decadal scale and dead humans a carbon sink on the millenial scale. So far as our bodies alone are concerned humans are a net carbon sink. Thus, no... the fact that excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere (and thus carbonic acid in the oceans) constitute pollution (i.e. are harmful to the environment) does not mean that the EPA is going to be able to order executions. Setting aside the sheer insanity of the claim... it simply wouldn't accomplish anything. It is human industry which is causing rising atmospheric CO2 levels... digging up carbon which has been stored away in fossil fuels for millions of years and reintroducing it to active circulation.
  49. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    17, hadfield: The statement you are trying to promote is different from what I am trying to do. Sorry.
  50. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Exactly, RSVP, it's a global problem, eyes are on the U.S. to show a serious willingness to get a grip on this problem, a hurdle for international accord. Our current batch of Senators for various reasons found themselves unable to follow the lead of the President and House and actually finish a specific response to C02 as a unique policy challenge. Happily, a little over 35 years ago a different President and Congress promulgated legislation that addresses the issue, as the EPA has proposed and the Supreme Court has affirmed. The EPA reflects durable wisdom and foresight encapsulated in law. It all has quite a bit to do with politics. We're not supposed to talk about politics here, but this particular thread of discussion is about policy, and policy in the United States is the sausage emerging from legislative politics. By the way, without having read the EPA's justification for tackling C02 there's no way anybody's going to produce usefully informed specific comment on this. Insightful generalities about the boundaries of the term "pollution," maybe, productive criticism of the EPA, no.

Prev  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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