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  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  Next

Comments 108101 to 108150:

  1. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Hi Ken and the group, Ken, it is not just kdkd who has an issue with your repeated misguided claims made here. Pretty much everyone has patiently and politely shown the err of your ways and misunderstanding of the science and data. Please don't deny that, the evidence is here for everyone to read. In fact, given the circumstances, I'm surprised just how polite and patient most people have been with you. It boils down to this: AGW is not going to manifest itself as a monotonic increase in global temperature (or SL or OHC). The climate system is quite noisy with variability increasing as the time scale decreases from inter-decadal to inter-annual, to intra-annual. That is why climate scientists are required to look at long term trends (20 years plus) to extract statistically significant trends/signals from the noise. Now I am at al loss to explain why you stubbornly refusing to accept that well-established fact. Perhaps it is because you are not familiar enough with the science to grasp these elementary, yet critical concepts? I just don't understand. What I do understand is that your presence on these thread is becoming increasingly disruptive, redundant (i.e., repeating the same fallacious claim) and as such is not conducive to constructive debate. Anyhow, in an effort to get back on topic-- this thread is about paleo reconstructions. May I humbly suggest we take this debate about OHC to the appropriate thread-- not that the misunderstanding surrounding the OHC data have not already been discussed ad nauseum there.
    Moderator Response: Excellent point about staying on-topic. As it's largely dedicated to resolving errors versus variability, probably the best place to take further discussion of OHC measurements themselves is the Robust warming of the global upper ocean thread.
  2. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    I quote from above "This 2°C warming level is considered the "danger limit". During the last interglacial period when the average global temperature was approximately 2°C hotter than today, sea levels were 6.6 to 9.4 meters higher than current sea levels." If a 2°C in the past caused a 6.6 to 9.4 rise in sea levels, doesn't it intuitively seem that 2°C is past the danger limit?
  3. Jeff Freymueller at 03:00 AM on 5 October 2010
    Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    You are right, pbjamm (30). In fact, it looks like the rate over the last 3 years is even higher than the average rate because of the dip in the curve in mid-2007. There's no way that variations over such a short time span would be significant, though, so its really a moot point.
  4. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    pbjamm @30, You are reading the graph correctly. Be careful about eyeballing though, best to calc. the OLS line. But, yes, it does seem that if one cherry-picked mid 2007, one could argue that SL rise was accelerating. It may be, but that is way too short a time frame for the trend to be statistically significant, and to draw that conclusion based on such a short window would be misleading. Interesting how you and I and the scientists do not make that mistake, but that the 'skeptics' do repeatedly identify short term windows to find trends (no matter how statistically insignificant) to support their misguided claims. I honestly cannot believe to what lengths some people will go to rationalize their belief that global sea level rise is slowing. Even some very smart people like Pielke Snr have made the same mistake.
  5. We're heading into an ice age
    Looking at some of the assumptions that seem to underly the lead article, NOAA used to have a page on their web site where a credentialed scientist was lamenting how the Milankovitch theory of ice age cycling was used to date ocean sediments then the sediments' dating used to bolster the Milankovitch theory but that page disappeared during the last Bush administration, apparently. Ever hear of the Devil's Hole Nevada crystals analysis for oxygen isotopes ratio over the last couple of hundred thousand years that was released in 1988? Devil's Hole Oxygen isotope ratio analysis. Do some in depth research into it and you find their resulting time line puts the start of the last two major ice ages at peak concentrations of carbon dioxide. That study has been repeated with analysis of similar crystals from deep pristine wells around the planet with some rather convincing agreement but, seems the Milankovitch theory still predominates despite the accumulating evidence that atmospheric gases concentration plays the major role in the cycling of the ice ages: Carbon dioxide concentrations play leading climate determining role.. The Milankovitch theory totally lets the fossil fuel robber barons off the hook so, is it any wonder you find recent studies purporting to prove it on the basis of an announced match of one cycle change?: Milankovitch theory proved? Want to buy some swamp land?. There are coral deposit studies that suggests major ice ages start immediately after global warming: Global warming starts ice ages? How long do we have to wait for the science to take hold and blow all these fossil fuel serving lies to smithereens? Who knows. It has been found though that major swings to ice age conditions can happen quite fast, like, within a years time: One of actually many findings that ice ages can come on incredibly fast. From Jared Diamond, in his book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," one can see that climate change plays a major role in how human social experiments end. A "Secrets of the Dead" PBS program shared some convincing evidence how climate fluctuation was perhaps the major reason why Rome fell. Human social experiments simply don't have the information handling acumen to predict and prepare. What with the fossil fuel companies basically ruling behind these ruses we call societies today, is it any wonder the very dangerous repercussions of carbon dioxide increase would be squelched, nay, suppressed, censored? There was wide spread record cold in the southern hemisphere this last winter, Africa, South America, New Zealand, Tasmania, Australia and I understand even Antarctica had record cold. What's going to happen to the north hemisphere this winter? I'm afraid you wont see much of it on the war profiteering fossil fuel controlled media channels but you might just feel it or get to see some of your family die from it.
  6. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    @KL: "And I am not really interested in whether or not you are interested in my offerings on these issues." Sure you are, otherwise you wouldn't have answered. "I note archisteel that you are not engaging on the numbers." I don't need to, others have done it for me, and very convincingly might I add. "There is a flattening of SLR, temperatures and probably OHC (although inadequately measured) over the last 10 years." 10 years is not long enough to make a statistically-significant slope, therefore your argument is invalid. I could just as well argue that the last three years show a dramatically increased warming slope... "This cannot be ascribed to ENSO, La Nina, PDO, AMO and other circulations and re-distributions of existing heat energy within the Earth system" Actually, we can. The PDO entered a cold phase right about that time, and reduced the warming (which continue to rise). "I have never claimed that CO2GHG do not contribute to increased surface warming by increasing the T1-T2 differential across the atmospheric column." You like to wrap your posts in jargon to give yourself more credibility, but the fact of the matter is that someone who understands the science well can also explain it clearly for others. Recourse to highly technical jargon in a layman's discussion usually indicates a desire to obfuscate. "I have claimed that the proportions of AG forcing and Solar forcing are not accurately known and that this is critical to predictions of the 'equilibrium' temperature rise." What's the "equilibrium temperature rise," exactly? "There is great uncertainty in the WV and ice albedo positive feedback and the cooling effect of cloud albedo." There is uncertainty in everything, that's quite a meaningless statement. Get to the point. "Relatively simple first law thermodynamics and heat transfer analyses can be made to check some of the claims of 'scientists'." Scientists in quotes? Right, they're all either idiots or conspirators in your world view, right? I believe conspiracy theories falls into the "Political comment" zone. "Claims like 'hottest year on record' and 'hottest decade on record' are not inconsistent with warming being slowed or flattened or plateauing." ...just as a temporary slowdown or plateau is not inconsistent with warming - especially since the slowdown has all but ended in the past couple of years. "If you climb a slope and reach a plateau you will be on the 'highest spot in your particular universe' until you climb down." That is completely irrelevant. If you're climbing a mountain you get to see whether or not the slope continues ahead of you. Here, you *don't* know if the warming trend will increase or decrease, even though you seem certain it's the later (betraying the bias that clouds your judgement). The fact of the matter is that the *only* indications we current have is that the warming appears to have resumed with a vengeance. "Your huffing and puffing will not change the fact that the more accurate measurement has become in recent times - temperature, SLR and OHC by Argo - the flatter the rise in all three." ...only if *you* get to cherry-pick the time frame, which you have consistently done in these threads. Oh, and I'm not "huffing and puffing." Just like you seem to have a false idea of the current warming trend, you have no idea of my state of mind, and attempts at suggesting I'm being emotional is just another rhetorical trick of the trade. Fortunately, Daniel, Adelady, Ned and Doug have done an excellent job of demolishing your arguments, and I note you haven't been able to come up with convincing counter-arguments to challenge their rebuttal. Don't go "huffing and puffing," now!
  7. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Nicely comprehensive. I suppose it goes without saying that almost anything is a pollutant if it's found in the wrong place and/or at the wrong concentration. Skeptics are fond of referring to the naturalness of C02. C0 is also found in the atmosphere as a natural constituent, so I guess by the same logic as that applied to C02, sitting in one's garage with the engine running and the doors closed is perfectly ok.
  8. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Blithe spirits assume that XBT-Argo transition artifacts explain the steep slope in OHC ca ~2002-2004 and that axiomatically this must indicate the heat content caught by the span of the measurements does not exist. This seems to presuppose that XBT was more accurate than Argo as a means of measuring OHC. There are a number of problems with that assumption beyond the simple issue of XBTs being an inferior means of measuring OHC. Most of all, the discontinuity is not found by oceanographers to represent a spurious measurement of OHC not in existence, rather to the extent the temporal change in slope is an error, it appears to signal a defect in our ability prior to Argo to assess OHC. Focusing on the discontinuity is not an argument that OHC is declining, rather it calls attention to an improvement in our ability to measure heat as well as an actual addition to the inventory of heat identified. People whose business it is to know of these things say: The XBT was designed primarily to estimate ocean sound speed for submarine warfare. As XBT data began to be used for more sensitive climate research of the sort discussed here, partly correctable temporal and spatial biases in both XBT temperature and XBT depth were discovered ( Lyman et al ) Not surprisingly, the addition of a new source of OHC data not only was an improvement in accuracy of measurements, it allowed us an independent means of validating measurements from XBT data and thus allowed oceanographers a way to begin fixing problems with XBT data. This has been the topic of fairly intensive effort: In Situ Data Biases and Recent Ocean Heat Content Variability* Identifying and estimating biases between XBT and Argo observations using satellite altimetry Changing Expendable Bathythermograph Fall Rates and Their Impact on Estimates of Thermosteric Sea Level Rise (skeptics should pay close attention to this one) Etc. Regarding Argo, experts as opposed to blog commenters say: The flattening of OHCA curves also occurs around the time (2004) that the Argo array of autonomous profiling floats first achieved near global coverage and became the primary source of OHCA data. The Argo array affords year-round sampling of the temperature and salinity of the ice-free oceans over the 0–2,000-m layer, with a nominal separation of 3u in latitude and longitude.The transition from an ocean temperature record consisting primarily of ship-based XBT data to one dominated by high-quality conductivity–temperature–depth (CTD) instrument data from Argo floats occurred between roughly 2000 and 20059, and marked a revolution in ocean observing. ( Lyman et al ) What's notably absent from that expert commentary on the XBT-Argo transition is any mention of concern about a false assessment of total OHC introduced by the XBT-Argo transition. That is to say, oceanographers are not concerned that the discontinuous jump visible in graphs of OHC is a false addition to our measurement of OHC; the heat content visible at the right end of the graph above is real. It's pretty funny that "skeptics" love to point out this "offset error" when in fact it reinforces the case for a warming ocean.
  9. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    adelady (you from my home town, SA?), to play devil's advocate, you could argue that we'd relocate farmland to the green zones as they move to higher latitudes, and relocate some of the millions of people flooded inland by rising seas to to higher altitudes. Still doesn't answer the problem of the cost/rate of change, of course, and the stress this moving around would place on societies and economies. When we were nomadic we could follow the weather, but as humankind's dominion is a patchwork of state borders, trouble will come when rivers dry up in one country and are filled in another. There have already been wars over water resources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict
  10. Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
    nofreewind @25 I am no expert but i believe you are reading the graph @18 incorrectly. The rate of change is indicated by the slope of that line, 3.2mm/year over the last 17 years. To get the rate for the last 3 years you would have to draw another line from your start point (Jan 2007) to the end. It appears from eyeballing this that it is almost exactly on the same 3.2mm/year trend. If you start from mid 2007 then the slope (rate of change) is actually greater. Someone please correct me if it is I who am misreading the above graph.
  11. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    I already have domestic solar but that's not the issue. The issue is large scale investment in such things, not small isolated individual investment. Even if governments just withheld the $500 billion a year going into antiquated FF industry pockets, that'd be a good start. And I'm not very keen on too much money going into power plants that need cooling water. Too many nuclear and coal plants are already having shutdowns at crucial times for lack of suitable, or any, water. Until we see good 20 year evidence of continual, reliable, non-flooding river flows at potential power plant sites I think nuclear's not a good option. Any generation.
  12. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    KL writes: He just needs to find a fault in my maths, application of the first law, energy calculations, SLR calculations and a host of other numbers and logical points. Come on, Ken. The problems with this comment have been pointed out again and again. Specifically, you write If the Solar forcing curve were to start not at (0,0) but say (0.1W/sq.m, 0) - a slight positive forcing, then the extra area under the curve would be offset positively by 0.1W/sq.m x 260 years x 365 days x 24 hours x 3600 seconds x surface area of Earth; which equals approx 4190E20 Joules. Your idea here is that there is some unique "equilibrium" solar irradiance, such that any excursion from this value would lead to the Earth accumulating (or shedding) heat continuously at a rate linearly proportional to the magnitude of this excursion. With this model, a slight increase or decrease in TSI would (if sustained long enough) either heat the oceans to boiling, or freeze them solid. Fortunately, the real world doesn't do this. Instead, a small positive solar forcing would lead to an increase in temperature, which in turn leads to an increase in outgoing longwave radiation. At that point, the Earth and Sun are in a new equilibrium, with outgoing and incoming radiation balanced (and a slightly higher temperature for the Earth). At that point, the Earth stops accumulating joules ... unlike in Ken-world, where the unfortunate planet apparently keeps heating up forever. You seem to recognize the existence of the outgoing longwave radiation negative feedback when it comes to CO2 forcings. But your earlier comment includes no such effect for a solar forcing. Perhaps the earlier comment was just a youthful indiscretion? If so, it would help clear things up if you'd just retract it.
  13. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    Daniel, Thank you for the references. I especially like Richard Alley's talk and Spencer Weart's article. I'm going to need some time to digest these articles.
  14. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    adelady #137 M'lady - if you want all these things as we all do - I suggest you start investing in Geothermal, Nuclear (non-meltdownable of course), Hydro, Solar-thermal and possibly a little wind and PV Solar to warm the cockels.
  15. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Yooper #134 "You do yourself a great disservice by not reading your comments first for logical integrity before posting them." The point is obvious that warming will continue if there is a forcing gap. If warming is slowing (flattening), then the gap is closing. IR cooling is proportional to T^4 so rises faster than any of the CO2GHG forcings. To keep warming going at the surface you need positive WV feedbacks to rise and add to logarithmic CO2GHG forcing as rapidly as IR cooling so that the insulating (enhanced greenhouse) effect of the atmospheric column keeps increasing the T1-T2 temperature differential.
  16. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    DB #135 Have a look at 'Robust Warming of Upper Oceans: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=78&&n=202 BP#6, BP#16, KL#24, BP#30, KL#43 BP#45, BP#72 Conclusion: OHC since full Argo deployment in 2002-3 is pretty flat. Sharp jump prior to 2002 is an artifact of XBT - Argo transition - an offset error.
  17. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    In fact it will continue to warm until the forcing gap closes and turns negative. And no-one ever said that warming will continue forever. After all, if we keep incinerating our grandchildren's grandchildren's inheritance those carbon sinks will eventually run out. Then things will change. Just how warm will it get before that turn to the negative? That's what all the concern and the science is about. Everyone knows that we'll have another ice age in a few thousand years' time. Everyone knows that our sun will die and our planet along with it in many millions of years' time. The concern is about life for this and the next half dozen generations of people. Not just life. Do we want to think of people struggling and barely surviving day to day or do we envisage thriving, successful communities? Communities with adequate power supplies and ample food and comfortable shelter and even some carbon fibre technology. Maybe an occasional surfing or skiing holiday for the lucky ones? Science is telling us we need to get our act together to ensure enough variety of carbon resources are left for those who follow us. We've had it easy. We know it will be harder for those who follow, but we have no good reason to make it near impossible for them. And there should be enough to extend our benefits to those who've been unable to share in them so far.
  18. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Yooper #131 Mighty generous of you to suggest: 'You are capable of being a valuable resource here, and elsewhere.' kdkd has made a point of shouting 'bollocks' to just about anything I suggest - because we have a jousting history elsewhere. This is the classic argument by intimidation. He just needs to find a fault in my maths, application of the first law, energy calculations, SLR calculations and a host of other numbers and logical points.
  19. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    I note archisteel that you are not engaging on the numbers. There is a flattening of SLR, temperatures and probably OHC (although inadequately measured) over the last 10 years. Let's make sure we're on the same page here:
  20. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Re: Ken Lambert (133)
    "In fact it will continue to warm until the forcing gap closes and turns negative. Your huffing and puffing will not change the fact that the more accurate measurement has become in recent times - temperature, SLR and OHC by Argo - the flatter the rise in all three."
     In one breath you acknowledge the warming will continue and in the next you point to a not-statistically-significant-and-presumed-significant-because-I-don't-have-any-idea-why quasi-"flattening" of SLR (the short-term nature of which you also point out as being inadequately measured). You do yourself a great disservice by not reading your comments first for logical integrity before posting them. The Yooper
  21. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    I find the idea that we just allow ice to melt off Greenland and northern Canada in order to discover magically deep and fertile soil just ludicrous. Any soil that might be there will either be scraped off by the moving megatons of ice or washed away by the floods of ice melt. As for thawing permafrost regions, good luck cultivating soil that's releasing methane as you go. We'll need a whole new set of health and safety regulations for farm workers if anyone's mad enough to try. Any agricultural scientists on here able to tell us the likely effects on germination success and growth rates in such 'soils'? (Leave aside the chances of a whole crop being incinerated by someone accidentally igniting the methane.)
  22. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    archisteel #130 And I am not really interested in whether or not you are interested in my offerings on these issues. kdkd and I have history elsewhere. Political arguments are not appropriate on this blog, and this is the great value of it. I note archisteel that you are not engaging on the numbers. There is a flattening of SLR, temperatures and probably OHC (although inadequately measured) over the last 10 years. This cannot be ascribed to ENSO, La Nina, PDO, AMO and other circulations and re-distributions of existing heat energy within the Earth system, unless we change our fundamental understanding that these complex circulations are not driven by external forcing imbalance. I have never claimed that CO2GHG do not contribute to increased surface warming by increasing the T1-T2 differential across the atmospheric column. I have claimed that the proportions of AG forcing and Solar forcing are not accurately known and that this is critical to predictions of the 'equilibrium' temperature rise. There is great uncertainty in the WV and ice albedo positive feedback and the cooling effect of cloud albedo. Relatively simple first law thermodynamics and heat transfer analyses can be made to check some of the claims of 'scientists'. Claims like 'hottest year on record' and 'hottest decade on record' are not inconsistent with warming being slowed or flattened or plateauing. If you climb a slope and reach a plateau you will be on the 'highest spot in your particular universe' until you climb down. In fact it will continue to warm until the forcing gap closes and turns negative. Your huffing and puffing will not change the fact that the more accurate measurement has become in recent times - temperature, SLR and OHC by Argo - the flatter the rise in all three.
  23. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    Re: chriscanaris (15)
    "It ultimately depends on whether we're looking at a CO2 forcing to equal the solar forcing of the Eemian. In the case of CO2 forcing, we're looking at concurrent H2O forcings and increased precipitation which could include increased snow cover in some settings (recall that Antarctica is the world's driest continent and hence there's some scope for negative feedbacks to GHG forcings in such settings)."
    In the case of glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica, recall that mass-gain occurs when snowfall increases in the accumulation zone outweigh losses in the ablation zone. When the sums are out of balance in the opposite direction, mass-loss occurs. This is what is happening right now. Yes, even in Antarctica. Even in the EAIS, in spite of increased snowfall in the accumulation zone, mass-losses in the ablation/calving zones are winning the struggle. The current levels of CO2 were matched last in the Pliocene (approximately 3 million years ago), when temperatures were at least 2-3 degrees C warmer than today (a level our current BAU track will allow us to attain or exceed). A look at those times reveals climate patterns unlike anything existing today. Given the absence of some magical unknown negative feedback mechanism to offset the increased CO2, we are faced with the prospect of the loss of the entire GIS and the WAIS (if one looks beyond 2100) and an attendant 20+ SLR (as the current linear SLR won't abruptly stop at the turn of the next century). In your Titanic analogy (updated): we've hit the berg and the ship is listing to one side, rendering half the lifeboats inoperable. Do we stop to fill and launch the remaining boats to allow some to survive? Or do we continue at flank speed & refill the ice in our drinks? The Yooper
  24. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    As for batteries. It would be a great deal easier to just have drop off / drop in battery exchange stations, just as we already do for BBQ gas bottles. And a station with multiple recharging points would be an ideal first take-up arrangement for the kind of grid balancing arrangement we might end up with in places where wind is a signficant element in the power supply.
  25. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    RSVP, I suggest the exercise of signing a binding commitment allowing somebody or some semi-random process to pick a date anywhere from 50-100 years in the future, a date which will not be disclosed to you, agreeing that on that date you will allow yourself or your descendants to be forced-- regardless of whether you've had a change of heart-- to leave your worldly possessions behind and quickly move somewhere else, a place that does not yet have a name or functioning economy. The commitment should entail that you or your descendants will be accompanied by a substantial collection of strangers collected from different parts of the world and of course you'll want to coexist with your new neighbors in peace and harmony regardless of accompanying cultural baggage of the portable religious, moral and ethical style. Alternatively, you could modify the binding agreement to entail that you wait until some bit of naked rock is exposed on the southern coast of Greenland, then take all of your worldly possessions and your family and move there in a more orderly fashion and proceed to carve out an existence. The commitment should require that you pick a date 50-100 years in the future, and again it will be enforceable on your descendants. Also, there will unfortunately be no means of picking your neighbors, as in the first example exercise. Does being a refugee sound good? Are you happy with facing a myriad of unresolved details each of which is crucial to your continued well being? Does taking on a load of uncertainty making the IPCC synthesis appear like 2+2 sound like an attractive proposition?
  26. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Baz, Hazlitt wasn't a scientist, and I imagine he was responding as a philosopher to the fundamental shift taking place at the time from God (the external) to Reason (the internal). These days, science is performed ultimately in order to predict. Read the discussion section of any peer-reviewed, published report from the sciences. You say that science is a long way from being never certain. What the heck does that mean? I take it you're trying to say that climate science has a low degree of certainty about . . . about what? About the physics of C02, CH4, and H20? Very, very high probability. About the energy budget? Very high probability. Where is the lack of confidence you're referring to? Science doesn't say, "There can be only one." Science says, "No other explanation makes as much sense when read against the physics and the data."
  27. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    doug, you make good points about cost constraints. I'd be willing to pay the extra amount to avoid gas stations most of the time, but that isn't universal. Hopefully there will be enough people who drive less than 40 miles per day on average for the Volt design to really take off and thereby help push changes. adelady, yes there are alot of benefits to electric cars even with current infrastructure. I was talking more about getting people to buy the cars. For instance, the 100 mile Leaf... if you have to go more than 100 miles you want to be able to find a charging station somewhere along the route. Right now chances are you won't. Even if you do you'll be charging for hours rather than stopping a couple of minutes for gas... unless we develop faster charging technology. Also, battery life is still an open question for all of these cars, but we know it will degrade over time... so that 100 miles may become 80 or 60 and replacement costs could be prohibitive. Et cetera. There are limitations which will prevent alot of people from using electric vehicles right now. All of them seem possible to overcome, but that won't happen so long as most driving is still done via gasoline.
  28. Eric (skeptic) at 23:51 PM on 4 October 2010
    Newcomers, Start Here
    This post is much better than the original due to a broader perspective that includes hunting. I have a modest request for the intermediate version: links about the causes of cub mortality (which may include the female weight loss). Aside from hunting, cub mortality appears to be the crux of the issue of population stability.
  29. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    16: "even though the "intellecual" theory dictates that temperature changes as the log of GHG concentration." Over the range of 280
  30. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    RSVP #13: "For this worse case scenario, has anyone demonstrated that there will actually be less habitable land as sea level rises? Shouldnt all kinds of land tracts be getting freed up of ice compensating loss of coastal regions?" Ummm... no. Not even close. The amount of land occupied by ice outside of Greenland and Antarctica is negligible and all at high altitudes which are sparsely settled to begin with. Whether Greenland will gain land from ice loss faster than it loses land from sea level rise is an interesting question, but it certainly won't outpace the rest of the world combined. Antarctica, of course, will remain uninhabitably cold unless temperatures rise so much that much of the rest of the world becomes uninhabitably warm. #16: "Is "pre-industrial" before or after the invention of the thermometer?" The thermometer predated the industrial revolution by a couple hundred years. "...temperature changes as the log of GHG concentration." No. Radiative forcing changes with the log of GHG concentrations. Temperature changes with the radiative forcing, climate sensitivity, and time.
  31. An underwater hockey stick
    TOP: Do you have data for deeper waters or waters in tectonically active areas? Are you aware of any papers? If you're constructing an alternative hypothesis about why the oceans are warming, it's incumbent on you to find information lending support to your hypothesis, not everybody else. It's odd, how frequently we have skeptics saying words roughly along the lines of "But this other thing might be happening, and you can't show otherwise until you've found the information I've not provided to support my hypothesis." TOP, there's scads of literature on heat flux at the bottom of the ocean. Go look at it, bring us the pleasant surprise we're all hoping for.
  32. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    RSVP #14, very naif and meaningless comment. Does anyone count on the right outcome from a wrong action? You need to be very lucky ... A brake is a brake, if you push the wrong pedal it's not a brake. As easy as this. I'd love to read more thoughtful comments here at SkS.
  33. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    "For this worse case scenario, has anyone demonstrated that there will actually be less habitable land as sea level rises? Shouldnt all kinds of land tracts be getting freed up of ice compensating loss of coastal regions?"
    How much arable land will there be at high altitude? Is it cheaper to build towns and cities on crags or on flatlands? As ever, it is not the change so much as the rate at which it occurs that will yield the cost. 2C over a thousand years is a much more manageable impact than 2C over a century.
  34. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Massive infrastructure changes? I already thought of cars when I read about a wind generation problem in Germany. They're actually paying some people to leave lights on all night when the turbines are putting in more power than is needed. If cars or other battery storage facilities were recharged at low use periods, there's no reason why the recharge shouldn't be overridden - on or off - depending on imbalance in turbine output and network requirements. Cars, buses and other equipment could function as a network equaliser. Neat, huh?
  35. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    CBD, certainly it's possible to "build a car with ~100 mile electric range AND a backup gasoline powered electrical generator" with today's technology. GM is doing -almost- exactly that, with the difference their offering "only" goes 40 miles on batteries at the modeled fleet end of life. The challenge of the next 60 miles is primarily money, not technology, plus a bit of the same physics rocket scientists face. Leaving aside the lunatic marketers responsible for the soccer-moms-and-accountants-in-work-trucks fad, GM is actually quite good at figuring out how to build things that are affordable for their market. Especially they're good at looking at what happens when they have to make a lot of copies of a product. Given some fairly tight prognostication on constraints and limits of future battery costs, GM has found that adding 60 miles of battery range to the Volt while leaving their rather nicely implemented gasoline-electric drive train in place will push the Volt's price up in a way that leaves it far outside the price range even of most "early adopters," with little prospect for a decline to realistic levels. Remember, to be useful these cars have to go beyond the boutique, they've got to slip into a family budget as a drop-in replacement. Also, as with rockets, the more potential energy stored, the less efficient the vehicle becomes for its primary requirement, delivering payload. All this w/-present- technology, mind. The world of electrochemistry still continues to deliver surprises.
  36. Irregular Climate podcast 11
    chriscanaris #25, without an ice free Arctic, oil drilling in the region would be impossible... and I'm not talking about just part of the year. If the water around an oil rig were to freeze into ice several meters thick that rig would be badly damaged and immediately begin leaking oil. Note that all of the exploratory wells being dug are in areas that have been ice free year round for decades now. And even there they've got tug boats on call to divert icebergs away. In short, the only way any of these countries are going to be drilling for oil in the Arctic basin is if the ice melts out year round... something which won't happen for decades yet under the worst case estimates. Based on IPCC 4 it'd be at least a couple hundred years. Yet there is a race on now to lay claim to these future mineral resources. Which ought to indicate pretty clearly that they know IPCC 4 was hugely conservative and the Arctic sea ice is not 'recovering'... as claimed by some of the very same politicians pushing for Arctic oil exploration.
  37. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Baz #94: "What else could have caused a fairly-sharp upturn in temps?" Increased solar radiation could have... but didn't, because solar radiation actually decreased over that timeframe. A massive change in cloud cover could have... but didn't, because cloud cover was largely unchanged. Dropping from a highly active volcanic period to low volcanism could have... but didn't, because we've been in a period of low volcanism the whole time. Et cetera. Anything which logically (and even ILlogically, c.f. 'cosmic rays') could have caused the warming has been examined and found not to be the case... except that the increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases absolutely should have caused a sharp upturn in temperatures... which did in fact occur.
  38. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    sime, or... "Science is the desire to know causes" - William Hazlett
  39. An underwater hockey stick
    Top #33: "The anomaly in the water temps is larger than that in the atmosphere. It is the driver." Given that more than 90% of the enhanced greenhouse warming accumulates first in the oceans your statement above is obviously true... but your apparent conclusion that this means the oceans are somehow 'generating' the increased temperature is clearly illogical. If this were simple a matter of heat being transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere then we ought to be seeing ocean temperatures falling while atmospheric temperatures increase. Instead BOTH are increasing. That unquestionably indicates that some external factor, in this case an enhanced greenhouse effect, is causing warming to both. #46: "What this paper opened up is the possibility that a ocean heat transport has melted the arctic ice from below." We have known for some time now that most of the recent Arctic sea ice decline is due to increased ocean temperatures. Indeed, ocean warming is also believed to be responsible for much of the observed loss of land ice from Greenland and Antarctica. Again, this is due to the oceans absorbing additional radiation from the enhanced greenhouse effect... not some form of 'spontaneous ocean heating'.
  40. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    GC #60, "I would like to set you straight but that would get us into the realm of "solutions"." Solutions are bad? Political arguments are to be avoided, but reality based solutions are fine. On the whole 'electric auto' front... I'm not looking to trade in my 2001 Prius yet because I drive more than the Leaf's 100 mile range several times a year and more than the Volt's 40 miles electric range every day. The 200+ mile range of the Tesla Roadster would be enough... but it's a ridiculously ostentatious 'look at me' mobile. Given current technology it ought to be possible to build a car with ~100 mile electric range AND a backup gasoline powered electrical generator. That would allow 99% of the drivers in the world to complete their daily commute on electric power. People would only ever need to put gas in their tank for the few trips a year (if that) where they were going further. No 'range anxiety' problems and gasoline usage cut to an insignificant fraction of current... yet nobody seems to be building such a car. Instead we've got all electric or electric with gasoline backup, but too short an electric range to ever leave the gas tank empty. Sure, going directly to all electric would be great... but realistically it isn't going to happen without massive infrastructure changes. A 100 mile electric / gasoline hybrid could get us most of the way to zero gasoline usage NOW. No waiting on a network of charging stations, faster charging battery technologies, batteries that don't deteriorate as much over time, and/or batteries with higher energy density... all of which would also get developed much faster if electric powered driving were already predominant due to hybrids. Thus, I see well designed hybrid cars (not the illogical designs we're getting now) as a stepping stone getting us to an all electric infrastructure much faster than we would without them.
  41. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    And today's thought for the day is... "What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?" -- Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland (referring then to ozone depletion)
  42. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Hello all. 30 to 35 years ago something appears to have happened to global temperatures. Indeed, that is even refected locally here in the longest dataset we have: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif Even in the Arctic, a period of 30-35 years of gradual ice-extent loss seems again evident. Only the Antarctic shows no sign of a similar change (and a number of temp recording stations around the world). Given that science is never certain, and climate science falls a long way short of that, and if you can suspend your belief that the principle cause of this is/was man-made, what else could it be? What else could have caused a fairly-sharp upturn in temps?
  43. An underwater hockey stick
    Scaddenp Do you evaluate basins like this? I would think that borehole data on really deep water is missing. Deep water is is 1 mile these days AFIAK and in fairly stable areas. Do you have data for deeper waters or waters in tectonically active areas? Are you aware of any papers? I agree with very cold, the paper stated that temps in the area in question was around 4C.
  44. An underwater hockey stick
    When you overlay two graphs with dissimilar axes you have to rescale one or the other so they match. You also have to shift the zeros. Basic graph handling skills. Here it is. Pretty ugly but it gets the point across. Atmospheric "hockey stick" from IPCC as posted on wikipedia. Overlay The principals of heat transfer have been peer reviewed for hundreds of years. You have three choices:
    • Conduction slow not likely in liquids and gases
    • Convection rapid can transport vast amounts of heat very likely in gases and liquids not particularly dependent on the nature of the materials
    • Radiation speed of light very particular about the nature of the materials occurs at interface of two bodies separated by relatively free space, does not occur inside solid or liquid matter to as great a degree as in gases or vacuum
    • Phase Change As an adjunct to convection can transport orders of magnitude more energy than storage by temperature change alone. Transport of heat to the upper troposphere by phase change of water comes to mind.
    Since the water where these cores were taken were, as the paper points out, are relatively well insulated from surface effects (radiation, conduction from atmosphere) you have convection (which can be horizontal if by currents) and conduction from below. These water temperatures were also localized. We just don't have enough of these temperature measurement to make global statements. I believe we had some information about anomalies in the Southern Ocean Basin a few days ago. The same concerns apply there. What this paper opened up is the possibility that a ocean heat transport has melted the arctic ice from below. Remember, "science tends to be self correcting."
  45. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    Chris, Keynes dictum is about _current_ affairs. When we're talking about warming and disruption, I actually care quite a lot about what my descendants may face long after I'm dead. I can't save them from failed love affairs or worries about passing exams. But I can be part of an effort to ensure that they get the best possible chance of living in a world that's congenial to healthy life and not torn by strife over inadequate water, food or living space. I'm not asking for utopia. Life is always difficult and dangerous. I lived through polio epidemics and the cold war and several other wars. Our generation has the opportunity to try and avoid making life more difficult and dangerous than it need be for our grandchildren's grandchildren.
  46. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    "...global temperatures have warmed around 0.8°C from pre-industrial temperatures" Is "pre-industrial" before or after the invention of the thermometer? Continutin... the link in the first sentence, takes you to a past article that starts... "Unfortunately, the discussion went pear shaped with some ideological anti-intellectualism " The word "anti-intellecutalism" in turn links to yet another article that contains the proverbial graph wherein CO2 and temperature track perfectly one on the other given two linear scales that are selected for this purpose, even though the "intellecual" theory dictates that temperature changes as the log of GHG concentration.
  47. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    *@#! those links! Make this the final version and feel free to delete the others. John, I take your point about the Eemian period, which seems to have been a predominantly solar based event. Actually, being on the real Titanic would serve as a better analogy for the point you're trying to make. Ironically, because its electrical power plant functioned until the very end, many passengers were reluctant to disembark from the seeming comfort and safety of a well-lit ship. Interestingly, the Titanic was designed to float with the first four compartments flooded. Instead, the glancing blow to the starboard side caused buckling in the hull plates along the first five compartments, more than the ship's designers had anticipated. Coming back on topic, I looked at earlier posts on ice loss which seems to be the real polar bear in the room. It ultimately depends on whether we're looking at a CO2 forcing to equal the solar forcing of the Eemian. In the case of CO2 forcing, we're looking at concurrent H2O forcings and increased precipitation which could include increased snow cover in some settings (recall that Antarctica is the world's driest continent and hence there's some scope for negative feedbacks to GHG forcings in such settings). Coming back to the Titanic analogy, we don't really know whether we're flooding five compartments or four. In the former case, we would be silly to clamber into the lifeboats. In the latter, we can take cold comfort from Keynes dictum: 'The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.' He also said: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'
  48. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    #10 "I think that the real question is "how hard can we push the brakes?". If you are pushing the wrong peddal, it wont make any difference.
  49. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    #12 "We're doomed! " For this worse case scenario, has anyone demonstrated that there will actually be less habitable land as sea level rises? Shouldnt all kinds of land tracts be getting freed up of ice compensating loss of coastal regions?
  50. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    Most scenarios only go as far as 2100AD, but these all show the temperature still rising at a considerable rate. Ultimately the increase looks like being much more than 2C, even with the most optimistic model. We're doomed!

Prev  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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