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  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  2172  2173  2174  2175  Next

Comments 108351 to 108400:

  1. Newcomers, Start Here
    The polar bear evolved only 100,000 years ago from the brown bear. In fact it is still the same species: brown and white bears can mate and reproduce. The white color of the polar bear is useful in its present habitat. This white color was developed because the survival rate of white variants was higher than of dark variants. If the bear has to change its habitat, it will adapt again, and probably lose its white color. This is simply how evolution works. It's the same as when humans migrate from Africa to Europe, as they did 50,000 years ago. They lost their black skin pigments, because in Europe their skin needed more intense UV-exposure to produce vitamin D than in Africa. So what's wrong with adaptation of the polar bear? If it does not need its white color any more, so what? The bear as a species is not threatened by climate change, but by human overpopulation.
  2. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    OK. The trouble with addressing "sceptic" claims is that they are often rather incoherent, so it can be damned hard to work out they are in the first place. If you have any examples of the claim you are addressing, that would help focus the discussion. In the absence of that, I can think of two versions of the "sceptic" claim. The first is that a system with positive feedback is by definition unstable. "Alarmists" are always pointing to positive feedbacks, some of them with short time scales like the water vapour feedback and ice-albedo feedback. But the climate is clearly not unstable so the positive feedbacks must not exist, or must be outweighed by negative feedbacks. The answer to this is that there is a large negative feedback that is fundamental to the Earth system and that is not usually identified as a feedback, namely the Planck feedback as I've discussed earlier (see also the recent article by Chris Colose on Realclimate). That feedback on its own dictates that the Earth's climate sensitivity will be fairly low. The evidence is that there are several fast positive feedbacks that act to increase the sensitivity, but nowhere near enough to make the system unstable. A second version of the claim might be that "alarmists" are saying the carbon cycle feedbacks will cause runaway warming a la Venus. The problem with this claim is that no "alarmists" are actually saying this, except Jim Hansen who has suggested it as a very remote possibility, but obviously one with huge consequences. Your discussion of the logarithmic dependence of the greenhouse effect on greenhouse gas concentrations tells us one reason why this runaway warming is not easily triggered. The fact that the Earth has not done so in the past also shows us it's hard to set off. Neither of these things indicate that it's completely impossible. To be of any help in avoiding confusion, your article needs to be clear about what claim it is addressing. At the moment it's not. Specifically, it conflates fast and slow feedbacks.
  3. Newcomers, Start Here
    One more thing: it's unfair to compare Arctic temps during the HCO to current global averages; we should compare modern Arctic temperatures instead. Overall, we see the rate of change is about twice the observed rate, with some regions exhibiting increases of 2 to 3C, putting the current warming in the same range as ClimateWatcher's map.
  4. Newcomers, Start Here
    @CW: "unfortunately, just like the bears of Yellowstone, the Polar Bears tend to BENEFIT from human settlements by raiding their garbage." How about humans? How do they benefit from increased human/bear interactions? You have to realize bears who raid garbage dumps near human settlements are also likely to be shot, which isn't very good for them either. "That aside, temperatures were much warmer during the Eemian and the HCO for thousands of years." Actually, there were no actual polar bears in the Eemian: they started to diverge from brown bears 150,000 years ago, but the real differentiation occured later, perhaps even as late as 20,000 years ago. Also, temperatures weren't "much warmer" everywhere in the HCO (according to your map). What's to say polar bear populations didn't congregate to Northern Quebec, where it was actually colder, or Greenland and the Behring strait, which were as cold as today? Overall temperatures may have been as high as 1C above the baseline, but we're already past the 0.5C mark, and likely to go above the highest estimates for the HCO before 2050. Furthermore, not everyone agrees the HCO was warmer overall. Some studies claim only a 0.2 to 0.6 increase (which means we could have passed the HCO already), while others claim there was an actual decrease in SST at the time. From the abstract of Tropical Pacific climate at the mid-Holocene and the Last Glacial Maximum simulated by a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model: "Simulations for the mid-Holocene (6000 years before present: 6 ka) and the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM: 21 ka) have been performed by a global ocean-atmosphere coupled general circulation model (GCM). After the initial spin-up periods, both runs were integrated for about 200 years. For 6 ka the model shows an enhanced seasonal variation in surface temperature and a northward shift of the African and the Indian summer monsoon rain area. Overall circulation features in the tropics correspond to a strong Walker circulation state with negative sea surface temperature (SST) and precipitation anomalies in the central Pacific and positive precipitation anomalies over the Indian and Australian monsoon regions. It is noted that there is about a 0.35°C cooling of the global mean SST." (emphasis mine) "Sorry ladies," Stay classy. "this is one of the most egregious errors of the global warming campaign." First, it's not a "campaign", it's science. Second, you have yet to make successfully make the case for any of your affirmations. Careful, your bias is showing, and it's kind of ugly.
  5. Newcomers, Start Here
    Why are some so blase about the supposed survival of species that have survived thus far ? Maybe they know more than those actually working in this area ? It would seem they believe so. However, I refer to the experts in the field : "We have found that polar bears actually survived the interglacial warming period, which was generally warmer than the current one," Lindqvist says, "but it's possible that Svalbard might have served as a refugium for bears, providing them with a habitat where they could survive. However, climate change now may be occurring at such an accelerated pace that we do not know if polar bears will be able to keep up." Ultimately, she notes, the polar bear species may prove less adaptive. "The polar bear may be more evolutionarily constrained because it is today very specialized; morphologically, physiologically, and behaviorally well-adapted to living on the edge of the Arctic ice, subsisting on a few species of seals," she says. Ancient DNA from Rare Fossil Reveals that Polar Bears Evolved Recently and Adapted Quickly Charlotte Lindqvist, Stephan Schuster, Yazhou Sun, Sandra Talbot, Ji Qi, Aakrosh Ratan, Lynn Tomsho, Lindsay Kasson, Eve Zeyl, Jon Aars, Webb Miller, Ólafur Ingólfsson, Lutz Bachmann, and Øystein Wiigd. Complete mitochondrial genome of a Pleistocene jawbone unveils the origin of polar bear. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Mar. 1, 2010 'Rubbish !', says the so-called skeptic, I believe what I want to believe...
  6. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    @Eric (skeptic) #63 Bear in mind that increased water vapour (leading to increased clouds and precipitation) would also be in the (generally) much bigger gaps between any clouds. Some confuse water vapour (invisible and a powerful greenhouse gas) with condensed water vapour (steam) which makes up clouds.
  7. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    @adelady #76 Over many hundreds of millions of years volcanoes have been releasing CO2 from non-biological subterranean sources of carbon. Without life sequestering the carbon back down underground again, CO2 would continue to build up. Life as a whole acts as a negative feedback to prevent CO2 buildup thus stabilising temperatures to its benefit. One element of life (Homo Sapiens Fatuus) has recently been acting as a positive feedback. As you say, we are digging up in a few decades what took millions of years to get down there.
  8. Newcomers, Start Here
    ClimateWatcher: "The polar bears survived the millenia long Eemian and the Holocene Climatic Optimum just fine:" C'mon CW, use a few of those brain cells of yours. Assuming you were correct, how many cities, villages and human civilisations did the polar bears encounter when they migrated and survived? (5million in the Holocene versus 6billion today, 9billion in 2050). Even if today they were not endangered by global warming, every species on the planet is endangered by human growth and exploitation of resources. If you add to that, global warming, then polar bears haven't a hope in hell.
  9. Newcomers, Start Here
    ClimateWatcher, given continuation of the rate at which the Arctic has been warming the discrepancies shown on your map, even if accurate, would all be overtaken within a few decades. Also, polar bears and brown bears remain completely inter-fertile even today - though neither can survive for long in the other's primary habitat. Dentition shows that the 'modern' polar bear has been around for less than 20,000 years... long after the Eemian. Earlier 'polar bears' were much less adapted to a life on sea ice and thus able to survive warm periods on land like the brown bears they interbred with. If current polar bears were forced to survive on land their numbers would be vastly reduced and they'd be forced into brown bear territory... where they would inter-breed and quickly cease to exist as a separate evolutionary offshoot. Yes, the imposition of hunting restrictions was clearly responsible for the polar bear recovering from near extinction up to a stable population... just as the loss of sea ice is now clearly responsible for the reversal of that trend.
  10. Newcomers, Start Here
    Wow, I'm really sorry, I could have sworn cruzn246 had posted that comment. I guess my coffee hasn't started kicking in yet. Please disregard the last two paragraphs as they were written with cruzn246 in mind (but not the first one after the colon, that still applies). Sorry for that, CW. We disagree on some things, but you're clearly not the trolling denier type (unlike cruzn246).
  11. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    HumanityRules, the graph you show is Surface Mass Balance (SMB), just part of the story. The mass balance is reported in table 5. You can see that, altough none of the values is statistically significant, there has been a reduction from +22 for 1962-1990 to -36 (km3/yr WE) for 1998-2003. Also, the authors warn: "However, the ‘‘real’’ mass balance is probably substantially more negative because we do not take into account dynamical factors" and "our best estimates of -14 ± 55 km3 yr-1 and -36 ± 59 km3 yr-1 mass balance for 1993 – 1998 and 1998 – 2003 are much less than the -59 km3 yr-1 and -80 km3 yr-1 mass losses derived from airborne laser surveys for the same respective periods [Krabill et al., 2004], the latter including dynamical effects."
  12. Newcomers, Start Here
    @cruzn246: was posting that big graph really necessary? You could simply have stated the NH was warmer during the HCO. Polar bears are adaptable. They have already started moving south, and at least one polar bear/brown bear hybrid has been found in the wild. The problem is that "south" really means "closer to human settlements." Polar bears, the largest land carnivore currently in existence, are fearless, dangerous animals. How exactly is an increase in polar bear/human interactions a good thing? Incidentally, that's also the reason you mistakenly believe polar bear populations have been increasing, when actual research tends to show a decline: locals are seeing more polar bears, prompting some to say the numbers have increased, when in reality they're simply moving south to find food. You also miss the larger point. The fact that polar bears are leaving their natural habitat is a strong indication of the type of disruptive migratory patterns AGW is causing. As such, it is one more piece of evidence supporting AGW theory, the same theory you constantly (and unsuccessfully) try to undermine. See how I countered your argument without the need for a big unnecessary graph (which, BTW, climatewatcher already used on another thread)?
  13. Newcomers, Start Here
    As you may not have intended to suggest, ClimateWatcher, the additional pressures of human interference with these animals combined with a swift loss of habitat that may or may not resemble past challenges poses a novel challenge to their population prospects.
  14. ClimateWatcher at 01:40 AM on 1 October 2010
    Newcomers, Start Here
    The polar bears survived the millenia long Eemian and the Holocene Climatic Optimum just fine: Given their dramatic population explosion since the 1970s, perhaps not shooting them quite so frequently helped them survive much more significantly than any climate variation.
  15. Newcomers, Start Here
    Nice summary, Anne-Marie. It's also worth noting that other species like walruses face similar impacts from declining Arctic sea ice.
  16. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Roger, the "way of the future" relies on things such as ample access to neodymium permanent magnets, high current semiconductors and a myriad of other requirements needing a substantially globe-spanning system of materials manipulation, with means of incentives for cooperation, etc. But we're swerving well off topic here; this thread is not the right place to explore technological adaptation. I've ransacked the cornucopia of topics here and I can't find an appropriate place to take this conversation so perhaps we should leave it be.
  17. citizenschallenge at 00:36 AM on 1 October 2010
    Newcomers, Start Here
    Let me share an email I received a while back on the subject: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your best contacts would be Drs. Eric Regehr and Karyn Rode of the FWS. If you have done so, go to the FWS Alaska Region polar bear page for information and copies of their various reports. http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pbmain.htm >>> The topic of what polar bear stock size was in the 1940’s is interesting. Obviously, there were no ‘modern’ estimates at that time. Even to this day, counting polar bears is difficult. <<< Eric is an expert on this subject. Kim Titus, Ph.D. Chief Wildlife Scientist Alaska Department of Fish and Game
  18. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    I've got a question that maybe is at the root of why I don't understand the figure above. Here's the GRACE data from another SkSci page Is this image saying that pre-2006 that Greenland was gaining mass (although at a slowing rate). Around 2006 it was in balance and post-2006 it was lossing mass? I'm confused about the positive and negative numbers.
    Response: The confusion is my fault, apologies. I titled the graph "Change in Greenland ice mass" but I should've used the scientifically more precise "Greenland ice mass anomaly". No, Greenland wasn't gaining ice mass pre-2006 - it was losing ice mass throughout this entire period. What that graph shows is the deviation from the 2003 to 2010 average. As the ice is steadily falling, naturally ice mass levels will be above the average in the first half and below the average in the latter half.
  19. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    I'm curious how people are reading figure 1? The long straight line from 1960-1990 had given me the impression that there was stability in the Greenland ice sheet over this period. But when I went back to the original paper that Jiang got the data from it looked very different. The paper seems to be Hanna et al 2005 while they do present an average for that period which is what Jiang presents (and 1998-2003 which is also in Jiang's figure) they also show a full series from 1958-2003. I screen grabbed it. ( http://i52.tinypic.com/j0h091.png ) I'm not actually sure what the graph is telling me except that it looks like a huge amount of variability over that time period. And I wonder whether you have to temper any conclusions about the recent mass balance estimates in light of that? It seems to me that buried in the idea that "Greenland is losing ice extensively and that these losses have drastically increased since the year 2000" that this is going to be part of a trend stretching into the future when in fact it could just be part of the variability seen in Hanna's data series.
  20. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ken, that's just handwaving. A climate forcing (solar, greenhouse gases, whatever) is defined based on a departure from some base period. The Earth does not have to be in some imaginary "equilibrium" at that base period. It is perfectly straightforward to say that since 1750 (or whenever), the forcing from greenhouse gases is X and the forcing from increasing solar irradiance is Y, and X > Y or vice versa. This does not depend on anything being in "equilibrium" at 1750. I am literally unaware of anybody anywhere (other than you) who makes that claim. If there is some controversy over this point in the scientific literature that I've somehow missed, please enlighten me with a link.
  21. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Nick, I'm not so sure that that's such a bad formulation. What we dig up is the result of long ago sequestration of CO2. To me at least, it emphasises that we're releasing in a couple of dozen decades what was sequestered over many 10s of millions of years.
  22. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ned #44 This thread is about temperature. Temperature is a measure of energy applied to or removed from the mass involved. The mass involved is the Earth system - land ice, atmosphere and ocean. Temperature does not distinguish the origin of the energy applied. The proportions of energy contributed by forcing from CO2GHG and Solar are critical to the AGW hypothesis. If there is a storage reservoir in the system (the oceans), and heat is erupting or about to erupt from this storage, then quantifying a long term Solar imbalance is as much a part of the story as 30-35 years of official AGW by CO2GHG forcing; and given the lack of evidence for short term (decadal) sequestration of heat in the oceans over the last 30-35 years might be the obvious place to look.
  23. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    doug: "as long as we're able to maintain the enormous, globe-spanning industrialized infrastructure secondary batteries perch on top of." Electricity is the way of the future. Wind and sunlight are fairly uniformly distributed throughout the world. The cost of producing electricity locally is steadily coming down as volume increases. The biggest detriment to progress is oil companies who think they have the most to lose. Technology will follow in the wake of demand. See Hot, Flat, and Crowded for more elightenment.
  24. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    kdkd #54 Its a wonder that Moderator John Cook has not moderated your language kdkd. Your accusations about my 'peddling misinformation' and 'repetive rubbish', I usually ignore because it has no place in this blog. Put up a scientific argument supported by numbers or shut up.
  25. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    @Nick Palmer #71 the forcing from the extra CO2 we have dug up and put back into the atmosphere Gaah. I didn't mean we dug it up in the form of CO2! (greater than the Roman period Forgot to close the bracket too...
  26. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    adelady@35, much has been done to demonstrate that abundant crops can be had without FF fertilizers. For more information see this excellent library located in Steve Solomon's home in Tasmaina, Australia. Specifically see Chapters 8 and 9 in his Organic Gardener's Composting book.
  27. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Roger: Why not use this research to produce small walk-behind or ride electric-powered tractors with detachable instruments and drop-in battery packs charged by banks of solar cells or the grid? Sure, as long as we're able to maintain the enormous, globe-spanning industrialized infrastructure secondary batteries perch on top of. Same with the semiconductors used in any modern, efficient electric motor power control system, the motors themselves, PV panels, etc. These things can't be made by the folks staying at home in the village while the fields are tilled. I believe you're thinking more of Taiwan, not Cuba.
  28. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    TOP, if you have a specific problem with methods or philosophy of Freudenberg's paper, say it. Resume-diving isn't a useful contribution, is a conspicuous flag of vacuity.
  29. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 23:04 PM on 30 September 2010
    Newcomers, Start Here
    Vinny, it was only a quick list of the threats faced by polar bears rather than a close look at factors behind overall population decline. According to the Polar Bear Specialist Group:
    Studies have shown that polar bears exposed to oil will absorb large quantities of oil in their fur. Following oil exposure, polar bears groom themselves and can digest sufficient oil to result in kidney failure, digestive system disorder, and brain damage that ultimately result in death. Other effects include loss of insulation from fur, hair loss, and skin and eye irritations.
    I was simply trying to highlight the fact that it's a complex issue and that many factors can increase polar bear mortality. CBDunkerson, I'm working on the intermediate rebuttal which will include some number crunching. I just wanted to show that subpopulations are declining, and that the number of declining populations appears to be increasing. I know it doesn't tell us anything about absolute numbers, but it does show that the picture is not as simple as the claim that polar bear numbers are increasing. Well I know what I mean ;)
  30. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Ned "I know that "skeptics" like to claim that the only choices are burning fossil fuels or de-industrializing. I absolutely refuse to accept that claim." This is my number one pet hate. Why on earth would we "de-industrialise" when we're faced with so many opportunities to make clever, advanced technological things and make bulk money doing so? I resign myself to silly statements about properties of CO2 and the like, but this is the number one anger maker. Especially since the argument is supposed to be about 'successful' economic activity. Good business people should be able to take opportunities that present themselves and find the best way to make money from them. Where are the 'brave new world' kind of self promotions that used to dominate in the 50s and 60s? I often picture JFK making his speech about the adventure to take people to the moon. He set a date for completion. He wasn't around to see it completed within the timeframe he set, but it was done in the timeframe he set. And that needed rocket scientists and specialised engineers to get the job done. The technological changes we're looking at are not so demanding. We just need lots of businesses as well as governments to get going on the task.
  31. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Nick Palmer writes: Thoughts? Yes, that's a really good point. Loehle is the skeptics' own reconstruction, and there's certainly reason to believe that it exaggerates the MWP-LIA difference. But even if you ignore that, the range itself is still small compared to current and projected future warming. If you're a skeptic who believes that past natural climate changes had a significant impact on human societies (Greenland, the Anasazi, ...) then you should be really concerned about the future.
  32. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    cruzn246 writes: I meant 1365. The graph is mostly under 1365, on average from about 800 AD to almost 1900 AD. from During the LIA it was averaging about 1364.75. OK, so we're talking about an 0.25 W/m2 forcing in a plane perpendicular to the Earth-Sun axis. That's an 0.0625 W/m2 forcing when distributed over the spherical top of the atmosphere, and about 0.044 W/m2 after taking into account the Earth's albedo. In comparison, the IPCC TAR gives the total current forcing from greenhouse gas emissions (relative to 1750) as 2.10 W/m2. (And of course this is increasing every year). So, you think that a (natural) 0.044 W/m2 forcing might just have happened to push us over some kind of tipping point, but you're completely unconcerned about a (anthropogenic) forcing that's 48 times larger and growing? This kind of thing makes it very hard to take "skeptics" seriously. It's like the old joke about lawyers straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
  33. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Roger, the electrical vehicles are terrific. But without FF based fertilisers, we're going to have to find other fertilisers. We could finish up with animals being valued more for their dung than for their meat or milk. And we'd be mad to waste any kind of fuel on removing or disposing of crop residues when animals can convert it back into nutritious, water retaining soil. Home gardeners will be a lot better off with a few chooks fertilising their veg patch when they don't even have the option of getting a bag of stuff from the garden centre. Even a couple of guinea pigs in one of those rolling cages can mow a smallish lawn and keep it going with their little contributions. And home gardeners or other smallholdings will need lawns or other sources of green stuff to feed chooks or bulk up compost heaps.
  34. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Loehle's piece shows, with a quick eyeball, that (using his figures) the difference between the absolute hottest peak of the MWP (greater than the Roman period and the coldest trough of the "Little Ice Age" is about 1.15 deg C tops. The difference between grapes growing all over the place, such as Singer would say, and iron hard frozen English rivers is not that much. Small changes make a dramatic difference. Few or no credible sceptic scientists (that minority who believe sensitivity is low) dispute that the forcing from the extra CO2 we have dug up and put back into the atmosphere will increase the average global temperature by less than 1 deg C. Unless I'm mistaken, this looks like all credible scientists, sceptical or "IPCC", should be united that what's already in the pipeline will cause dramatic differences that will last a very long time even if the sensitivity is low. If the sensitivity is as the IPCC say it'll be worse. If there are "unknown unknowns" about sensitivity to catch us out, then "Hell and High Water" could be optimistic. Thoughts?
  35. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Roger A. Wehage, I strongly disagree with the notion that reversion to some kind of romanticized agricultural utopia is the way forward. Worse yet, the more traction that argument gets, the less likely it is that we'll actually do anything to address the risks of climate change. Insofar as people pay attention to them, your comments about Cuba here are a gift to the "skeptics" and a setback for those who are trying to do something constructive in the way of preventing or limiting climate change. Given a choice between (a) destroying the quality of life offered by our modern industrial civilization, or (b) burning all the oil, gas, coal, and tar sands on the planet to sustain that quality of life, people will opt for the latter. Our only hope is to offer a third option: evolution of our technological and social infrastructure in a direction that offers a high quality of life (and not just to that fraction of the human race that is fortunate enough to live in "developed" countries) but at a much lower level of GHG emissions. I know that "skeptics" like to claim that the only choices are burning fossil fuels or de-industrializing. I absolutely refuse to accept that claim.
  36. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    Here is the full report Assymetry.... Oops, I misspelled some names: Violetta Muselli
  37. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    This is a great graph. Is there a link to it, other than on this site? The primary paper requires registration. Also, when presenting to skeptics the first thing they would say if I linked to this site is--"well of course, what do you expect from this site"
  38. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    The link to the abstract doesn't work so I googled the authors. Violeta Mueselli has this in her resume: Congressional Intern – Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Washington D.C Sept – Dec 2008 • Assisted Speaker’s staff with the planning, preparation, and implementation of major Capitol events • Researched policy issues for Legislative Aides on topics ranging from health care to immigration • Drafted concise and professional responses to constituent mail She is more of an activist and PR person than a scholar. Most of her accomplishments are in PR. See Violleta Freudenberg is an environmental scientist. I was expecting a paper by people who's primary occupation was in analysis of media bias.
  39. Newcomers, Start Here
    The pie charts of changing sub-population status are useful, but could also be somewhat misleading in that the sub-populations vary wildly in size. So where the 2009 pie chart shows 'one sub-group' increasing it might seem like 1/19th of the total population is growing... when in fact that sub-population has fewer than 300 bears. Which is about 1% of the total population. About 17% (in 3 groups) have stable populations. Meanwhile the 8 declining sub-groups account for about half of the total world polar bear population... and the remaining ~30% (in 7 groups) have unknown population status.
  40. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Roger@33: bad link. The corrected link is Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation (BEEST).
  41. Newcomers, Start Here
    'Polar bears are affected by several factors, including hunting, pollution and oil extraction.' There is no evidence that polar bear numbers are affected by oil extraction. There is a lot of speculation that they might be affected by an increase in Arctic oilfield development (including some effects that would fall under 'pollution') if it is not done right and that bears would be harmed if there was a big Arctic oilspill ('pollution' again) but no actual evidence that populations have declined because of oil exploration.
  42. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    adelady@29 "rethink the whole industrial farming approach" Peak oil and gas will eventually do that for us, but it will be countries like Cuba who leap ahead of us, because of their experience. Food production must go more local, because the costs of processing and transportation will become prohibitive. I've been thinking that the power of the sun should be harnessed to till the land. A lot of, but clearly not enough, research has gone into Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation (BEEST). Why not use this research to produce small walk-behind or ride electric-powered tractors with detachable instruments and drop-in battery packs charged by banks of solar cells or the grid? There could be smaller units for individual gardens and larger units for community gardens. The advantage of BEES (Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage) is that they don't eat much compared to animals of labor, saving more of Earth's scarce resources for the burgeoning human population.
  43. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    OT, but the BLOG REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC COHERENCE thread seems to have disappeared.
    Response: Steve asked me to take it down once the blog-review process had done its job. The URL still exists but won't load for most users. The final transcript of the podcast will be posted here next Wednesday - with luck, an audio podcast will also be available to listen to.
  44. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    chriscanaris wrote : "It does matter then whether the LIA and MWP were not as hot as today - if they really proved as warm or warmer than today, then our debate around climate sensisivity changes significantly." Sticking to the MWP, it being globally warmer would in itself not contradict AGW but the so-called skeptics think it would - most of them seem comfortable with the sort of thinking that reckons that natural forest fires in the past disprove present man-made forest fires. If it was proved to be globally warmer (albeit at different locations over a period of hundreds of years), the so-called skeptics would declare the final (final) nail in the coffin of AGW and would then be able to internally rationalise-away any inconvenient facts in the real world (extreme weather, etc.), while looking for other science to 'audit' and misunderstand. Meanwhile, as you mention, the debate around climate sensitivity would increase in the real world (as would the effects from that sensitivity) and the science would carry on developing, hopefully without interference - the self-declared 'auditors' having declared victory and moved on.
  45. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    chriscanaris@27, "Any takers?" The The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil video produced by Community Solutions may be a good start. They're already into Plan C.
  46. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Bother. My comment disappeared (my own fault) Oxen? I think it's more productive to look at a better mix of animals suited to purpose. Chooks and pigs do a fantastic job of weeding, ploughing and fertilising all in one hit. I've only seen people talk about using this technique on horticultural sized enterprises. For agricultural purposes, perhaps chook and pig farmers could work a little like beekeepers, moving their charges from one area to another as needed. Goats are brilliant at clearing weed infested land, but finding enclosures that are both movable and secure enough would be an issue. Cows and sheep are good at turning crop residues into fertiliser, not very wonderful at clearing weeds or turning over the soil. Cuban farmers are in the unusual position of not being able to get boots, irrigation or any other useful items because of the collapse of the USSR taking away their sources while the trade embargo still continues. (Their position is not directly relevant to us, or even to farmers in other countries whose access to equipment is restricted for other reasons.) That has led to a great system of fruit and veg raising within Havana itself. Smallish plots using compost rather than the unobtainable chemical fertilisers are doing a fair job - and a lot healthier too. Oxen should have a medium role - I don't see chooks being an asset to seeding or sprouting crops, more of a menace. But we really do have to start thinking along the lines of how we farm grain crops or raise veg and fruit without FF based fertiliser. The old-fashioned mixed farm had some advantages. All we need to do is to see how these advantages can be modified for broadacre grain crops. Or even to rethink the whole industrial farming approach.
  47. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    A cost benefit analysis incorporating the carbon footprint of oxen versus tractors in the context of parameters such as productivity of land and the quality of life of the farmer would be an interesting exercise. Any takers?
  48. Blog review of scientific coherence
    Argus #44 The sun is at the centre of the visible universe i.e the Earth would at the centre of the visible universe if we were stationary but since we orbit the Sun it is that which is the centre of the virtual bubble that is our existence. Personally I'm fairly certain, if the Universe can be said to have a 'centre', that it all rotates around me.
  49. Blog review of scientific coherence
    @kdkd #43, "The "sceptic" arguments on the other hand, are not consistent with each other" Like I said, they do not have to be consistent. Whoever makes such an assumption, is fighting an adversary that does not exist.
  50. Blog review of scientific coherence
    @Ned, #26, Thank you for commenting on my analogy, but you seem to forget (when likening the successful heliocentric theory to the AGW theory) that science has moved on even further after Galilei. The sun is no longer in the centre of the universe.

Prev  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  2172  2173  2174  2175  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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