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  2379  2380  2381  2382  2383  2384  2385  2386  2387  2388  2389  2390  2391  2392  2393  2394  Next

Comments 119301 to 119350:

  1. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    Argus, read the fourth paragraph in John's post. Carefully. Then read your comment again.
  2. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    Thanks John, it's what i suspected but couldn't be sure. ;) Putting aside the semantic issue and the meaning of global or local extintion, the natural rate of extinction is belived to be about 100 to 1000 lower than what we observe now and we're largely (10 to 100 times) above what may be considered a planetary boundary. Still waiting to find a 100 times speed up of speciation ...
  3. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    I would very much like to know also how many new local lizard populations have appeared in new places in Mexico since 1975, during the same time that 12% of old local populations have gone extinct. Somehow, I have a nagging feeling that they have not bothered to to travel around counting those... It doesn't make any headlines.
  4. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    A couple of comments on this thread do a bit of hand waving about "natural selection", the analogy of "it's all cyclical" in AGW denial, and jump to an extraordinary conclusion that there's no problem or things aren't so bad as some greenies and over zealous scientists would have us believe. Well, they are. Read the WWF Living Planet Report 2008 for the big picture. Based on research by the Zoological Society of London, it reports that the number of land vertebrates has declined 33% since 1970. It is beyond my understanding how this figure is not shocking. Even if we say, divide this figure by two, it is still shocking and manifestly unsustainable. This is just an illustrative factoid, and the whole thing should be read. That biodiversity is under very serious threat is beyond doubt. Currently it's a race to the bottom to see if climate change can overtake existing causes such as direct habitat destruction as the number one cause.
  5. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    chriscanaris at 15:42 PM on 15 May, 2010 I've never really understood that passive acceptance and intellectual rationalisation of species extinction along the lines that.....extinction has always happened; it's natural selection; extinctions lead to new species etc. etc.). It's totally divorced from extant reality, makes no distinction between magnitudes and has an underlying confusion over the nature of speciation, all of which takes it into a sort of inhuman realm. The reality is that species extinctions are occurring at a massively faster rate than the background extinction rates. This has been largely due to habitat destruction and direct extirpation in the past, but global warming is joining these as a combined insult against the natural environment. Since (i) temperatures are rising at a rate that is faster than the ability of many species to adapt, let alone evolve, and (ii) habitat fragmentation has greatly limited the possibilities for migration to compatible habitats, this situation is very likely to worsen. That's the extant reality. To intellectualize this in terms of natural selection and new evolutionary possibilities is to misunderstand the nature of evolution and especially the timescales involved, especially in relation to human timescales. Massive species extinctions during the coming two centuries (say) is not going to result in a plethora of new evolved species adapted to a warmed world. It will lead to a hugely impoverished natural environment. If we became able to stabilise the situation at some time in the future (say 200 years down the road when we will certainly have had to wean ourselves of fossil fuels), the recovery of the natural environment will occur on timescales of thousands to 100's of thousands of years. However intellectually pleasing it might be to consider that interesting long term future, it lacks a human dimension. So I doubt future populations will be so keen on the environmental legacy that the sort of blase acceptance your posts describe would lead to. Personally, I don't think things will develop to such dismal state.
  6. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    It's diffult to me to understand the point of local vs global extintion. Afterall it seems quite obvious. For sure, if not extinct, other terms could be used; for example "disappeared" or "are not to be found", but then what? Aren't they synonyms? Should i not use extint volcano or fire until all the active volcanoes or fires disappear from the earth? English is not my mother language so maybe I'm missing this subtlety. But as far as I can tell it's quite a silly argument.
    Response: I think the point of the comments on local extinction/species extinction is that if we can get into a trivial debate about semantics, people will be distracted from the fact that animal species are currently being wiped out by warming temperatures all over the world.
  7. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    I hadn't heard of this until yesterday (Friday May 14) when I heard a piece on NPR's program "Science Friday" www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201005141 Then it was covered again today on CBC's program "Quirks and Quarks" www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/09-10/qq-2010-05-15.html Personal Comment: mammals are not naturally attracted to cold-blooded animals but if we get over that bias we quickly come to the realization that these creatures are still an indicator species (indicating that 6.9 billion people are changing the environment). So here is a question for people who are still okay with the extinction of lizards: these creatures eat a lot of insects. When one of our enemies (insects in our crops) looses their enemy (lizards), then we have lost a friend.
  8. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    @ 11 thingadonta Seems to me that locally extinct is distinctly distinguishable from globally extinct. I think you may be picking up more on semantic issues given that local extinction is just another (informal) way of describing extirpation
  9. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    thingadonta at 21:02 PM on 15 May, 2010 thingadonta, light is rarely shed on a subject by ranting. Wouldn’t it help to read the paper before blasting off inappropriately? (i) “local extinction”. This is a perfectly sound and useful descriptor. The observation of the loss of a species from a particular regional habitat allows for a rational analysis of cause (habitat destruction, ecosystem imbalance, climate change, disease etc.). If causal influence(s) are identified then it’s possible to predict what is likely to happen to the same or related species in similar habitats elsewhere in response to similar perturbation. (ii) “warming-induced local extinction”. Not sure what your “blaming it on the CO2 bandwagon” refers to! In reality, Sinervo et al. analyzed populations in 200 sites in Mexico. In these otherwise intact habitats the common element of lizard species loss is a large increase in Winter Spring temperature. The temperature rise and associated local loss of lizard species maps onto the independently determined “climate surface” (i.e. warming map). This association of high Winter Spring warming with local extinction allows for a predictive model. Simply put, one can assess regional Winter Spring temperature rises throughout the world and predict regional habitats where related lizard species will be expected to struggle. This was done and existing and new records of lizard species loss throughout the 5 continents of the world were compared with the predictions. The match is strong. In other words throughout the entire world, global warming, especially enhanced Winter Spring warming is causing the loss of lizard populations. (iii) local re global extinction. Several lizard species are already extinct (globally) during the last 100 years. This may not be due solely or even predominantly to global warming (I’m not an expert in this subject!). However it is obvious that extinctions are generally not “on-off” “here today, gone tomorrow” events (outwith bolide impacts, and mass slaughter; e.g. the final passenger pigeon populations already denuded by habitat loss). Global extinctions, especially under the influence of progressive environmental insult (global warming; habitat fragmentation and destruction) are very likely to be observed locally in advance of progressive spread to other habitats as the environmental impact (global warming in this case) advances. And of course in an increasing number of cases global and local extinctions are synonomous since many species are only defined by a local population – this is increasingly the case as a result of habitat fragmentation.
  10. Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
    Given Pete my votes! He does a brilliant job!
  11. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    One should never use the term 'local extinction' in any form or context. It is an oxymoron. The day that some over-zealous academic biologists took up the term was a step backward in science and the public understanding of it. If something is only 'locally exctinct', then it is not extinct, by definition. The use of the term should be banned from all biological literature becuase it creates so much distortion and exageration. I have repeatedly come scross this problem in policy circles when various pro-green advocates want to make and enforce various policies based on something that is by definition, not only ambiguous, but variable both in time and space. Without the time and space context, the data gets distorted, misapplied, and misused. Not only does the use of such a term ensure a whole bunch of out of touch academics (whose main job function seems to be to jump on every minutely possible thinly justified exageration of ambiguities), create all sorts of useless exagerations and distortions, but broader society then also suffers from the misuse and abuse surrounding the term. And once the term gets recycyled in various models etc in the fabulous peer reviewed literature system, all hope of anything approaching normality and reality is lost. Ants are locally extinct in my kitchen every day, until the next day, as well as cockroaches, mosquitoes etc etc. The peer reviewed literature is riddled with this sort of nonsense, so many species have been catergorised as threatened, endangered, 'extinct', locally extinct, partially informally locally exctinct, (like informally partially pregnant), and so on, based on oxymorons and such like, that all resemblance to reality has been lost in the confusion. Time and spatial context of both species and broader ecosystem factors has to be applied to any discussion of species decline, but it usually isnt. Populations are dynamic, they decline and increase, they merge and split, but they don't go 'locally extinct', ever, not even once. The same goes for the Mexican paper on lizards. No only does it ignore the issue of local decline, or local 'non-extinction', but it blunders further by blaming it all under the c02 bandwagon.
  12. HumanityRules at 20:27 PM on 15 May 2010
    Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    "Species extinctions happening before our eyes" John is this strictly accurate? Does this paper describe extincts or range changes? I have a real issue with the liberal use of the word extinction in this paper.
    Response: I had a whole section distinguishing between local extinction (the dying out of a species in a region) and species extinction. I left it out to keep the post streamlined, figuring it would come up in the comments. The 12% of extinctions in Mexico refers to local extinctions. They predicted that local extinctions will reach 39% by 2080. This equates to 20% of total species extinctions.
  13. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    @ #8 chriscanaris No. There is little "wilderness" left in England, but there are plenty of bulldozers. Primate tool use is fine, for example chimpanzees and termites where the termite species is not "tooled" into extinction.
  14. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    J Bowers @ 7 Did no chainsaw or bulldozer ever encroach upon the lands wherein you dwell living in perfect harmony set within pristine wilderness?
  15. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    chriscanaris: "However, extinctions are a reflection of natural selection without which evolution would not occur. More adaptable organisms thrive - the less adaptable decline or occupy specialised ecological niches and are hence vulnerable as conditions change." Do you include rainforest in that, and can I conclude that trees are just an inconsequential victim of the highly adapted organisms known as the chainsaw and bulldozer?
  16. There is no consensus
    Poptech @210, That link failed to address the key flaw in the Petition Project, so you could hardly call it a "complete" rebuttal. Namely, by the standards of the petition, 31000 represents about 0.3% of the targeted population, even with the most generous calculations.
  17. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    doug_bostrom @ 4 Aw, shucks! ;-)
  18. Jacob Bock Axelsen at 17:30 PM on 15 May 2010
    Are we too stupid?
    embb Obviously the measure to punish a defector should hurt the economy of the particular state in proportion to the violation. On the other hand, there is no point in causing major disruption, since the example of Greece shows that the neighbors will have to bail them out anyway. The example of CFCs is also helpful. Not only did the EU start by banning CFCs on their own, but in addition to the Montreal protocol there was a monetary fund set up to help developing economies. I think that makes tremendous sense, which is also why it was decided at COP15. Make the weak economies robust to destabilizing fluctuations during the transition. The developing countries are also not the biggest carbon polluters, while they will feel the biggest impact from global warming. Going to zero CO2-emissions need not cost domestic businesses anything: tax/dividends makes consumers demand less while keeping profits, cap and trade will enable monitoring and force a certain amount of emissions reductions, energy efficiency will increase from labeling appliances, insulating houses and regulating transportation and finally sustainable sources are established on different timescales. We have plenty of examples to back it all up in the real world. I also recommend Peter Sinclair's latest videos, where he mentions that Denmark being the most advanced country in renewable energy is also voted by Forbes to be the best country for business:
  19. citizenschallenge at 17:17 PM on 15 May 2010
    Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
    Yea, too bad we're only given three votes. John, thank you for the heads up on this - was happy to vote for one of my true heros I hope he gets the grant - do let us know.
  20. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    I'm playing gramarian again... Last sentence:This lead the authors to conclude that that lizards have already crossed a threshold for extinctions.
    Response: Thanks, fixed the typo. Is 'gramarian' spelt with one m? :-)
  21. Doug Bostrom at 16:47 PM on 15 May 2010
    Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    Chris' comment is probably the most poetic minimization I've ever read. Congratulations, Chris ;-)
  22. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    chriscanaris, the problem is not the interest on any particular specie nor the fear that nature as a whole won't be able to cope with it one way or another. It's the signs and consequences of global warming and if we humans will fare better or worse.
  23. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    I love lizards. In fact, I prefer them to polar bears. They're much more user friendly and much less likely to maul you if you accidentally intrude on their territory. However, extinctions are a reflection of natural selection without which evolution would not occur. More adaptable organisms thrive - the less adaptable decline or occupy specialised ecological niches and are hence vulnerable as conditions change. Extinctions have always happened and will always happen even as new species gradually appear. While the contribution of AGW is undesirable, we should be wary of excessive reliance on what is ultimately an emotive invocation of romanticised illusions about nature. For my part, I'm always fascinated by nature's resilience in the face of the ugliest of human structures - clumps of ferns and moss growing between the bricks of a prison wall spring to mind as does the blue tongue lizard which found a comfortable home underneath a concrete slab in our garden.
    Response: People have died naturally in the past but that doesn't make murder okay. Just because bad things happen naturally doesn't absolve us of responsibility when we're the cause.

    Re nature's resilience, the empirical evidence from this study and past periods of dramatic climate change find that many species simply cannot adapt fast enough when temperatures warm too quickly.
  24. Species extinctions happening before our eyes
    What's too bad, is that lizards aren't as photogenic as polar bears or other endangered species. So they can't be used as a mascot for "stop the warming" campaigns, but the best evidence now does suggest that they are in direct danger.
  25. Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
    Seriously Arkadiusz, if the "skeptic" arguments are so precise, then why have all the major skeptic arguments been so easily debunked? Don't believe me? Well consider: Urban Heat Island effect-debunked (several times). Ocean Oscillation effect-debunked (this one didn't even last long enough for the ink to dry on the original paper). Sunspot Activity-debunked (the paper I read was actually really excellent in showing past correlations between sunspot proxies & temperature proxies-& its to his credit that the Danish researcher behind this paper was one of the first to correct his error regarding the last 30 years). Medieval Warm Period-not debunked, but no-one pushing this has been able to show why natural warming in the past somehow negates the possibility of man-made warming in the modern age-especially given the lack of natural forcings, & how much faster the modern warming period has been. Indeed, I'd argue that the tendency of "skeptics" to rely on ad-hominem attacks & publicity stunts like Climate-Gate & ambit criminal prosecutions highlights the lack of precision in their arguments. Meanwhile, in spite of constant & increasingly ruthless attacks by vested interests, the simple theory that greenhouse gases trap outgoing long-wave IR radiation has stood up strongly-even in a country like the US of A!
  26. Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
    I first noticed Peter Sinclair when Anthony Watts tried (and failed) to have his videos removed from Youtube by erroneously asserting copyright infringement. Sorely lacking in the public sphere are good science communicators - those who can present science accurately and concisely to the public. The public domain is littered with dubious contrarian material, severely out of whack with the peer-reviewed literature. Textbook example of a non-sequitur by Arkadiusz: Public opinion on scientific issues is a result of good precise analysis? If only! Creationists must be engaging in good precise analysis that stimulates logical thinking, unlike those propaganda-pushing evolutionists with their simplistic peer-reviewed voodoo science, and elitist academic cred. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
  27. Philippe Chantreau at 03:47 AM on 15 May 2010
    Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
    Arkadiusz, WUWT comes to mind; as if the carbonic snow thing wasn't enough, now Goddard is arguing that Venus atmospheric temperature is due to pressure instead of GH effect. Some analysis. A comment in the thread compares that with a hair dryer, which, as we all know, heats up the air by compression (!). Precise analysis is raging indeed...
  28. Rob Honeycutt at 03:31 AM on 15 May 2010
    Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
    I think Peter's doing a great job taking up the cause of defending science. He really deserves all our support.
  29. Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
    re "Moderator Response: As Chris mentioned"........ I understand, ironically these particular off topic exchanges began in response to Chris himself introducing and following up the subject of these exchanges on this particular thread, and for me to post my initial, or any response in another thread may also have effectively tucked it away. Is there any way such initial posts and any replies can be transferred to an appropriate thread by the moderators so that there is no loss of continuity in the debate? I've seen that practised on other forums.
  30. Steven Sullivan at 01:53 AM on 15 May 2010
    Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
    It was submitted to NYT as an op-ed, not a letter.
  31. Steven Sullivan at 01:50 AM on 15 May 2010
    Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
    Berenyi Peter: #46 "What are the timescales involved? I understand slow feedbacks are supposed to operate on timescales from hundreds to thousands of years. But how fast are fast feedbacks? Days? Weeks? Years? Decades? " See, here's where, crazy as it seems, *reading the paper* might help. The term 'fast feedbacks' as used by Lunt et al. is defined in the first paragraph: "[Climate sensitivity] is usually defined as the increase in global mean temperature owing to a doubling of CO2 after the ‘fast’ short-term feedbacks, typically acting on timescales of years to decades, in the atmosphere and upper ocean have had time to equilibrate5" Ref5 is Hansen, J. et al. in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity (eds Hansen, J. E. & Takahashi, T.) 130–163 (American Geophysical Union, 1984). HTH.
  32. Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
    JMurphy #10 Arkadiusz Semczyszak #3 I agree with #10. I regularly dip into WUWT and Climate Audit, but I cannot ever find anything like what you would call "a more precise analysis". Pick anything, like Arctic Sea Ice, or Urban Heat Island effect, and you will find the analysis is more obscurantist than precise. Arkadiusz, give us some examples of where the denialist analysis is "more precise" than (to take one) this blog. Here is some more discussion on environmental opinioni polls. http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/13/opinion-polls-underestimate-americans-concern-about-the-environment-and-global-warming/ "... when asked, “What do you think will be the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it?” 25 percent said the environment or global warming, and only 10 percent picked the economy. In fact, environmental issues were cited more often than any other category, including terrorism, which was only mentioned by 10 percent of respondents." Meanwhile, I am off to vote for Peter Sinclair.
  33. Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
    Erosion of Lizard Diversity by Climate Change and Altered Thermal Niches I suppose some would say that it doesn't matter or that they will cope somehow ?
  34. Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
    chris at 22:04 PM, just to add to my post, one positive outcome from these FACE trials conducted over the last couple of decades, is that varieties that exhibit poor responses to enhanced CO2, such as identified in the trials you referred to, and those that exhibit better responses, perhaps such as those used at Horsham, which interestingly were winter wheat varieties, are able to be identified ahead of time.
    Moderator Response: As Chris mentioned, these comments on CO2's effects on plant growth really belong in other threads: It’s Not Bad or CO2 Is Not a Pollutant. The valuable info in comments go to waste if other people can't find them. Someone looking for info on CO2's direct effects on agriculture are unlikely to find your comments when they are tucked away in this other thread. And people interested in heat stress (the topic of this thread) must read around your comments on CO2.
  35. Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
    chris at 22:04 PM, the length of the Horsham study, 6 months happens to be the life span of wheat from planting to harvesting something that was mentioned, but should have been obvious without it having to be pointed out. I am interested in how the trials you referred to managed to expose wheat to enriched CO2 levels for longer periods, years apparently, and even if they did, what is the relevance to the real world of wheat production? Anyway what is more important protein produced per kilo of wheat or protein produced per hectare? If I am not mistaken, the trials you refer to were conducted with batches of a dozen wheat plants each in sealed plastic boxes all housed in a controlled environment lab and grown hydroponically, thus are hardly comparable to the FACE trial where the plants must interact with the complex soil processes in order to take up the nutrients required for growth.
  36. Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "Skeptics (especially recently) are more effective - increasingly more efficient (use more precise analysis - instead of propaganda - public relation)." Where is any of that 'precise analysis' ? Can you give some examples ? And you don't believe they use propaganda ? Come off it - you're not being serious, are you ? Or don't you read WUWT ? As for the Gallup poll you refer to (with quotes from ACCUWEATHER ?), a majority still agree that global warming is real (79% say the effects of the problem have already begun, will do so in a few years/within their lifetime, or will happen to future generations); that the warnings are correct or underestimated (49%); that it is human-caused (50%), and believe that most scientists accept that it is a human-induced problem (52%). All those are down, of course, but, after a cold Winter and the efforts of all the so-called skeptics, those figures could have been a lot worse.
  37. Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
    johnd at 21:38 PM on 14 May, 2010 That's not ncessarily a very helpful study johnd. And it hasn't been published. A problem is in the very short period of their study (6 months). Short term enhanced growth under raised [CO2] reduces over time (desentization or aclimitisation). So longer term FACE experiments in several important crop species shows that initial gains aren't sustained. e.g. to quote from the paper I linked to above: (refering to continually rising atmospheric CO2 levels; my highlights):
    "Plants could mitigate these changes through photosynthetic conversion of atmospheric CO2 into carbohydrates and other organic compounds, yet the potential for this mitigation remains uncertain. Photorespiration is the biochemical pathway in which the chloroplast enzyme Rubisco catalyzes the oxidation of the high-energy substrate RuBP rather than catalyzes the carboxylation of RuBP through the C3 carbon-fixation pathway (2). Elevated CO2 (or low O2) atmospheric concentrations decrease rates of photorespiration and initially enhance rates of photosynthesis and growth by as much as 35% in most plants (C3 plants). This enhancement, however, diminishes over time (days to years), a phenomenon known as CO2 acclimation (3, 4). Most studies suggest a strong link between CO2 acclimation and plant nitrogen status [for example, (5)]."
    and:
    "In this study, five independent methods affirm that CO2 enrichment inhibits NO3– assimilation in wheat and Arabidopsis plants. The predominant form of N available to plants in most environments is NO3– (6); therefore, CO2 inhibition of NO3– assimilation would lead to lower organic N production. Indeed, this could be responsible for the 7.4 to 11% decrease in wheat grain protein (15, 16) and the 20% decrease in total protein content of A. thaliana (Columbia) (17) observed under CO2 enrichment in FACE (free-air CO2 enrichment) experiments. Because the influence of CO2 enrichment on leaf organic N contents is highly correlated with its influence on photosynthesis and growth (5), it is reasonable to assume that CO2 inhibition of NO3– assimilation and the resultant decline in plant organic N contents play a major role in the phenomenon of CO2 acclimation, the decline of photosynthesis, and growth of C3 plants after long exposures (days to years) to CO2 enrichment."
  38. We're heading into an ice age
    mginaus writes: The biology of this planet is good at adapting to changes. That's true, but that adaptation process involves lots of losses (e.g., lots of species go extinct during time of abrupt change). Just because "life as a whole" survived the K-T impact doesn't mean we as one particular species should welcome catastrophic climate change. In addition, we have a huge investment ("sunk costs") in technological and cultural infrastructure built around a relatively stable climate. Here in the US (where I live), a small but long-term change in patterns of precipitation could be hugely expensive, dwarfing the trivial costs of things like the Iraq war or health care. Look at economic impacts of the 1993 or 2008 Midwest floods, or of similar drought years. The West Coast would (will?) incur immense costs if snowpack in the Sierras declines and the regional water infrastructure has to be completely reworked. Etc, etc, etc. As for willingness to change, we're going to have to change anyway, due to the conflict between increasing demand and decreasing availability of oil in the coming decades. Nuclear would help but can't replace oil by itself, at least not in the near future. Switching back to coal will incur huge health and environmental costs, and if continued for the long term it would drive the climate into absolutely disastrous conditions. mginaus concludes: I believe all of us in the scientific community need to [...] start working out what we know and what we still need to know - then we will actually be able to move forward intelligently. Hear, hear! I agree with that, more or less. I'd just add that we know enough already to justify starting making changes now (actually, we should have started 20 years ago...) -- I think John Cook and all the others who contribute to this site have done a great job of summarizing what we do know and what we still need to figure out.
  39. Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
    chris at 20:43 PM, as mentioned in the findings of the Horsham trials, such real world trials found increased wheat yields for the CO2 enriched samples averaging 31% with protein levels declining from 18% to 17.3%. Food quality in terms of % protein content may be down, but it is the amount of protein produced per hectare that matters when it comes to feeding the worlds population.
  40. Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
    JMurphy at 20:09 PM on 14 May, 2010 Yes that's right. To quote from the paper I linked to above:
    "As atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise and NO3 – assimilation diminishes, crops will become depleted of organic N compounds (see Fig. 3), including protein, and food quality wll suffer. Increasing nitrogen fertilization might compensate for slower NO3 – assimilation rates (Fig. 3), but such fertilization rates might not be economically or environmentally feasible."
  41. Are we too stupid?
    Jacob Let us focus the discussion a bit. There is one simple question for me. According to the bill: "We also set up a tough, WTO-consistent border adjustment mechanism so that there won't be any "carbon leakage" of companies manufacturing things overseas in countries that don't manage their emissions. Imports from those countries will have to pay a fee at the border." Translated to practical terms this means that any country not having carbon tax will be punished by a hefty "fee at the border" or to put it another way by a high customs duty. What will the impact of this be on the economy of these states? On the smugglers? On the US economy? "The funny thing is that economists had nothing to do with it. It was originally thought out by a physicist. How about that?" I can completely understand this. :))
  42. Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
    johnd wrote : "The conclusion of the abstract from the paper you linked states the obvious, and what has always been known, that being, if you want plants to produce more then you must feed them more." Doesn't that mean extra problems of time, labour and money ?
  43. Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
    tiny error in the top post. Should be Michael Mann (not Micheal Mann). I'm also going to vote for Peter Sinclair whose videos are very straightforward, truthful and impactful (and also quite funny sometimes).
  44. Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
    Will, Human civ., which started ~10000 years ago was largely established thanks to the climate. I think a 2C decrease would also cause a lot of problems. Here's a nice graph, although I'm having the hardest time pinpointing the source. Maybe Fig. 1.3 of Climate change and human health : risks and responses. Editors : A. J. McMichael et al. WHO. 2003.
  45. We're heading into an ice age
    gary4books might be right. both sides of the argument seem to be afraid of the possibility of change. EVERYTHING CHANGES! The biology of this planet is good at adapting to changes. "Positives and negatives of global warming" is a ridiculously one-sided attempt of trying to purport to have a balanced view. (of course there are more papers on scary outcomes than on positive outcomes - no one funds/reads rosy pictures) Even with all the evidence in the world nothing is going to make energy companies let go of the status quo in time to make a difference, nor will it make enough people CHOOSE to pay more for energy. I believe all of us in the scientific community need to stop trying to WIN the argument and start working out what we know and what we still need to know - then we will actually be able to move forward intelligently.
  46. Skeptical Science housekeeping: navigation, comments and Thai translation
    quokka, i like your idea, but it's a lot of work. Maybe it could be feasible if limited to the acronyms and if someone else, not John, takes care of the compilation (you? :)).
  47. Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
    I'm one of those who really like Sinclair approach to the problem. I find it stimulating critical thinking, he always shows a denialist claims and contrast it with the science. It's very efficient in showing in an easy yet rigorous way both what science says and the errors, and sometimes the flat lies, of the AGW deniers. This should be contrasted with the approach used by many denialist blogs, where the they use fake science to push their agenda. No critical thinking, not a tiny drop of skepticism despite they like this word (not its meaning) a lot. They only act as amplifiers of a propaganda probably elaborated elsewhere with the support of professional PR. This is why they're so efficient, they are not forced in the narrow lane of reality. In mathematical terms i'd say that the two are incommensurable.
  48. Skeptical Science housekeeping: navigation, comments and Thai translation
    Here's one more suggestion for the site. A glossary would be quite useful, especially for readers less acquainted the science. I'm thinking particularly of acronyms such as SST, TOA etc. It could be simply a link to for example the RealClimate glossary or something more elaborate with links in posts etc.
    Response: This is a good idea. How I'd approach it is to set it up as a database where others can edit it, wiki style. That way, it's not too much of a time sink for me - just the initial set up time. The main thing I'm wondering is to whether to make it open access or just limited access. I welcome thoughts.
  49. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 17:56 PM on 14 May 2010
    Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
    "Since its launch a year ago, CDCW has gained an enthusiastic audience and inspired praise from scientists and professionals in the field around the planet." And for me CDCW are too simplistic, does not stimulate the logical thinking process, circumventing the problem too complicated. Skeptics (especially recently) are more effective - increasingly more efficient (use more precise analysis - instead of propaganda - public relation). For example, in the U.S.: "To no surprise, the American public is less worried about the threat of global warming than at any time in the past 13 years. According to Gallup's global warming poll, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, which is up from 41% in 2009 and 31% back in 1997. Also, 19% of Americans say that the effects of global warming will never happen, while 16% stated that the effects of global warming will not happen in their lifetime." "In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth's temperature over the last century," according to Gallup. 50% of Americans believe that increases in the earth's temperature over the last century are due more to human activities, while 46% say it is due to natural causes. These numbers were 61% and 35% respectively back in 2007. [??? ...]"
  50. Vote for Climate Denial Crock of the Week at Brighter Planet
    Just remember that there are 3 votes for each voter - I used my 3 votes on Peter Sinclair, he is doing a great job :)

Prev  2379  2380  2381  2382  2383  2384  2385  2386  2387  2388  2389  2390  2391  2392  2393  2394  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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