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  656  657  658  659  660  661  662  663  664  665  666  667  668  669  670  671  Next

Comments 33151 to 33200:

  1. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Donny #56

    You say "I would never hinder a wind farm from going up because of birds.... or a hydroelectric plant because of fish. I was merely stating that I know of many people who hate using fossil fuels but complain about alternative energy options."

    You are stating the obvious and wasting time. Do you have something constructive to add on how to convince people to look at the issue differently?

    And who cares about whether  CO2 as a pollutant? This is pedantic, time wasting, nonsense argument. The evidence is excessive quantities in the atmosphere are harmful. That is what matters.

     

  2. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    I read an article on another site that eludes that OLWIR should be decreasing over the last few years as co2 has risen. ... but instead had increased.   I am trying to understand this relationship.   It seems like if the LWIR was decreasing because more co2 was trapping it.... it would result in warming.  Is that correct? 

  3. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    While we're on the topic of windmills would somebody, pulleezze, tell me why windmills are White?  Just ask a Landscape Architect (you know: an expert) what color they should be.  "Anything but white", she would say.  An English study showed that, as regards bird deaths, the worst possible color you could paint a windmill is White (best is Purple).

    "Arguing about whether CO2 is a pollutant or not is a waste of time"  Its the kind of argument lawyers make, because lawyers are about conflict and not resolution.  Conflict pads the wallet of lawyers.  If you're of a scientific bent, you have got to be saying, to most of this discussion, 'what the...?'.

  4. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Paul D @51... I would never hinder a wind farm from going up because of birds.... or a hydroelectric plant because of fish.  I was merely stating that I know of many people who hate using fossil fuels but complain about alternative energy options.  

  5. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Scaddenp@ 52.... why are you attacking me????  All I said was there are people who don't want to make sacrifices that sometimes come with renewable energy.  Then I gave examples.   Hydro power and fish.  I think hydroelectric is great but the fisheries departments don't like them.   Wind farms on Cape Cod ran into major obstacles because people didn't want their water views to change.  I am not sure what was so offensive about that.

  6. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Donny, the OLWIR radiation is acting as it should, ie, as a function of surface temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations.  You have provided no evidence to the contrary.  Indeed, the TOA energy imbalance that is demonstrated by the rising Ocean Heat Content shows the current OLWIR radiation to have increased significantly less than would be expected from the increased surface temperature alone.  Indeed, without a decrease of OLWIR due to CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), we would expect a negative imbalance (oceans loosing heat) due to the rise in surface temperatures alone.

  7. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    I am trying to figure out why the OLWIR would not be acting like it should. ... if that is even the case.... is that wrong to do??  I am confused.   Why do you say I have repeatedly violated?

  8. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    John.... I am not sure what I said that violated the policy????  Can you be more specific so I know? 

  9. PhilippeChantreau at 10:02 AM on 30 October 2014
    Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    "Arguing about whether CO2 is a pollutant or not is a waste of time and just pandering to another skeptic/denier distraction."

    I can't think of any way to argue with that.

  10. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    I am not sure whether an argument about the semantics of whether CO2 is a pollutant or not actually serves any purpose, and is just more of "the science is not settled",  "CO2 is a harmless gas" and "CO2 is fertilizer " type arguments that skeptics are so fond of.

    Whether CO2 is a pollutant or not is an argument for lawyers. We know more of it will warm the planet and that it can kill you if there is too much of it. The Lake Nyos disaster in Cameroon in the 1980s certainly shows that CO2 can be deadly, when several thousand people and many cows were killed by the CO2 bubble that was released from the bottom of the lake.

    In relation to 19th century visionaries building sewers in our cities, the reduction of the number of people dying from colera would have had a far greater economic impact for the better on our modern industrial society, which far outweighed the cost of building them, than just leaving conditions as they were by not building them. The same is true for alleviating CO2 emissions.

    Discussing the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere is a similar to maintaining chlorine levels in a swimming pool. The pump puts it in and it evaporates out. If the pump does not keep up to the evaporation rate then there will be too little chlorine, algae will grow and you can't swim in the pool. If the pump puts in too much then you won't have algae but you still won't be able swim in the pool because you will get burnt and possibly die. The same analogy can be applied to fertilizers and land use. To little, you get weeds, a little more and you get a greater yield, too much and plants die. CO2 in the atmosphere is the same. Too little and we freeze. Too much and we will all be living in the tropics and people in poor countries will die.

    What is a safe level? Well the IPCC and climate scientists have already indicated what they think is safe. Pity the skeptics never give a figure that can be put under scientific scrutiny. Arguing about whether CO2 is a pollutant or not is a waste of time and just pandering to another skeptic/denier distraction.

     

  11. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Moderator's Comment

    Donny:

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  12. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B

    One Planet Only @ 50, 52.

    Thanks for your comment. Regarding my comment "It undermines Gores book". I was just referring to his (alleged) speech "on the science being settled" as being too general and this undermines the quality of his books or their credibility, in the eyes of the general public. I can’t recall any of his books specifically claiming the science was settled, they are more nuanced. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

    Regarding your comments in your post no 52, on how we fit into the planet etc. I see it much the same way. Obviously we only have one planet and better take care of it. Obviously organisms can push environments beyond the limits and successful ones fit in.

    Humans do have a unique attribute of looking ahead, or it is more developed than in animals. However it is very variable, Im thinking of Jared Diamonds book "Collapse", where various civilisations didn't see the consequences of their actions on the environment. Easter Island is the classic example, but I think we are getting better, with better awareness and ability to calculate. There are still big limitations. We are good at responding to short term risks, but less so with longer term risks, yet we are aware of our own inadequacies. It is like a constantly developing consciousness, which is maybe your point.

    I think you are onto something in differentiating how different people respond. Some think very selfishly and short term. Others seem almost programmed to think longer term, and we need to listen to each other. I wouldn’t want to say thinking short term is somehow entirely wrong though, we need both. This is hard for me to explain, and this is where internet missundertandings occur. But anyway I generally concur with your ideas, and hope I have added something.

  13. The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming

    The place where SSTs are increasing the fastest are surely in the Arctic Ocean, particularly around the perimeter--places like the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS). Consequences of such extreme (relatively) heating in these particular places are potentially quite, well, consequential.

    "Arctic Methane Spikes Continue — 2666 Parts Per Billion on October 26th"

  14. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    From the facetious response of Donny, I would conclude:

    Donny prefers ignorance of problems to information that challenges his preferences

    Is prepared only to consider technological solutions. I am guessing Donny is not prepared to consider what to do politically if alternatives are more expensive than even unsubsidized FF.

    I would strongly suspect that Donny is not interested in any information which would imply taking higher immediate personal cost to avert future cost. In short, ideologically-driven pseudo-skepticism. DNFTT.

  15. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Donny said "If we reduce our co2 emissions by reducing the amount of energy we use and try and institute new energy forms.... there will be sacrifices.... birds and wind mills"

    I assume you propose to knock down all buildings and kill all pet cats?

    All of which are much greater causes of bird fatalities than wind turbines.
    You appear to be the subject of the usual misinformation.

    Pet cats for instance kill about 1060 times more birds than wind turbines.

    FYI regarding bird fatalities

    Wind Turbines less than 0.01%
    Buildings about 58%

    So I suggest maybe you need to live in a tent.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Please keep it civil.

  16. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Donny said "Longjohn. .. there is a huge difference between co2 and asbestos. CO2 is not pollution. Neither is heat."


    Wrong on all accounts.

    Noise Pollution
    Light Pollution

    Pollution can and is caused by anything. CO2 is a pollutant in the context of climate change and ocean acidification.

  17. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    That 'Great Stink of London' article is an important analogy, in how waste can become a pollutant, and how sometimes the only way to deal with our common waste problem is 'commonly'.  When people say they don't want to pay for a common fix for our common gas waste problem because it empowers the 'big government' I generally ask "Did you use a toilet today?  If you did, did you feel that big government sucking away your freedoms?'.  These kinds of solutions become so universally expected that, today, its actually the Absence of a toilet, when you need one, that is mostly likely to engender a blistering harangue at 'that stupid government'.

  18. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Michael Sweet @45, this may have been the article you had in mind, although as explained in the article, the original exposition (as an analogy for tackling climate) comes from Richard Alley in Earth: The operator's manual, which I highly recommend.

  19. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    I'm at a loss to know how better to express  my view on CO2 other than stating again "However too much CO2, like many things, could be classed as a pollutant".   Prior to that I had said "CO2 per se is not a pollutant" Perhaps it would have been better if I had written "at low concentrations CO2 is not regarded as a pollutant but at high concentrations is regarded as a pollutant". I had thought my command of the English language was reasonable but it appears I was mistaken.

  20. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Philippe... That echoes Steven Schneiders words quite well, where he said, "“We also knew that you had to stop using the atmosphere as an unpriced sewer to dump your smoke stack and tail pipe waste..."

    Also interesting is the fact that, at this point, what we're talking about is probably <2% of GDP. It's a very similar problem.

  21. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Tom@37,

     I once read an article (sorry, no cite) that discussed when sewers were first installed in major cities (specificly London).  Deniers at the time said sewers would be too expensive and the human manure was being used as fertilizer on nearby farms so it would be unfeasible to bild sewers to take it away.  New Your did not treat all its sewage until 1986!

    Do these arguments remind you about AGW skeptic arguments at all?  Sewage costs about 3% of GDP but most people feel that is a good investment.  If we invested 3% in combating CO2 pollution we would see great straides made in containing this problem.

  22. PhilippeChantreau at 02:07 AM on 30 October 2014
    Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Donny says " people wanting other people to pay."

    That is not the meaning of the word "investment." I have no problem at all with fossil fuel companies getting a return on their renewable energy investments in the future. There has been discussions before on other threads of how utilities are run in the US, and it unfortunately boils down to private companies telling the public: "you buy me a power plant and then I'll run like it's entirely mine." Talk about having others pay.

    It reminds me of a situation in which mega banks and investment companies mismanage their money so badly that they're all about to go under and wreak most of the World economies along with themselves. So, the only option is using the public's money to salvage the whole mess. Having others pay. Such a bad thing, that is.

  23. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Ashton @38, as the full quote of John Cook indicates, he was arguing that it was quite appropriate to call CO2 a pollutant.  You, however, quote him without quoting the second sentence and use that isolated quote to suggest that calling CO2 a pollutant was inappropriate.  Hence you were quoting him out of context.  To be more specific, you might reasonably quote Cook as supporting the view that it is a matter of indifference as to whether you call CO2 a pollutant, or not.  But that indifference does not support a condemnation of the use of the term as inappropriate, as you clearly try to force it to do when you write "If adjectives had been used appropriately the above argument need never have occurred."

    I apologize for my sentence which has caused you confusion.  I miswrote it, and had intended to indicate that it was entirely appropriate to call the third effluent polution.  I attribute my failure of copy editing to a bout of insomnia that has afflicted me over the last 24 hours (as you could probably determine from my posting times).

  24. PhilippeChantreau at 01:53 AM on 30 October 2014
    Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    About Tom Curtis post #34, for those who did not follow the link, let's point out that the figure for research spending is on annual basis, whereas the oil companies profit number is a quarterly result.

  25. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Ashton...  "That suggests John Cook realises that CO2 can be both a pollutant and a non-pollutant."

    That is true of every substance known. In certain concentrations it is harmless. At other concentrations it causes harm. It's all of function of how we humans are changing the concentrations.

  26. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Ashton...  "Clearly CO2 is not a pollutant per se on earth..."

    Radioactivity at natural background levels is also safe. It's at increased levels that it becomes hazardous. CO2 at natural levels, seen over the past 10k years, is perfectly fine and necessary. But that doesn't mean that doubling natural concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is safe. In fact, it has been very clearly determined to have potentially severe consequences. 

    There is little doubt that a business-as-usual emissions path that takes us past 4C over preindustrial would be horrendous. All from a gas "without [which] the earth would not support life as we know it..."

  27. PhilippeChantreau at 01:46 AM on 30 October 2014
    Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    "That suggests John Cook realises that CO2 can be both a pollutant and a non-pollutant."

    It does not do this at all. It shows unambiguously (not "suggest") that J. Cook is aware of the roles of CO2 on Earth and of its overall negative effect when massively released on a short time scale. Ashton's spin tactics are of rather low quality. It is abundantly clear to me what Tom Curtis' opinion on what constitutes a pollutant is.

  28. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Tom Curtis, the piece to which I refer is titled "Is CO2 a pollutant?"  You could hardly class that as being "out of context" when I'm commenting on the conversation beteen you and Donny on CO2  It is in fact far more appropriate as a posting place for Donny than the article to which you refer. 

    The entire quote from John Cook in "Is CO2 a pollutant" is:

    "How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics. To focus on a few positive effects of carbon dioxide is to ignore the broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2 are severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future humanity"

    That suggests John Cook realises that CO2 can be both a pollutant and a non-pollutant

    I cannot see what I have quoted out of context for, as you will notice, John Cook uses the adjective "increasing" to define what constitutes CO2 as a pollutant.  That is exactly what I have done.  Perhaps you might prefer the example of  commensals and  pathogens where a commensal, or a "non-pollutant" can become a pathogen, "a pollutant" if it translocates to  an inappropriate place or is present in the appropriate place but in overwhelming amounts.

    Finally I am entirely mystified by your comment "Calling the third natural effluent of mammalian existence, the gas first discovered by its ability to extinguish animal life a pollutant is entirely untoward"   Surely that comment should be directed to  the EPA raather than to me?  As I thought I had made plain whether or not CO2 is classed as a pollutant largely depends on its concentration.  In addition, it seems a total non sequitur to your comment "I have never yet seen that advanced as a reason to stop wasting money or sewage treatment plants, nor to not call a beach awash with sewage heavilly polluted". It is very unclear, at least to me,  whether you regard CO2 as  a pollutant or not.

  29. Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

    BarbaraB...  The challenge here is that it's a little more complex than things just getting a little warmer. A small increase in global mean temperature actually increases the number of hot and extreme heat days per year, which can have strong negative impacts on crop production.

    Then you have to add in what's known as arctic amplification, where the poles heat up faster than the equator. 

    Consider how challenging it is today, with good crop production, to feed 7 billion people on this planet. Up that number to 9 billion and throw in reduced crop production, now you have the recipe for political unrest, wars, and refugees attempting to escape those conditions. 

    Suddenly, a little bit of warming becomes a very big problem.

  30. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Moderator's Comment

    Donny:

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  31. The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming

    Tom Curtis @6, exactly, you can go in circles forever if you concentrate on short term trends.

    Tony @8, interesting point and I actually saw a denier response to this. They feign that 0.2 increase is nothing special since you sometimes see this kind of volatility on per-month basis. They think in trends when that suits them but quickly turn to noise when it doesn't.

  32. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Moderator's Comment

    Please refrain from responding to Donny's future posts until a Modrator has had time to review their content. Given Donny's propensity to repeatedly violate the SkS Comments Policy, his future posts are likely to be deleted. If they are, your responses to them will be deleted as well. 

  33. One Planet Only Forever at 00:08 AM on 30 October 2014
    2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B

    nigelj,

    My reply to your comment @49 has led me to come up with a different way of presenting my current best understanding of what is going.

    Science and other fields of investigation into improved understanding of what is going constantly question what has been done before to improve on previous investigations. That constant challenging of what has already been studied and developed, and the conclusions made based on what was studied, is a miracle of humanity.

    Nature does a similar thing through the random creation of new types of organisms that may find a 'niche' in the overall diversity of life on the planet. Organisms that try to dominate but do not limit their impacts ultimately fail to 'find a niche they can be sustained in' because they consume the finite resources for their way of living. However, such organisms typically only meet their inevitable failure after causing massive damage to the diversity of life in the locations they affect.

    Humans have a rather unique ability to evaluate a current situation and try to determine what is likely to happen in the future. That ability could be used to strive to develop the best understanding of how to develop humanity to be a sustainable part of the diversity of life on this amazing planet, a planet on which the developed diversity of life is the reason for each human's amazing opportunity. That ability could be used to identify and curtail human development that is not going to be sustainable before too much damage is done.

    The ability to try to understand what is likely to happen in the future could also lead people who have decided to strive to thrive through unsustainable and damaging ways to realise their pursuits and interests are threatened by any expanded better understanding of the unacceptability of what they are doing among the rest of the population. They will then fight to protect themselves with a shield of created but ultimately usustainable popularity. And the higher profitability of the ways they are willing to pursue profit, their competetive advantage over more considerate people, can result in them having more resources to significantly delay the development of the spread of better understanding among the population of the planet.

    Ultimately those who are not interested in the development of better understanding to more rapidly develop a sustainable better future for all humanity, humanity adapting to become a sustainable part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet, have no future and will produce no sustainable good thing. Those type of people being successful is therefore a significant threat to the future of humanity.

    That is all just a theory and would be difficult to examine parts of it analytically and consolidate the understanding of the isolated parts into an integrated whole, but I believe it best explains the extensive observed behaviour of people related to climate science, global warming, and climate change and the policy changes that the science is clearly indicating are required for humanity to adapt to develop to become a sustainable part of this planet, to deveop a better future.

  34. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B

    @ Tom Curtis (#44 and #46)

    Thank you for the pretty comprehensive attribution of the "science is settled " quote/misquote/non-quote debacle.

    This is yet another classic example from the plethora of accidental or disingenuous "quotes" that so many are prepared to accept without the slightest hint of genuine scepticism. (There is, of course, nothing new under the sun. Carl Sagan had to deal with this sort of thing billions and billions of times.)

    Sort of gives more emphasis and support to the comment "I do wish people would please read what is actually written ", doesn't it?

    Cheers     Bill F

  35. The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming

    An interesting observation is that there is a 0.07 degree gap between the red line and the orange line in Figure 1 in 1998.  If we were to accept this story that the warming slowed down after 1998, then that gap has to be explained by some physical mechanism.  This is much worse for the "global warming stopped in 1998" canard because now a denier has to explain about a 0.2 degree instantaneous warming. 

  36. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Ashton @36:

    "Clearly CO2 is not a pollutant per se on earth as without it the earth would not support life as we know it and it is an essential by product for mammalian metabolism as without it cells would not produce energy via entities such as the Krebs Cycle."

    Oddly, faeces and urine are also (indirectly) essential for life as we know it, and are certainly natural products of mammalian existence, just like CO2.  I have never yet seen that advanced as a reason to stop wasting money or sewage treatment plants, nor to not call a beach awash with sewage heavilly polluted.  Calling the third natural effluent of mammalian existence, the gas first discovered by its ability to extinguish animal life a pollutant is entirely untoward.  Quoting John Cook out of context does not change those facts.

  37. Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

    BarbaraB@25.

    It can be said that being "quite relaxed about the climate getting warmer" puts you in good company. Some eminent climatologists have also reached that conclusion. Svante Arrhenius (often credited with discovering AGW) and GS Callender (AGW was called the Callendar Effect once-upon-a-time) both thought the world would benefit from warming. Arrhenius (or perhaps a colleague of his) even toyed with the idea of setting fire to coal mines to help it on its way. Then if you live in chilly Sweden you probably would think 'warm' was 'good'. And I'm told it can be nippy in Sussex during an Ice Age, which was Callendar's concern.

    Of course, both are now long dead so their views on the outcome of AGW are a particularly outdated. So maybe they are not such "good company" after all.

  38. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    The arguments above regarding whether or not CO2 is a pollutant seem to be due to imprecise use of English.  Clearly CO2 is not a pollutant per se on earth as without it the earth would not support life as we know it and it is an essential by product for mammalian metabolism as without it cells would not produce energy via entities such as the Krebs Cycle.  However too much CO2, like many things, could be classed as a pollutant.  This topic was covered extensively in Skeptical Science in 2010 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-CO2-a-pollutant.html)

    As John Cook said then "How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics".  If adjectives had been used appropriately the above argument need never have occurred.

  39. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    “For example, as Lee Papa has pointed out, McConnell had no hesitations in expressing his opinions about dealing with the threat of Ebola and deferring to the experts at the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),

    I’m not an expert on this, but it strikes me that it would be a good idea to discontinue flights into the United States from that part of the world ... I think we ought to listen to what the CDC thinks they need either in terms of financing or certainly they’ll decide the procedures for travel and all the rest. I think we need to follow the advice of the experts who know how to fight scourges like this"

    The post wrongly gives the impression that the Republican Party defers to expertise in areas other than climate change. The above quote would indicate that the experts recommend discontinuing flights from affected areas. There are no direct flights to the U.S. from these areas, and the experts have been quite clear in opposing travel bans. Climate change is not an outlier. It is completely justified to say that Republicans exist in an alternative reality that is driven by ideological expediency, rather than respect for facts.

  40. Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

    Just a psychologist so I'm sure I don't count here, but I do know something about people and the herd instinct which I think is working here to a large extent.  There is also, I am not a theologist, some evidence of the sin of greed.  So many billions of dollars changing hands over a theory, really just a theory which looks more like a religion since you can't oppose it without retribution.  Wise men should be skeptical.

    I am quite relaxed about the climate getting warmer, I like summer better than winter, don't you?  The people with  coastline properties are probably those terrible "rich" people anyway whom we have all been told are sucking on our vital juices for their own benefit.  Terrible people.

    Moderator Response:

    [Dikran Marsupial] Welcome to SkS (psychologists are most welcome).  Please take time to read the comments policy, SkS is intended to be a site for productive discussion of climate science and closely related topics, but it is not a forum for the sort of trolling that is all too common on climate blogs.  Further comments of this nature will be deleted.  If you disagree with the mainstream position on climate science, then I would encourage you to pick a specific argument (see the list of climate myths on the bar to the left) and explain your objection clearly.  I'm sure you will find plenty of people here willing to discuss the science with you in a rational and friendly manner, provided that you behave in a similarly mature manner.

  41. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Donny @168 and 169, increasing CO2 decreases outgoing IR radiation all else being equal.  Increasing surface temperatures increases outgoing IR radiation all else being equal.

  42. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Donny @24:

    "take most of the grant money away from the climate change crowd and invest in renewable energy innovations. Let's just assume that we are going to have a .1 or .2 per decade temperature rise and start solving the issue."

    That is really two suggestions.  The second, assuming that temperature increase will not be greater than current mean rates of increase and are likely to be half of that over the forthcoming century simply ignores the relevant science.

    The former, is even more absurd.  The current investment in climate research in the US is $2,658 million annually.  Much of that is used for launching satellites, and a fair portion is already used in research on "renewable innovations", but we can ignore that.  

    The current profits of US oil companies are $20 billion for the top three alone.  They already, no doubt, spend significantly on research for more efficient extraction, and to find new reserves, money that is counted as business expenses, and hence not taken out of profits, but we will ignore that.  It follows that for the top three oil companies alone to match the proposed research into renewables, they only need to commit 13.3% of their profits which a small price to pay.  And that is just the top three oil companies. 

    GE has announced an intention to spend $10 billion through to 2020 on energy research.  That is 54% of the climate change research budget from just one company.  Other energy companies will also be spending.  Although GE calls the funding part of its "ecoimagination" budget, it will be spent on making gas turbines more efficient, and improving fracking technology (ie, on fossil fuels).

    The idea that problems with climate change can be solved just by throwing research money at renewable energy is already close to magical thinking.  It makes the task harder from the get go by setting a higher bar for a successful solution (ie, one that undercuts fossil fuels in price).  To pretend that doing so on current federal research budgets, which are already massively out spent by fossil fuel and energy company research budgets is fanciful.  If just throwing money at research will generate a successful solution (the assumption in such suggestions), then throwing more money at research by fossil fuel companies will generate a counter solution.

    Consequently it is far better to raise the price of carbon emissions.  That way the private enterprise research money will be preferentially directed at solving the problem rather than making it worse.

  43. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Especially if you do find rising global temperatures?

  44. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    In an ever increasing co2 environment shouldn't the OLWIR decrease as the co2 increases? 

  45. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Well said Mr Curtis. ... I agree with your breakdown. 

  46. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Donny @166, increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere initially decreases the outgoing LWIR.  Changes must then occur at the Earth's surface or in the atmosphere to either decrease incoming SW radiation, or increase outgoing LWIR radiation until the two again match, reestablishing equilbrium.  Until that occurs, the imbalance will result in additional energy being stored in the Earth's surface systems which will result in rising temperatures.  Further, raising surface temperatures is the simplest and most direct means restore the balance.  Further, for any other change than raising temperatures to occur, some physical change at the Earth's surface must occur to drive that change, and as that physical change is driven by the imbalance (otherwise the Earth would not reestablish equilibrium), the physical change that drives the other changes will be a change in temperature.  Ergo, increasing CO2 will raise temperatures.  Tracing the most obvious physical pathways show that it will rise by a significant amount (as do other direct observations, and the paleo record).

  47. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Question. ... will outgoing LWIR  decrease as co2 increases? ???.... producing the greenhouse effect?

  48. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Donny @31, here is another (less tendentious) definition of pollutant for you:

    "In general, substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values. Pollutants may be classified by various criteria: (1) By the origin: whether they are natural or man-made (synthetic). (2) By the effect: on an organ, specie, or an entire ecosystem. (3) By the properties: mobility, persistence, toxicity. (4) By the controllability: ease or difficulty of removal."

    As you say, laws can be changed.  Therefore despite the fact that CO2 meets standard dictionary definitions of "pollutant", and is so considered by the EPA and the Supreme Court, it really comes down to whether or not CO2 emission causes harm.  What is obliquely claimed by those to claim CO2 is not a pollutant is that CO2 does not harm; whereas those who claim it is are obliquely asserting that it is.  If, however, that is what you want to debate, don't hide it behind an apparent discussion of semantics.  Argue the case directly on the appropriate thread, preferably after reading the articles involved and related comments.

  49. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Rob you are funny. ... you say laws aren't fluid I say they are. ... but it's me that is making something up?  At least have a fair discussion.

    Moderator Response:

    [Dikran Marsupial] Please everybody, lets get the discussion back to a less personal tone and keep the discussion factual.  Any further content-free comments, such as this one, will be deleted.

  50. Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders

    Phil. ... we can't buy our way into more climate certainty..... only time can give us that. 

Prev  656  657  658  659  660  661  662  663  664  665  666  667  668  669  670  671  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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