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  692  693  694  695  696  697  698  699  700  701  702  703  704  705  706  707  Next

Comments 34951 to 35000:

  1. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Tom, I think the wider range of soils in Alaska has more to do with the fact that it mostly wasn't scraped clean by glaciers in the last ice age. http://mapsof.net/map/north-america-glaciation-map#.U-rZu0jz2B0

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Fixed link. Please learn how to do this yourself with the link button in the editor.

  2. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    This is a good post, but I would like to believe that a lot of the thrashing in the discussions attached to it could have been avoided if Skeptical Science would edit the article to make the correction already suggested by post#955: the citation of the Clausius formulation of the Second Law is incorrect.

    Far better would be to use Clausius's own translation of his statement of the law: "Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time."

    One of the immediate advantages of this formulation is that it immediately enables us to put the burden on the "believers in the imaginary Second Law" to show that there are no "other changes" that allow the transfer of heat from the cold atmophere to the warm earth.

    Certainly, the 'generally' of the version currently in the article is terribly confusing. What is 'generally' supposed to mean in the statement of a physical law? Would Newton ever have said "to each and every action there is generally an equal and opposite reaction"? Of course not.

    At least when Clausis said "other changes", we know he was speaking in the context of heat engines, so we know he meant changes in thermodynamic state, whether of the heat engine or in the surrounding environment. We do not know anything of the sort for 'generally'.

    Alternatively, several great physicists of more recent times, so in reference to the more complete theory of thermodynamics they themselves developed, have given formulations that might even prove more useful, e.g.:

    Wolfgang Pauli: Clausius says that heat conduction is an irreversible
    process — a process is called irreversible if the initial state
    cannot be reached from the final state without compensation

    Enrico Fermi: it is impossible to have a process whose SOLE effect is
    the transfer of heat from a colder to a hotter body

    Richard Feynman: Carnot asserted that at constant temperature it is
    impossible to extract heat out of its source and turn it into work,
    without producing other changes in the given system or its surrounding
    environment.

    Please consider these also, but at the very least, correct the Clausius quote: it can only cause unnecessary confusion, as people are still referring to this article.

  3. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Bob Loblaw @47, your first link is indeed the map I was indicating.  I have since found a more suitable map (the third map from this site to which you have previously linked), as it shows the actual soil qualities.  Of particular interest in your dispute with Donny is the large swathes of soil in the east of Canada which have "No Capability for arable culture or permanent pasture" (pink) despite being at the same latitude as the Canadian prairies, and hence are not restricted by climate factors.  

    Equally interesting are the areas of arable land (some of the highest quality) along the Peace river (north west Alberta) and the single mapped section in north east British Columbia showing a complex interlacing of arable soils (brown) adjacent to a large section of peats (black) which are unsuitable for agriculture.  The high latitude of these sections relative to the northern limit of the Canadian prairies shows that northern limit to have been set by soil type rather than climate.

    Those examples, however, also show where, and how we can expect to find suitable soils in Northern Canada with increased global warming.  Both represent deposits of river silt, a process that produces suitable soil for agriculture almost regardless of climate (ie, soil in which agriculture is only restricted by climate).  There presence indicates that such suitable soils are also likely to be found in the river valleys of  the MacKenzie and other smaller northern rivers descending from the Rockies.  Comparison with the soil map of a Canada (first map, previously linked site) does show the relevant reaches of the McKenzie have luvisolic soils, and thus they are likely to provide small regions of class three or four soils (as with BC reaches of the Peace, which has a similar soil classification).  That is, the land will be potentially arable, but will require extensive conditioning to control soil pH (if I understand the description correctly).

    As an aside, a more detailed soil map of Canada, and indeed of Siberia as well, can be found in the "Soil Atlas of the Northern Polar Region" (280 MB PDF; website).  Unfortunately the basis of classification in that atlas does not lead directly to an ability to classify as to whether or not the soil is arable, at least for inexpert commentors like me.

    With regard to Mills (1994), closer reading shows that he finds 16 million Hectares of arable land that would be opened up from a doubling of CO2, but that the majority (15.9 million Hectares) of that will be in Alaska, while only 0.2 million hectares will be within the study area within Canada itself (page 122).   The study area within Canada is quite restricted (fig 1), so that some more might be expected in Canada, but arguably not a lot as the most suitable sites on geographical grounds are also the most likely to have been surveyed.  This difference between Alaska and Canada is consistent with the hypothesis above that river valleys will produce arable land even in climates currently to cold to sustain cropping, along with the size of the Yukon river valley.

    I am not sure if this additional information reconciles you to the Mills (1994) results, but regardless I will accept the result of a peer reviewed study over the anecdotal evidence of a non-expert 100% of the time.  If you think Mills is wrong, find a more recent peer reviewed study showing that he is wrong.    

  4. 1934 - hottest year on record

    It may be worth noting, 1934 was also the first year of te Dust Bowl, a human-asued natural disaster in the American Southwest. It seems likely the exteme heat in the continental US that year was, in some part, due to the destruction of grasslands and the immense dust storms. Barren land absorbs more heat than grasslands do.

    Pointing out how hot 1934 was in the contiental US is a good way to stress the adverse effects of human activity on the climate and the weather.

  5. New study finds fringe global warming contrarians get disproportionate media attention

    An interesting thought about how this could potentially play out. Given a large pool of climate scientists for the "97%" side, the media could easily pick a different expert for each story - especially if they try to pick an expert with particular knowledge, eg., hurricanes, or the arctic, or El NIno.

    On the other hand, the "3%" side has a few go-to contrarians, who get called upon frequently, whether the sotry is in their area of "expertise" or not.

    In the public's eye, the "97%" story is seen as a different face each time, and the "3%" story is represented by an increasingly familiar face. Some people might start to think that the person they see time after time is the "real" expert, and all the others are just drive-by wannabes. After all, why would the media keep going to the same person if they aren't the best? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question. The answer is "false balance".)

  6. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    From a few months ago at http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/07/3370481/california-drought/

    "… scientists a decade ago not only predicted the loss of Arctic ice would dry out California, they also precisely predicted the specific, unprecedented change in the jet stream that has in fact caused the unprecedented nature of the California drought. Study co-author, Prof. Lisa Sloan, told me last week that, 'I think the actual situation in the next few decades could be even more dire that our study suggested.'"

    (Thanks to hank at RC for this quote and link.)

    (I have concluded that 'donny' is a sockpuppet of one of the mods trying to yank our collective chains--good one, guys!)

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] fixed link ... and we wish....

  7. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny @52.

    Surely the reason why you "still (are) skeptical about the reliability of using the models to predict the climate" is mainly because you still consider the "case with global warming" to be "nature ... behaving a certain way." That is, you are simply in denial over AGW, and that is despite your studies in Environmental Biology.

    Concerning the topic of discussion you presently find yourself engaged in here - the impact of future AGW on agricultural output - from your studies you should know that primary succession requires a lot of time for soil formation. Thus where soils are presently inadequate for agriculture, any profound allogenic change due to AGW that acts over just a few decades will not alter the agricultural usefulness of soil, unless perhaps we take up farming lichen & moss (yum yum!!).

    But, hey, @50 you seem to be saying that a landscape free of glaciation for around 12,000 years will result in soils with which "we shouldn't have much of a problem."  Now, I say "seems to be saying" as I am but positing the idea that this isn't another instance of Donny "responding flippantly." It may well be otherwise as even when glacier-free for many millennia, the lands north of Canada's prairies are not renowned for deep soil cover.

  8. Error identified in satellite record may have overestimated Antarctic sea ice expansion

    Assuming, then that it does make sense @20, that leaves BojanD's "enigma" @16 - Why didn't anybody notice the inadvertent error-&-fix? Weren't all the "other researchers" paying attention?
    The IPCC AR4 & AR5 are the two accounts that Eisenman is pointing to as presenting Antarctic trends without noticing. But they don't appear to present these trend figures as being very important.

    That is AR4 WG1 Section 4.4.2 doesn't do a great job on describing this trend. 4.4.2.2 says regarding both poles "Different estimates, obtained using different retrieval algorithms, produce very similar results for hemispheric extent" but AR4 is here more concerned with the difference between the Arctic & Antarctic trends than with the level of that 'similarity of result' from the different algorithms when applied to Antarctica. Thus it presents for both poles only the Cosimo data (what we are calling here the BootstrapV1) with the trend from the data to 2005 described "the antarctic results show a small positive trend of 5.6 ± 9.2 × 103 km2 yr–1 (0.47 ± 0.8% per decade), which is not statistically significant ... (at) 90% confidence". What AR4 describes as a "similar result" would include the NASA Team data that I calculate as having a 1979-2005 trend of 13.4 ± 10.0 × 103 km2 yr–1. (pretty much the same as Eisenman et al (2014) fig S6D shows).
    However, AR4 provides here no more than a short account with the take-away being the difference between Arctic & Antarctic rather than the nailing of the Antarctic average trend.

    AR5 WG1 Section 4.2.3.1 again presents only the Cosimo trend (now the BootstrapV2 trend) but then turns to discuss seasonal trends, and within FAQ 4.1 reasons for the Antarctic trend and the regional differences within the Antarctic.
    However both within AR5 WG1 Suplementary Material Section 4.SM.1 (where our BootstrapV1 is given the acronym SBA and our NASA Team is called NT1) and within Eisenman et al (2014) Supplimenatary Discussion & Figures there is surely ample detail to drown any thought of "enigma" concerning the unnoticed change in trend from using BootstrapV1 to BootstrapV2. There is so much more other stuff going on.

  9. Antarctica is gaining ice

    jetfuel: "What evidence is there that that tiny fractional change alters the temp at which the ocean salt water freezes or makes any discernable change to the behavior of the oceans?"

    Are you assuming that Antarctic runoff is instantly dispersed throught the world's ocean volume?

    Jetfuel: "If a larger amount of temporary lake ice gain is unimportant, how is that amount (81 GT) of loss important?"

    This is almost identical to the "temp changes by 15-20C over the course of year in some places; therefore, getting worked up over 0.7C in fifty years is ridiculous" argument.  The thing is, Antarctic land ice loss will continue and accelerate as glacial terminators erode more and more quickly.  Antarctic land ice won't reach equilibrium with global climate for hundreds if not thousands of years. 

  10. Antarctica is gaining ice

    The twenty year cumulative 1620 GT loss of Antarctic Land Ice, when compared to the 26450000 GT on Antarctica is .00006 or .000003 per year on avg. as a fraction. Since 97% of all water is ocean water, and Antarctica holds 61% of all fresh water, all those 20 years of melt together have dilluted the oceans by .0000010 as a fractional addition of fresh to salt water. What evidence is there that that tiny fractional change alters the temp at which the ocean salt water freezes or makes any discernable change to the behavior of the oceans? How could a large percent of the 81 Gt of net melt per year exposing rock? The ice is 8200 feet thick even on the penninsula. As far as am I serious, I was comparing to the seasonal N.A. lake ice because 81 out of 26.45 million gigatonnes isn't an appreciative amount of loss. If a larger amount of temporary lake ice gain is unimportant, how is that amount (81 GT) of loss important?

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Please document the sources of the data that you have used in the above post.

    You have a history of posting comments like the above without providing any citations. You have been repeatedly asked to provide documentation. For the most part, you have ignored these requests. If you continue this pattern of behavior, you will relinquish your privalege of posting on this website.  

  11. Antarctica is gaining ice

    jetfuel is IMO grasping at straws, and has been for some time.

    Although that's really all that needs be said, I should add that jetfuel is trying to compare cumulative year-over-year land ice mass loss in Antarctica with (cyclical) seasonal river/lake ice volume gain in Canada - and ignoring the inevitable melt-away of the latter.

    At best, maybe jetfuel would be on to something if the change in seasonal ice/snow cover in Canada is measurably altering the albedo, as scaddenp notes, but I doubt we'll see jetfuel come up with any evidence showing the existence or magnitude of such an effect.

  12. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny wrote: "...I still am skeptical about the reliability of using the models to predict the climate."

    So don't.

    Ignore the models. Look at analyses of past climate changes. Or the measured impacts of the current ongoing climate change. Or the pure physics calculations of the effects of increasing greenhouse gases and directly linked feedbacks.

    These all point to the same general conclusions as the models. The primary benefit of the models is in allowing us to estimate different future scenarios based on our actions in the upcoming decades. Some are also starting to provide reasonable estimates of regional, rather than global, impacts. However, if we tossed the models out entirely all available evidence would still be indicating that the rapid CO2 increase we have introduced is causing the rapid warming we are observing.

    You don't need models to predict the climate. Arrhenius successfully predicted many of the climate changes which have now taken place all the way back in the 1890s... decades before modern computers, let alone climate models, even existed.

    'Models aren't perfect' is true, but generally a poor excuse for ignoring them. However, as an excuse for ignoring the over-whelming evidence that has nothing to do with models it is just plain illogical.

  13. Antarctica is gaining ice

    jetfuel, setting aside the different effects of ice in different locations outlined by scaddenp... you are also comparing the antarctic annual volume loss rate to (vague generalizations of) the Canadian annual volume maximum. That is obviously illogical.

    That 81 GT average was over the period 1992 - 2011... twenty years. So the total ice loss for that period was ~1,620 GT. Meanwhile, the total annual ice gain in Canadian lakes over the same period was, what? Approximately zero? In Summer they are melted out so we've gone from zero ice volume to zero ice volume. In winter they freeze to varying extents, but setting aside the one anomalous year you cite, the overall trend has likely been decreasing ice volume. In any case, any changes in average volume over the course of the year have been minimal compared to the Antarctic ice loss.

  14. Antarctica is gaining ice

    Are you serious? Let's suppose say that Canada's lakes gain and lose say 1000Gt of ice between summer and winter. Only a change in the surface area of lakes frozen or a change in timing (which would both affect earth albedo) would have any climate significance. On the other hand, 81Gt of  ice loss from Antarctica is going straight into sealevel rise. Furthermore, as rock is exposed albedo is reduced.

  15. Antarctica is gaining ice

     Shepherd et al. (2012) estimate the mass balance of the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet to be -81 ± 37 gigatonnes per year. The tolerance band is less than Lake Superior's 2014 ice volume change when 2 feet thick ice formed over the 32 thousand square mile lake. Canada has over 320 thousand square miles of lakes that get ice each winter. Antarctica's 81 GT loss per year may not be much when compared to the millions of GT there.

  16. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Michael. ... when someone is trying to justify why nature is behaving a certain way as is the case with global warming it can be very blinding to get caught up in the minutia of individual studies especially when studies conflict each other.  I have read hundreds of climate studies over the years.   I have a degree in environmental biology so I know a thing or two about succession.   You asked me why I believed that the climate models were inaccurate and I provided 2 different studies for you.   I don't think that the models are useless. ... I agree that they can help us continue to refine the complex mechanisms that dictate climate.   However no matter how much you insult or belittle me I still am skeptical about the reliability of using the models to predict the climate.   But if it makes you feel smarter to belittle me.... go ahead. 

  17. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Let's also not forget that if it came down to it we can stop using corn to make fuel.  

  18. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Ok.... so let's discuss what we have learned. We know from Scaddenps second reference @48 that soils take different amounts of time to develop.   We also know that temperature and moisture also affect the rate.  In Wisconsin the soil took 8000 years to develop.   So since we know that the glaciers retreated from Southern Canada around 12000 years ago. ... we shouldn't have much of a problem. 

  19. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny,

    In this exchange we see the difference between skeptical sites like WUWT and scientific sites like SkS.  When you challenged Scaddenp on the age of soils he produced (very strong) evidence tht soils are indeed very old.  You have provided no evidence to support your position that soils can change in a human lifetime, although you have been asked for such evidence.  At WUWT they rarely provide evidence, they argue by assertion, as you have done.  Scientists argue by producing evidence to support their claims.  I am more likely to believe Scaddenp the next time he comments because he has provided data that supports his claims.

    The ball is now in your court.  You can do one of two things:

    1) Conceed that Scaddenp was correct and that you have learned something.

    2) Produce evidence that supports your claims.

    I do not need to challenge Scaddenp since I also knew that soils take thousands of years to develop. 

  20. Stephen Baines at 08:07 AM on 12 August 2014
    Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes

    Carbtheory.  It is a scientist's job to critically evaluate evidence in support of propositions.  They are hired and promoted largely based on the ability to do just that.  So it is not that much of a stretch to believe that many of them do in fact have the time to evaluate evidence thoroughly, especially in their specialty.  

    As for those denying the consensus, they would seem to fall just as easily into category 4 of your system — The alienated.  Frankly, Im not sure that label is constructive either.  Contrary voices play an important role in science generally, even though they are most often wrong — it's just that in this case those voices are amplified to such a degree that the general consensus among climate scientists is not apparent to the general public. 

  21. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Well I am very surprised  that someone thinks the slow pace of soil development is wild claim, when a google of "how long soil develop" would give you the textbook answers, but least I be accused of making unstantiated claims, then this well-cited study on post-glacial vegetation recovery is useful and there is this online University of Minnesota textbook

  22. It's the sun

    knaugle:

    I only read the abstract and list of references. The references include Friis-Christensen and Lassen, Singer, and Svensmark. Not exactly awe-inspiring.

  23. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Tom@41:

    The first link didn't have a map, and had several links to spots, so I wasn't sure which link you wanted me to follow there. I presume the link with the map you are referring to is this one:

    http://http-server.carleton.ca/~msmith2/45211/Module5/CLI/mapping_agriculture.html

    [As an aiside, the web page looks like it is course material from a course offered at Carleton University. The professor whose name is listed in the URL is Michael Smith - now retired - who was my undergraduate thesis advisor.]

    As to the geographical restriction, remember that I was responding to Donny's claim (@24) that boreal forest soils are climate-driven. I presented an example where they are not, in a region of Canada where the agricultural/non-agricultural boundary coincides with the edge of the boreal forest. It's an area that I know quite well, and the boreal forest soils are severely limited by underlying geology - not climate. The map I showed included the transition from grasslands to boreal forest, and things don't improve further north from there.

    As for the Mills paper, I repeat my interpretation: the paper does not adequately justify its claim that large portions of the class 5-7 soils will become classes 1-3 under climate change. The Carleton link also leads to full descriptions of the soil classes, as well as the modifiers that can be applied to each class. Mills' table 6 lists a lot of H modifiers ("Adverse climate as a result of cold temperatures"), and changes those to M modifiers ("Deficient soil moisture")with lower class numbers. The CLI does allow multiple modifiers, but I can't tell from Mills paper if he's looked at that level of detail.

    I still don't see enough explanation of how Mills decided to shift those classes, and I'm not convinced. It takes a lot more than just a temperature change to create the excellent soils available in the map you include in comment #41. The black soils (best) are the result of much greater moisture availability and much more productive grasslands over thousands of years (compared to the increasing moisture deficits in the dark brown and brown soils).

    North of the black soil zone is an area of even greater moisture availability, but the terrain is unfriendly to grasses and the boreal forest dominates. The tongue of black soils to the NE of Saskatoon (on your map) follows the North Saskatchewan River valley - it is geological in origin, not climatic.

    My main issue with MIlls (1994) is that he seems to have assumed (not demonstrated) that the limitations to agriculture are dominated by climate, not geology. This is exactly the error that Donny has made.

  24. It's the sun

    knaugle - As was pointed out (repeatedly) on that 2-month old WUWT thread by Leif Svalgaard, a solar expert who is a frequent visitor there, there has been no recent 'Modern Grand Maximum'. Their paper fails on that alone. 

    Add to that issues such as equating postulated 64.3-year (oddly specific) temperature cycles to 50-year solar cycles (bzzzt), making claims based on low correlations, requiring a climate response far beyond the changes in solar forcings (implying a very high climate sensitivity), and the general avoidance of other forcings such as GHGs, aerosols, land use, etc., and the paper appears to be an exercise in bad curve-fitting. 

    Non-linear changes in various climate forcings (see here for data and links to published work on those) cause non-linear temperature changes - and if you ignore those factors you might think that there were significant long-term cyclical oscillations. But you have to ignore a great deal of the physics to do so. 

  25. It's the sun

    WUWT web site (purportedly "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change",  ahem) claims the following paper suggests it really IS the Sun and solar cycles and so forth.  Has anyone read it?  I think it's in Chinese.  Yet it does amuse me that much of the solar science purporting to refute AGW is from this part of the world, or Russia.

    ZHAO X H, FENG X S. Periodicities of solar activity and the surface temperature variation of the Earth and their correlations (in Chinese). Chin Sci Bull (Chin Ver), 2014, 59: 1284, doi: 10.1360/972013-1089

  26. Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun

    The WUWT web site is championing the following paper as a possible "refutation" of AGW.  Has anyone read it?

    ZHAO X H, FENG X S. Periodicities of solar activity and the surface temperature variation of the Earth and their correlations (in Chinese). Chin Sci Bull (Chin Ver), 2014, 59: 1284, doi: 10.1360/972013-1089

  27. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny... It happens that Scaddenp's statement is not a wild claim. And you have still yet to substantiate any of your statements, at all.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] The comment you are responding to has been deleted because it was nothing more than argumentativie sloganeering. Donny is on the verge of recusing himself from posting on SkS. 

  28. Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes

    Donny said... "Am I a "denier" Doug if I think the climate would be warming even if humans were not adding any CO2?"

    In a word: Yes. 

    You have to understand that scientists have researched that exactly possibility to exhaustion. The overwhelming conclusion is that, over the past 50 years, in absence of human carbon emissions, the earth would be experiencing a mild cooling.

  29. Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes

    carbtheory...  What you're presenting doesn't seem at all relevant since the 97% is not based on anyone following anyone. The 97% (at least relative to Cook et al) is a measure of the results of research. It's conclusions based on data and research.

  30. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    dr2, I think the main thing we're talking about here is not just any plant but major food crops--wheat, soy, corn...I'm not sure that these can grow in short, hot seasons as well as some of the plants you might have seen thriving. And swamps aren't as much of a problem as simple bare rock--most of the soil was scraped off of most of the Canadian Shield by the ice sheet during the last ice age, and not much soil has developed since. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield

    And you can't quickly remediate or improve soils. It is far easier to adjust to a civilization with very few carbon fuel inputs (most past civilizations had none, after all) than to a civilization without soil (I can think of no civilization that existed without this vital resource in abundance).

  31. Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes

    carbtheory:

    I'm not really sure why we should find your line of thinking compelling.

    Can you clarify? Are you suggesting that we should suspect the results of the research of tens of thousands of scientists over 150 years because of a very recent, and (charitably) modestly-supported foray into some aspect of personality?

  32. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Glenn Tamblyn @42, for an anecdotal test of the importance of insolation versus climate, visit England (I just did for the first time, among other things we visited Kew Gardens and the Cambridge Botanical gardens, as well as traveling by train between Cambridge and London).  London's at 51 30' N, Cambridge at 52 12' N, and we were struck by how vigorous some of the plants were compared to their counterparts near Boston.

    This is different climate moderation from what is expected in the future for Northern Canada so I'd expect different results then/there, but it is also an example showing that very healthy plant growth is entirely possible beyond latititude 50N.

    And if I were the sort of person to plan for disaster, I'd be putting a lot of thought into figuring out how to remediate, improve, or adapt to agriculture in terrible soils.  Hubris, I know, and no substitute for prevention, but draining swamps is known and ancient technology.

  33. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Glenn Tamblyn @42, that is a very important point.  The current agricultural zone in Canada extends to about 55 North, so that future agriculture made possible by global warming will be north of that.  However, noon insolation is not the best indicator of the effect on agriculture.  Although at 60 North, noon insolation is less than at 45 North, the longer summer day at 60 North results in more summer insolation overall, as shown on this chart of total daily insolation by latitude and day of year:

    As can be seen, however, the price of that increased summer insolation is a much shorter growing season overall.  It high northerly latitudes, at most one growing season will be available per year regardless of temperature and soil quality.

  34. Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes

    Look up "followership" on wikipedia. Under "Followeship Patterns" there are five descriptions of types of followers. Have a look at #5.

    "5. The Star Followers: These exemplary individuals are positive, active and independent thinkers. Star followers will not blindly accept the decisions or the actions of a leader until they have evaluated them completely. Furthermore, these types of followers can succeed without the presence of a leader."

    The last sentence indicates that a star follower is actually leadership material.

    Now, ideally all scientists would fit this description. However, how many people have the time, money, persistance or for that matter the intelligence to truely fit the description of a "Star Follower" when it comes to climate change. More often than not, one scientific paper depends on another that has already been written to back it up. Yet there are highly quallified scientists who attempt to fit the star follower description and have come to the conclusion that AGW theory is seriously flawed. I dare say many people put them in a group as deniers.

    Most likely the majority of people fit #'s 1,2,3 and 4 follower descriptions. (Typical society %'s next to all 5 types would be helpful.)

    So then, what percentage of the 97% concensus on climate change are, or truely attempt to be a "Star Follower"? Indeed should society pick their leaders due to a high % of followers in a scientific consensus?

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] It is customary for commenters on this website to provide links to materials being cited in a post. Please do so in your future posts. 

  35. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Another factor missing from this discussion of potential crop yields vis-a-vis Canada is latitude and available sunlight.

    The Great Valley in California for example lies between 35 & 40 North. Central Canada in contrast is roughly between 50 & 55 North.

    This is the relative amounts of sunlight arriving at noon for different latitudes and time of year. From here:

    It isn't just temperature and soil type that restrict crop yields in Canade vs lower latitudes. It is also available sunlight and length of growing season.

  36. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Bob Loblaw @38, the initial link was to the correct location.  The map at that location shows the limited area of Canada that has been thoroughly mapped as to soil type.  However, as that causes confusion, here is a map of the Canadian Prairie from wikipedia:

    As can be seen the area of the prairie approximately corresponds with the area shown by your map.  Specifically, your map is bounded by Lake Winnipeg in the east, the Rockies in the west, and does not extend far north of the top of Lake Winnipeg.  It includes not more than two thirds of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and much less a proportion of Manitoba.  It is overall a small portion of Canada.  I do not think we can reasonably argue to the lack of suitable soils for agriculture in Northern Canada from a map that does not show any of Northern Canada.

    To make up that lack, I looked up Mills (1994).  IMO, Mills (1994) shows that there are currently some lands in Canada suitable for agriculture as regards their soil, but on which agriculture is prevented by climate.  Some of those lands will be openned up to agriculture by climate change.  However, the total amount of land potentially opened up to agriculture by global warming is small relative to the total arable land in the USA plus Canada (approx 8%), and very small relative to world agricultural land (approx 1.2%).  Even assuming a similar expansion in available agricultural land in Russia results in a small overall impact on abailable food production, and probably insufficient to compensate for other climate related losses.

    The additional agricultural land represents just 1.6% of Canada's total land area, so I am certainly not trying to contradict your argument.  Rather, I am providing a peer reviewed estimate (if dated) so that Donny can try to make his case if he thinks he has one, and noting that I do not think he does (hence my comment about comparison with global wheat production, and comparison with the arable land area of Texas and California). 

  37. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Further to the question of possible expansion of arable land in Canada, in eastern Canada (primarily Ontario and Quebec) the current agricultural zones usually butt up against PreCambrian Shield zones, which have very little potential for agriculture. Growing up in Ontario, I saw many regions of abandoned farms that people attempted to settle in the 1800s, but could not make a go of it due to poor soils (not climate!).

    The major exception I can think of in Ontario and Quebec is the Clay Belt. That is one area of reasonable soils, where changes in climate would increase agricultural potential.

    The huge tracts of land that Donny is speaking about exist only in his imagination.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Please keep the tone civil.

  38. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    There is a very important point in here. If climate change occurs slowly, then there is time for soils suitable for agriculture to develop as ice recedes - but it is a long process over centuries and millenia, not decades. Our problem isnt that the climate is changing  - it that it is changing too fast.

  39. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Tom @ 9:36am (now 36, but number will probably change as more posts from Donny are deleted):

    Your fiirst link does not lead directly to a map. It leads to a general information page on the Canada Land Inventory (CLI, which is also what was used for the previous map I included). The CLI is generally limited to areas not far beyond current agricultural zones, but at the limits it does show severe limitations not based on climate. When you get a corrected link to the map you wished to present, we can discuss it.

    Your second link (Mills, 1994) leads to a paper that focuses on north-west Canada and Alaska. Its Table 5 lists areas of "potentially arable soils", and provides the CLI classes. Of the 194 million hectares included in the table, roughly 175 million hectares are in classes 5, 6, and 7. These classes are the "very severe limitations", "marginally suited for forage", and "unsuitable for any agriculture" classes I referred to above.

    Mills makes the statement (p121) that "The results shown in table 6 indicate that a number of MLRAs [Major Land Resource Areas] were identified as being limited by the current climate and hence were deemed non-arable". Most of the "improvement" in arable area in Table 6 is based on shifting CLI classifications from classes 5-7 to classes 1-3.

    I do not see anything in Mills (1994) to support the claim that the soil limitations are are mis-applied climate limitations. Mills' conclusions appear to be highly dependent on that assumption. I have travelled in northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta, the Mackenzie Valley, and the Yukon. With the exception of the Peace River area, I have seen little land that I think would make a good candidate for agricultural expansion. Rocks, bogs, etc. don't make for good soils, just because the climate changes.

    Perhaps you can tell me just what it is about Mills' paper that you find convincing?

  40. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Further to my @36, the increase in 16 million hectares for Canada compares to 11 million hectares of arable land in California, and 53 million hectares in Texas.  That is, it is just 25% of the arable land in those two states.  The loss of more than that 25% in those two states due to increased drought as a result of climate change will result in a net negative balance in arable land between CONUS and Canada.

  41. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Bob Loblaw @30, the map you show is of a very restricted portion of Canada.  How restricted can be seen in this map of mapped areas for land use capacity from the CLI.  Looking for more general information, the most comprehensive I could find was Mills (1994).  Peter Mills finds that under a doubled CO2 scenario, arable land in Canada will increase by approximately 40%, from 39 to 55 million hectares.  He does not that may be accompanied by a loss of arable land in the US or Southern Canada due to reduced water supply.

    To put that into context, assuming an equivalent increase in Russia, based on world wheat production statistics, that would increase potential grain and cereal production by 10%.  I believe that means the additional land available will be insufficient to offset loses in production due to heat in warm regions, and loss of water. 

  42. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    The following study gives some idea about the variation between models. It is worthwhile reading the conclusion. Is it obvious to anybody what will happen with crop yields?

    North American Climate in CMIP5 Experiments: Part III: Assessment of 21st Century Projections

    "Although many projected changes in NA climate are robust across CMIP5 models, substantial disagreement in some areas helps to define priorities for future research. The sign of mean precipitation changes across the southern U.S. is inconsistent among models. Models disagree on annual mean precipitation changes in the NA monsoon region. Models disagree on snow water equivalent changes on a regional basis, especially in transitional regions where competing effects occur due to greater snowfall and warming temperatures. In the southeastern U.S., the multimodel mean diurnal temperature range (DTR) signal is rather weak, accompanied by larger variance among the models. The western U.S. is characterized by large intermodel variability in the number of frost days in the Western U.S., where multimodel mean decreases in frost days (greater than 70 days in RCP8.5) are also largest. Models do not agree on how intraseasonal variability will change over the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, which may have implications for future modulation of hurricane activity. Projected changes in seasonal mean Atlantic and east Pacific tropical cyclone activity are inconsistent among models, which disagree on the sign and amplitude of changes in environmental factors that modulate hurricane activity. Models are highly inconsistent in projecting how the ENSO teleconnection to NA will change."

  43. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Again, Donny... First, you should drop the snark. Second, you should provide sources for your claims, as everyone else here is doing.

    You've still not supported your statement that, "[T]he models have said a lot of things over the past 15 years.... a lot of which have been revised over the years because of inaccuracies."

  44. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Bob.... try to follow me here...of course there are areas now that aren't suitable. ... this is primarily due to temperature!   We are talking about when the climate Shifts!  

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Please provide supporting evidence for this assertion and that areas can become suitable in the timescale of climate change.

  45. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    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 or off-topic posts. 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.

  46. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    All: Donny's most recent comment has been deleted. 

  47. The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

    Re my #60, maybe it is Cowtan & Way after all. I was only familiar with the long-term dataset, the one that uses kriging.

    Is "HADCRUT4 hybrid" actually C&W's HadCRUT4-UAH hybrid?

  48. CO2 effect is saturated

    That clarifies things. Thank you all very much for your thorough explanations.

  49. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny@24:

    No, climate is not the only difference. Your ignorance is blatantly obvious - or you are just trolling.

    Here is a link to a report titled "Mapping the Quality of Land For Agriculture In Western Canada".

    Figure 12 in that report is the following:

    Canadian Prairie Soil Capability

    Classes 1, 2, and 3 (shaded black) are "good". Classes 4 and 5 are "severe" and "very severe" limitations. Class 6 is "marginally suitable for forage crops", and class 7 is "unsuitable for any agricultural use".

    Current agriculture already fills the "good" areas. There is absolutely no way that a climate shift will cause soil changes in anything other than geological time scales.

  50. Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

    Donny, I have responded to your citation of Spencer's "models are wrong" graph on a thread more appropriate than this one:  "Models are Unreliable."

Prev  692  693  694  695  696  697  698  699  700  701  702  703  704  705  706  707  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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