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  805  806  807  808  809  810  811  812  813  814  815  816  817  818  819  820  Next

Comments 40601 to 40650:

  1. 4 Hiroshima bombs per second: a widget to raise awareness about global warming

    Hi Bob,

    Brilliant work!  Take a bow, you deserve it.

  2. SkepticalinCanada at 15:02 PM on 25 November 2013
    Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory

    Please, please, please....the article and one of the comments say  that Canada does not care. It is more correct to say that the current right wing government of Canada and a certain proportion of Canadians don't seem to care. Some Canadians, including myself, are passionate about this issue, and care very much. I am ashamed of the way the representatives of Canada have deliberately sabotaged climate talks, and hope that the next election brings some sanity to the issue.

  3. Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory
    Perhaps a reduction in the rate of growth of emissions is indicative of the real level of global economic growth. It's unfortunate that there isn't a common way of estimating economic growth across the globe, and that some countries employ all manner of tricks to make the figure look as good as possible. Consequently, it's all but impossible to determine if carbon intensity is really reducing. However, energy and, thus, emissions (given that all energy sources have some fossil fuel element and that the global energy mix is still predominately fossil fuels) being a reasonable proxy for the level of the economy, I would say global economic growth has been in the doldrums for the past two years. Hopefully (from the point of view of a liveable environment), permanent economic contraction can set in, to start the emissions actually decreasing.
  4. Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows

    I have not looked at ocean circulation and climate in any detail at all,  however, this little fact sheet on the thermohaline circulation does talk qualitatively on the effects on climate.

  5. Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows

    Frankly it is hard to someone seriously if they are reading WUWT. You are happy with being misinformed? Why would that be?

  6. Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows

    If you see here, other people keen to have C&W available have stumped up the funds to make it freely available. However, the points I made above were outlined in the Realclimate article which you claimed to have read.

    Most of the energy imbalance created by CO2 goes into heating the ocean which has complex mechanisms for distributing heat vertically and horizontally, with decadal level effects on surface temperature. Want to describe that without models? Noone is claiming  that climate is solely a function of GHG. Currents, cloud cover are all part of this but they are responses not forcings.

    If you are aiming at solely nitpicking anything at all that you can, without also making some effort to understand the explanations given to you and to read the references supplied for understanding, then frankly that counts for trolling. Writers and commentators here are not here to pass some test you want to put, but are certainly interested in helping someone understand the science. You come across as trolling when you dont acknowledge responses, apparently ignore links and instead jump to some new denier talking point.

  7. Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory

    Ah, I see that further down it says:

    "Shakhova and her colleagues estimate that 17 teragrams are escaping each year, though the new study says the estimates are likely on the conservative end."

  8. Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory

    Thanks, DB.

    Picked up by CC now: LINK

    Here's Shakhova's quote in that article: "In 2003, we started from zero observational data on methane available for this area"

    So in under ten years it's gone from nothing to "100–630 mg methane m−2 d−1" or as the NS piece puts it "500 tonnes of methane to bubble out of every square kilometre of the sea bed each day."

    That would be bad enough if it were a linear increase. But since it is part of a feedback system it is almost certain to be exponential in its growth. I'd love to see estimates of total methane release from the area at this time.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Hotlinked URL.

  9. Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory

    Here's the link to the Nature article (thanks to prokaryote at RC):

    Ebullition and storm-induced methane release from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Hotlinked URL.

  10. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

    Found the paper I was looking for: "Validity of the temperature reconstruction from water isotopes in ice core", Jouzel et al 1997 (the et al including Johnson, Alley, Cuffey and Dansgaard).

  11. Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory

    From the main article:

    “This is the second year in a row of below average emissions. Perhaps this represents cautious progress,” Le Quéré told IPS.

    Surely, Le Quere should have said "This is the second year in a row of below average growth in emissions"? Perhaps something was lost in translation? A casual reader could be quite confused by this. Meanwhile, Allen and Stocker are pointing out that we need to be reducing the rate of emissions by about 2% or more starting now. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/historic-co2-emissions-require-immediate-cuts-16771

  12. Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory

    Oops. Here's the actual link to the NS article:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24639-arctic-storms-speed-up-release-of-methane-plumes.html#.UpJdRI2kCxl

  13. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #47B

     

    @ 3 One Planet

    "mainly concerned about pursuing more for 'their population' so they can get re-election of leaders by showing what they got away with. That pursuit of re-election is particularly damaging when the ones wanting election can easily promote the 'popularity of getting away with unsustainable and damaging activities'."

    For that to be true, (and I mostly agree with you) it means it's a reflection of what the voters want.  If it wasn't, they wouldnt be elected. If we are to play the blame game, lets lay it squarley at the feet of those most deserving, the voters.  Those very same voters who emit (in the Annex 1 nations) most of the Worlds CO2e.  One just has to look at the result of the recent elections in Australia.  If you are aware of the Science of AGW (and who  could not be these days) , aware of the projections showing the damage that will be caused from the your emissions and then vote to elect politicains who have no intention of a reduction of any efficacy, then who is really to "blame" ?  You're either a physcopath, a denier, or don't really care (this is not a critisism, just an observation).  Back to Australia, voting for the ALP would have simialry seen no effective reduction, as they both subscribe to a similar mantra  ...   Is it any wonder that's the path persued by politicans the World over ?  

    Apprently we need to form an orderly que to do the right thing and every nation wants to be last in the que to have a "competetive" advantage. There are a few individuals doing the rfight thing (I like to think my partner and I are,  in terms of CO2e emission we're ultra low) but the ones with the spotlight on them aren't eg Gore, Flannery, Mckibben etal are all prodigious emitters.

  14. Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory

    PluviAL@2

    Obviously you don't provide any reference to your pluvinergy "magic", why? Because you simply don't have it. Curiously I looked around and all I found is this:

    http://www.pluvinergy.com/products.html

    and a link to some non-existent blog and non-existent youtube video therein. Google reported that that this "pluvinergy" concept existd at least since Feb 2010 (someone mentioned the term on some blog back then) so by now it should be at least widely discussed technology.

    The verbatim quote from the website above:

    Although Pluvinergy is much simpler than cell-phones, DNA technology, or Nuclear Technology, it still requires more detail than can be offered in a basic website.

    We have laid out the complete theory, process, and plan for development and rapid deployment...

    is like the quote from the XIXth century inventor of perpetuum mobile: surely his invention was simpler than the contemporary technology, yet difficult to grasp by "not-involved" reader. That's because te "miracle" was only his dream and indeed, dreams may be quite complex to grasp by others. The dreamers have even patented some of those "miracles". The patents are nothing but just harmeless distraction from the realistic knowledge. Those machines back then were all sorts of spinning mechanical contraptions in a box, according to then fashion trends (steam engine, reciprocal petrol engine), now climate science and earth energy budget seem to be infashion, so the according "machines" are being "invented".

  15. Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory

    Pluvial@2.  Well perhaps the moderator should have treated your submission as spam.  I went to your website, clicked on the link 'How it works' and was not too suprised to see nothing of significance there, except a link to buying a book on Amazon.  Hm, seems like advertising to me!! 

  16. Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory

    I don't really want to know anything about "pluvenergy." For now, just consider how humans (specifically industrial society) has trashed the planet (even leaving out GW) with the energy it has used so far. Clearly, providing humans with vast new energy sources is not in the best interests of the planet, nor even in the best long-term interests of humans.

    Back to the topic of increased carbon: There has just been an article published about a carbon feedback that could have major consequences in the coming years and decades:

    Nature Geoscience DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2007.

    Here's a link to an article in New Scientist about the research: DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2007.

    Quite a dramatic story! Worthy of a main post, or at least to be included in the next weekly roundup?

  17. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

    This has come up before but I cant find it. There is a paper demonstrating that it is regional. Fractionation during precipitation is reason. Anti-phased cooling periods between Antarctica and Greenland would also not be observed in ice core if the proxy was global (and would be challenging comparing GISP2 to tropical glacier icecore and insisting that they represented a single global proxy!).

  18. Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?

    The chart is interesting.  If you use the vertical bands to designate decades you can put a red dot at the appropriate point on that timespan for each cyclone.  This greatly improves understanding of the data.  

    Sorry that I don't know how to post graphics here, since I don't have a place on-line to post my enhanced graphic.

  19. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

    Steven Foster @40...  Richard Alley, who is probably the leading expert on the Greenland ice core data, repeatedly states that the Greenland summit data is a regional, not hemispheric, record of temperature.

    DotEarth-Richard Alley

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Steven Foster was a sock-puppet, fake user ID deployed by the departed Morgan Wright.  Both have had user privileges revoked, as will any subsequent iterations.

  20. Book review - The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars now Available in Paperback

    For the last 800,000 yrs, CO2 stayed below 300ppm
    CO2 was last at 400ppm ~3 Myrs ago: much of Florida was underwater
    This'll be interesting.

  21. Philippe Chantreau at 03:57 AM on 25 November 2013
    Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

    Also, where is the reference for this?

    "All the snow they get in Flagstaff comes from the desert air"

    The college of agriculture and life sciences of U. of Arizona says that it comes from Pacific storms and their associated fronts. They also concur with Tom Curtis on the desert bands, as does essentially everything I've read about it.

    LINK

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Shortened link that was breaking page format.

  22. Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory

    The problem, one-planet and wpsokeland, is that these are impractical solutions. The ascent of civilization is energy based. To stop ascension seems to chaotic, the better solution is to bring all people onboard. a) 75% of the population is outside the vessel of wealth; poor. b) If population growth is best controlled by economic ascension; as China's experiment with population control seems to indicate.  

    Alternatively, geothermal energy is insufficient. It is about 44 TW, compared to solar of 174,000 TW. Considering civilization now uses about 17 TW, the 44 TW is not enough. PV is a far better solution, or even wind, a product of solar energy. We argue at length that both of these are impractical too.

    Please don't consider this spam, I believe the host of the website has already considered it and allowed me back into the community. Has anyone considered my argument in Pluvinergy? Not to flatter, but the level of scientific literacy, and open mindedness here is my best hope for a fair hearing.  Being as intellectually honest as I can manage, this seems to be a genuine solution. And if, as I agree with the problem summarized by the article and these two posts, the analysis of the problem is correct, Pluvinergy is the only viable solution proposed. It may be wrong as proposed, but according to its argument it is the only real solution.

    I would really appreciate any comment or direction. The illustrations are very bad in the paper version so I plan to redue the book as an interactive book, so any direction is valuable. PS: It is ok to tell me I am crazy, I have gotten a lot worse comments in creagslist community. But, I expect much better input from this community. Thanks.

  23. Philippe Chantreau at 03:39 AM on 25 November 2013
    Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

    Steven Foster, as I recall, the lowest known tropopause height is about 8 km, which is approximately 26000 ft. Your tropopause height numbers are way off, where did you get them? In tropical regions, it can be as high as 17 km. The top of Greenland is not closer to the Stratosphere than to sea level, that can be verified with 2 minutes on Google. 

    As for this statement "the snow in Greenland all comes from the stratosphere" what do you have for substantiation? It is such a strong statement, and so contrary to all the research on air dehydration at/actross the tropopause that you should present some very serious backup.

     

  24. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

    Seventhly, the summit of Greenland is 10,000 feet in elevation, making it closer to the stratosphere that to sea level in terms of elevation, because the troposphere is much thinner at the poles than elsewhere, extending to maybe 15 or 20 thousand feet max and 30 or 40 k at the equator. And since snow falls downward, not upward, and the Arctic Ocean is at sea level, not much snow which precipitates from the Arctic Ocean would ever reach the summit. In terms of geographical distance, the summit is hundreds of miles from the Arctic Ocean and only 2 miles from the stratosphere. Therefore, in summary of all 7 of my points, most of the snow in Greenland comes from water that arose in the tropics, and therefore is a global or hemispheric proxy, not a local. This applies to MOST of the water vapor during the Holocene, and ALL of it during an ice age. Sorry, I don't mean to shout, but I've had a lot of coffee this morning.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] There's no need for you to apologize for your tone. It is quite reasonable.

    For future reference, it would be easier for people to follow your train of thought if you were to use (1), (2), (3), etc., rather than "firstly", "secondly", "thirdly", etc.

  25. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

    Fifthly, because the Arctic Ocean is always frigid and full of ice, it is always around the same temperature....that of ice water (ice seawater)....during the entire Holocene. Because of this, arctic easterlies would always be the same temperature every year and if the snow came from arctic seawater it would not show any difference in isotopes in the bands. But in both arctic and antarctic ice cores, we see similar bands, because the snow in Greenland all comes from the stratosphere, not the Arctic Ocean. Sixthly, during the ice age, which amounts to 80 or 90% of the time, there is no Arctic Ocean at all, the entire north pole covered in ice several miles thick. How do you explain Greenland ice cores from 30,000 years ago when there was no liquid water north of Chicago? (tongue in cheek on Chicago). Seventhly, next post.

  26. Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows

    Arrhenius predicted over 100 years ago that the high latitude Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic. Models and explainations of this asymmetry are not post hoc explainations after it was observed, they are 100+ years old.  It seems to me that people who claim to be reading the science should be aware of this basic fact.  Arrhenius also predicted winter warming faster than summer, night warming faster than day, land warming faster than ocean and Northern Hemisphere warming faster than Southern.  For those who did not notice, all of these are falsifiable predictions, made long ago and confirmed by observation.  Arrhenius missed the stratosphere cooling as the troposphere warms.  That was because the stratosphere had not been  discovered yet.

  27. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

    You are confused on several points. First, the surface wind patterns you describe are tropospheric, and have little to do with the transfer of mosture from equator to poles. I could cite a reference but that would just clutter this blog because I can simply use the illustrations you already provided. See in your post 37, the first illustration. Look at the Hadley cells in the tropical bands, blowing equatorial moisture into the temperate bands, and from there into the polar cells. Secondly, you state that equatorial moisture only reaches the troposhere and precipitates out in that band. Water vapor at the equator goes far higher into the stratosphere than at any other place on earth. Thirdly, you seem confused about the concept of dry air in desert bands. Air that may seem dry in a warm desert would be extremely moist at the poles. Warm desert air might have a dew point of +40F while the air in Greenland has a dew point of maybe -40 (C or F same).  The Rockey Mountains are covered in snow which came from desert air....just think of air in the Mohave Desert moving east and rising over Humphrey's Peak in Arizona. All the snow they get in Flagstaff comes from the desert air. Fourthly, you say snow in polar bands comes from moisture picked up by polar easterlies. This is impossible. In the antarctic polar band (60 and south) there is no ocean at all, all water vapor coming in from the stratospheric conveyor belt (Hadley cell to temperate cell to polar cell), and in the north, there is an icy ocean mostly covered with floes and fast ice. If you want to argue that an appreciable amount of water vapor comes from this icy northern ocean, you need to show that there's a difference in snow patterns between that pole and the other pole that doesn't have an ocean. There isn't. Fifthly, next post.

  28. 2013 SkS News Bulletin #17: Cowtan and Way (2013)

    As the Arctic ocean warms, it heats the air above it.  This leads to rising air more often than was previously the case or if you like, a reversal, or at least a weakening of the Polar Hadley cell.  This has been shown by the weakening and wobbling of the Arctic jet stream as the Arctic Hadley cell slows down. The speed of the Jet stream is dependent on the speed of rotation of the Hadley cells on either side of it. A strong conventional Polar Hadley cell keeps weather patterns, where most thermometers are located, pushed southward, keeping the heat of souther regions in the south.  As the cell weakens and reverses, more heat from the tropics shifts northward.  The corollary of more heat shifting north is heat being removed from the south and thus, perhaps, the apparent stalling of the rise in temperature since most thermometers are located below the Arctic circle.

  29. Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows

    Maybe against my better judgement, but I will answer why C&W use satellite despite the issues.(which of course SASM could have found by reading the paper).

    They use satellite only to fill the gaps - they are proposing a way to avoid the problems with coverage bias. They dont use the satellite temperature directly (how would combine an average over 4000m with surface temp?) but instead posit that the temperatures are related. The infill temperature is an estimate of surface temperature. They avoid the many problems with stability and drift in the satellite trends by recomputing the relationship monthly. ie no stability in satellite measurements is assumed.

    As to north/south assymetry, spot the big geographical differences between north and south. To substantiate a claim of "unexplained" assymetry, then you would need to show that such assymetry is not present in the models.

  30. One Planet Only Forever at 14:56 PM on 24 November 2013
    Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory

    Only accounting the CO2 emissions per nation is very misleading. And things like changing the accounting method, as the Conservatives in Canada did to try to claim they have reduced emissions (all they did was change the accounting method without going back and applying the revised accounting to previous years), is also mis-leading (deliberately).

    The benefit a nation's population receives from external CO2 emissions needs to be included in a nation's accounted impact. However, governments of nations that 'outsource their impacts' are not likely to 'be interested' in calculating and reporting things that way. With that type of calculation the US, Canada, Australia and even places like Germany would be shown to be far larger beneficiaries of (far more responsible for), the impacts than they wish to be able to claim. A lot of 'production that western investors and consumers benefit from' occurs in less developed nations that get tagged with the impacts.

    The simple truth is that the powers with the most wealth are not willing to give up any of the best present they can get for themselves just to develop a sustainable better future for all life on this one and only amazing planet we are sure can support life as we know it.

    If the US, Canada, and Australia actually cared about reduced global emissions they would not sell their coal or oil, and they would not consume it either. And they would only sell some of their natural gas.

  31. Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows

    SASM. Suggest you stick to one point at a time. Acknowledge responses and stick to the science. Above all moderators here apparently can stand only so much comment policy violation. Trolls are two a penny and totally unwelcome. If you want to discuss the science fine. If you are mostly interested in trolling and no data or argument could change your mind then perhaps another forum is more suited to you. (eg WUWT or CA).

  32. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

    steven foster @36, the low resolution thumbnail you linked to certainly is superior to the image from post 15.  I look forward to seeing the completed high resolution version.

    With regard to icecore temperature proxies, yes the temperature of the water from which the water in the snow originates does influence the isotope ratios, as also does the air temperature and distance travelled as the water vapour is transported to the site.  Lower air temperatures and longer travel distances resulting in a lower proportion of heavy isotopes.  As a result, ice cores are a regional (not hemispheric, and certainly not global) temperature proxy.

    The reason they are neither hemispheric nor global proxies relates to the pattern of wind circulation:

    As you can see, air near the equator is lifted high into the troposphere, effectively drying it by precipitating out nearly all of the water vapour.  The return to the surface of this very dry air is the cause of the bands of deserts at certain latitudes.  Air from the mid latitude cell, on the other hand procedes north at the surface (in the NH) before again rising to great altitude, drying it.  That air column allows mixture with air from the polar cell, but the water picked up will be precipitated out before the polar cell can cause it to circulate over greenland.  Consequently, the water vapour in air over Greenland predominantly is picked up from polar easterlies as they travel south.  This overall pattern means very little water vapour will reach Greenland from mid-latitude or tropical oceans.  At best Greenland ice cores would be an Arctic proxy.

    It is not even that, however, during the Holocene.  The local pattern of circulation means the watervapour precipitated out over Greenland comes almost entirely from the Atlantic north of Iceland and the Barents Sea:

    (Red arrow indicates wind pattern, red dots the location of Greenland ice cores)

    You will notice the large difference in circulation patterns between "Present day" and "Last Glacial Maximum".  That difference means that Greenland ice core data are not even proxies of the same region at different points of time.  It further means that they are far closer to Arctic proxies rather than Atlantic Arctic proxies durring glacials.  It should be noted that the AO and the AMO will also shift the winds over Greenland, slightly changing the region for which the ice core is a proxy over time.  That, however, does not make those ice cores proxies for a larger region.  Rather, it merely introduces noise, making the record more erratic and amplifying warming or cooling trends in the proxy record.  We have to accept that for Greenland, for we have no better proxies for Greenland temperatures.  But it is further reason to not treat the Greenland record as a global or hemispheric proxy.

  33. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

    Thank you. I'm going to use the NOAA GISP2 data which has a resolution of 40 data points for every 1000 years for the whole Holocene. It looks like (so far) that the GRIP data has a lower resolution. I will look into the Kobashi suggestion. I did a quick low resolution thumbnail of what it will look like:

    https://imageshack.com/i/5bv42dj

    I differ with you about Greenand ice core data being a local proxy only. The H and O isotopes in the water represent temperatures of the water from around the world that winds up in Greenland, and don't represent the temperatures on Greenland itself. Water in the oceans has H and O isotopes of a known concentration. But the boiling point of heavy water, as well as heavy oxygen water (H2O^18 rather than H2O^16) are higher than that of normal water, and are found in water vapor in the atmosphere at lower concentrations when the global temperature is low. When the global temperature is high, more heavy water evaporates around the world than when it's cold. But when the water vapor travels to Greenland, it is assumed that it all freezes, regardless of the temperature in Greenland. So the higher the temperatures around the world, the more O^18 and H^2 we find in the ice. So, it's a global proxy, more suggestive of northern hemisphere temperatures, of course, but water vapor doesn't always commit to one hemisphere. The other argument might be that the FREEZING point of heavy water is also higher than regular water, so more of it would snow out of the air before it gets to Greenland, so the temperature of Greenland matters. But snow crystals don't care what isotope of water....actually I need to think about this. Ok I thought about it. None of the water freezes in Greenland. It all freezes long before it gets there, probably as cirrus clouds in the stratosphere, which are already frozen long before. I don't know.

  34. StealthAircraftSoftwareModeler at 08:55 AM on 24 November 2013
    Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows

    Why do you all keep deleting my questions?  Do you think you've answered them, or do you not like them?

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Comments not adhering to the Comments Policy were removed due to sloganeering and trolling on your part.

  35. One Planet Only Forever at 06:56 AM on 24 November 2013
    2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #47B

    Will,

    I believe the main reason 'diplomatic' solutions for this challenge fail to have 'imagination' is that many of the people doing the talking are mainly concerned about pursuing more for 'their population' so they can get re-election of leaders by showing what they got away with. That pursuit of re-election is particularly damaging when the ones wanting election can easily promote the 'popularity of getting away with unsustainable and damaging activities'.

    It is easy to understand why a person would chose unsustainable and damaging pursuits when they do not expect to be suffering any of the consequences. This issue, like so many others, pits "short term gains of employment, profit, convenience and comfort by getting away with benefiting from unsustainable and damaging pursuits' against 'less of that easy to get short-term stuff for yourself out of consideration for others and the future generations'

    One side is a really easy sell. The popularity of benefiting from the burning of fossil fuels is enormous. That activity clearly cannot be continued forever. The entire population can't even develop to live like the most fortunate. Yet, such clearly unacceptable unsustainable activity is 'very popular'.

    Almost all the troubles and challenges we face today, including conflicts and wars, are the result of our predecessors allowing people with that selfish attitude to be successful. Our global economy is now highly dependent on unsustainable activity with the most powerful people battling to get the most for themselves for as long as they can get away with.

    One way for 'diplomatic or democratic' solutions to have the required 'imagination' is for the majority of all the populations around the world to clearly understand what has been going on and refuse to participate in or promote the 'selfish pursuit of more for themselves any way they can get away with'. Unless that happens there really is no future for humanity, but even somethig as obvious as that may not be enough to get people to accept less benefit for themselves in their moment. It is possible that the promotion of the pursuit of 'a selfish good time' and 'freedom to do as you please' will mean there will be no Earth left for the meek to inherit.

  36. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #47B

    The last article, from Slate, seems to me to be a bit too harsh on developing countries. Of course, countries who have wronged others are always going to be reticent about owning up to that harm, much less payinig up. Why not instead point out all the creative ways reparations could be made that would be beneficial to both?

    We readily pour hundreds of billions of dollars (or more? I lose track of these enormous sums) into the coffers of banks just because they are big and because they have massively destabilized the world economy. We also pour similarly massive sums into building elaborite systems for killing massive numbers of people.

    Surely, redirecting some fraction of these massive sums into our renewable energy industry by guaranteeing steep discounts on their products to the poorest countries would provide the kind of win-win that the author claims is crucial to successful international negotiations. We historically have subsidized the ag industry in similar ways (though in that case mostly to the ultimate detriment of developing countries) dumping massive amounts of grain on their markets to prop up prices at home.

    It looks to me like a massive and utterly universally catastrophic failure of both imagination and diplomacy that the folks in Warsaw couldn't manage to come up with some such scheme along with carefully worded diplomatic language that would satisfy all sides.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] The Warsaw talks have been extended to Sunday. The next issue of the news roundup will contain many stories about what was accomplished. 

  37. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #47B

    Thanks for another great batch of links. The first (and many of the others) really points out how far we are from even beginning to make serious progress toward even moving toward no new growth in our already-way-too-high annual emissions. The 36 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted last year, as noted in the article, puts us on the path toward a beyond-hellish  5 degrees C above pre-industrial temps.

    Even that may be understating things, since the International Energy Agency has noted that, if you count up all the ff burning infrastructure that is being built or is well into the planning stage and add the ffs that will be burnt by them we are more likely on a path to about 6 degrees C by about 2100.


    And of course, neither of those estimates fully figures in effects of feedbacks, such as permafrost melt so well covered here...Things are looking grim indeed.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Thank you for the positive feedback about the News Roundup. Because I am not a climate science wonk like so many of my fellow SkS authors, I am pleased to contribute in my own way with this product. 

  38. Death in Jurassic Park: global warming and ocean anoxia

    As I understand the issue that has been raised about ocean anoxia causing widespread extinction on Earth it is not that all the oxygen is used up.  This article (with 243 cites!) says that if the ocean becomes sufficiently anoxic at the bottom, it releases hydrogen sulfide (a poison gas) into the atmosphere at a high enough rate to cause extinction of vertebrates on land.  It is not necessary for all the oxygen to be used up to poison the vertebrates.  The release of hydrogen sulfide must be high enough to overcome the reaction with oxygen using up the hydrogen sulfide.  Data is provided asserting that past mass  extinctions have been caused by this effect.  There are locations in the current ocean that outgas H2S in sufficient quantities that if they expand enough this could become a problem.  It is believed that the H2S mechanism can start if the ocean becomes warm enough .  (a google search of "ocean releases hydrogen sulfide extinction" gets a lot of scholarly hits, I took the first interesting one).  This might make an interesting article for SkS, but it would take some research to write. 

  39. Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?

    Oh - I guess we also need a new thread for the "It's God's fury" myth.

    Very few understand, WP?  And one of those few is undoubtedly you, yes?  The world-renowned tornado expert WP Sokeland, with his one floppy publication and general unwillingness to describe any actual physical mechanism.  Oh, and general unwillingness to address criticisms of his basic physical model (e.g. ocean-atmosphere energy transfer as spatial and temporal constant).

    I'm not just taking your word for it, WP. Expert schmexpert.  Cough up the physical theory and observational evidence.  Or is the whole thing simply you noticing that, sometimes, tornado outbreaks and solar flares occur in time near one another?

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Please dial down the sarcasm.

  40. Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?

    Tom Curtis was kind enough to read my peer reviewed articles that state severe weather is incoming due to explosions on the sun and solar storms impacting earth.  It is very difficult to state that 50 years of PhD level research is wrong, but very few understand the physics of a tornado or a hurricane and experts are still looking for their Genesis or beginnings.  If you do not understand the physics of the storm, you cannot defeat its destructive power.  Recall project STORM FURY.  The hurricane experts who believed that energy release from the oceans fueled hurricanes tried to use that theory to reduce the power of Wilma.  They failed because their theory was incorrect.

    Matthew 16:3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

    Check out thr solar storm that occurred a day and one half at the ACE spacecraft before our last tornado outbreak, if you know how.

  41. How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

    barry @18, Richard Tol was certainly included, as he has himself confirmed.  Unfortunately self rating authors are entitled to anonymity and Cook and his co-authors have done their best to ensure it.  Therefore they cannot answer with regard to the others unless they voluntarilly permit their names and self ratings to be released; or themselves volunteer the information as to whether or not they respond, and if so how they responded.  I suspect they will not volunteer that information because, if they do, it will be obvious that their disagreement is unusual among respondents.  They are angling to be considered representative when they know full well from the self rating survey that they are not.

    I will add that there claims about their papers being incorrectly rated in the abstract ratings, are not, in all cases, what they are cracked up to be. 

  42. Global Warming Paws Fails to Materialise: Earth Still Warming and Global Sea Level Rising Like Gangbusters

    fulvus & chriskoz, I have attempted to answer some of your questions on a more suitable thread.

  43. Death in Jurassic Park: global warming and ocean anoxia

    fulvus raises the issue of whether global warming induced anoxic (low oxygen) conditions could suffocate land animals, thereby leading to a near total extinction of life on Earth, including all higher vertebrates (ie, in particular, us).  To set this question into context, it is estimated that 104.9 billion tonnes of carbon are fixed annually by photosynthesis, of which 46.2% (48.5 billion tonnes carbon) is fixed in the oceans, primarilly by phytoplankton, and 53.8% (56.4 billion tonnes carbon) is fixed by land plants, primarilly in tropical rainforests:

     

    For each carbon atom fixed by photosynthesis, one oxygen molecule (O2) is released into the atmosphere.  Conversely, and at approximately the same rate, O2 is converted to CO2 by respiration, decomposition and combustion.  For comparison, human emissions from transport, energy generation deforestation amount to about 9 billion tonnes of Carbon per annum or about 8.6% of net primary productivity.

    As indicated in the article above, increased warmth and ocean acidification have lead to extreme anoxic conditions in the past; and such conditions are also implicated as a major factor in the Permian mass extinction, again brought on by rising CO2 levels and temperatures.  It is not clear that this was from the reduction in massof phytoplanckton.  Rather, the primary mechanism is that warmer and more acidic waters simply hold more less gasses in solution, and hence less oxygen.  In other words, oxygen currently dissolved in the ocean will difuse into the atmosphere, increasing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.  (The same will also happen to nitrogen and CO2.)  Indeed, Chavez et al (2011) indicate that oceanic primary productivity tends to increase with rising temperatures, so that more oxygen is produced even if it is not retained in the water as well:

     

    So on balance, I do not expect wide spread suffocation of land animals as a result of oceanic anoxic conditions.  Of course, the situation is quite different in the ocean.

    Finally, just for the fun of it, if all oxygen production ceased, it would take nearly 4000 years to use up all the Earth's atmospheric oxygen at current rates of consumption including by the combustion of fossil fuels.

  44. How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

    Question:

    Of the scientists that were surveyed to rate their own papers, did you include Alan Carlin, Craig D. Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nils-Axel Morner, Nir J. Shaviv, Richard S.J. Tol, and Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon?

    I ask because Anthony Watts, referring to a PopTech article regarding those scientists' comments on the paper, says that they were not contacted. But the scientists themselves say nothing about that.

    Do you have a list of the scientists you attempted to contact, perhaps in supplementary material?

    Any leads appreciated.

    Barry.

  45. 2013 SkS News Bulletin #17: Cowtan and Way (2013)

    Ha! Thanks for the correction. I of course meant .85C.

  46. Global Warming Paws Fails to Materialise: Earth Still Warming and Global Sea Level Rising Like Gangbusters

    fulvus@10, I appologise for a typo of your name in my post @11 - I cannot correct it now, unless mods can help me (thanks).

  47. Global Warming Paws Fails to Materialise: Earth Still Warming and Global Sea Level Rising Like Gangbusters

    fulvus@10,

    Please provide the refeence suporitng your claim "that phytoplankton produces 60% of the oxygen in the atmosphere".

    According to my knowledge, the amount of oxygen we are a currently having (21%) is the result of a Gy-long evolution of biosphere, in particular a balance between photosynthesis and fires. Entire plant kingdom contributes to the release of O2.

    Fossil fuels, even if all of them burned, cannot realisitcally take more than some say 0.1% of it (if CO2 increases by 1000ppm which is 1/1000 of total air volume). I don't know of any processes that would negatively alter the biosphere's photosynthetic ability in Anthropocene. Rather opposite is taking place - the terestrial biosphere is responsible of drawdown of about 20-30% of anthropogenic CO2, releasing some of that O2 that used to burn FF back to the atmosphere.

     

  48. Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?

    Tom @10
    I think you may have made some mistaken inferences regarding my message.
    I have long held that diagnosis and prognosis have to be separated to avoid any attempts at clouding the diagnosis with emotion or a fear of the cure. The science of the storm and AGW inputs that are suggested by the intensity of the storm are valid points to consider and investigate and fall within the guidelines of SKS; including the video and making the link to “human tragedy” as part of the message disrupts the flow of science and has no place when determining the diagnosis.
    I was lobbying for a removal of the video and did so by mentioning that if you are going to shed tears over the pain and suffering than a little perspective is required otherwise this connection of diagnosis and prognosis is low hanging fruit for the “blame the victim” crowd as you mentioned.
    I find that straight forward hard science does establish the realities and adding the “human” factor only muddies the waters and turns the discourse away from the metrics and PR and starts to introduce suffering as an offset that has to be taken into consideration when weighing the science.
    That was all I was saying about this post…

  49. Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?

    wpsokeland @34 draws attention to the "peer reviewed" article he had published in the "Journal of Meteorology", now the International Journal of Meteorology, an article so groundbreaking that it does not appear on Google Scholar save as a single cite.

    That is probably par for the course in the Journal of Meteorology.  In 2005, 18 of the 33 articles in the journal recieved no citation. Of those that were cited, 10 of the 16 citations recieved were self citations.  Doing the maths, only one article recieved more than one citation, and it recieved only 2.  This low citation rate and high self citation rate has led the Journal of Meteorology to recieve a very low impact factor.  Unsurprisingly, it lies in the bottom quartile atmospheric science journals.  As it happens, Sokeland's (almost certainly) single cite was almost certainly a self cite, given that he published SOLAR PILLARS OF FIRE: Part 2 the following year in the same journal.

    What is the point of this?  Getting a journal through peer review requires convincing (typically) just three people that the paper does not make an obvious blunder.  It does not mean it did not make an obvious blunder.  It only means the editor and peer reviewers of the paper did not spot it.  This very low bar is made easier if you submit multiple times.  The more often you submit, the more likely you will find an editor and peer reviewers who themselves blunder by not picking up your blunder.  It is made easier again if you submit to a low impact journal, which by its nature will not attract high quality editors and reveiwers, and will be more willing to accept low quality papers.

    This low standard is why I have a certain contempt for those who publicize their ground breaking discoveries on blogs, but never get around to submitting for peer review.  If they are afraid to face even that hurdle, just how confident in their argument can they be?

    In any event, congratulations are in order for Sokeland for having the courage of his convictions, and submitting his ideas and getting them published.  However, that is in no way an indication of quality in an argument.  At most it indicates a lack of obvious blunders - but in very low impact journals such as the International Journal of Meteorology or Energy and Environment (which appears to have a slightly higher impact rating than the Journal of Meteorology) it does not even indicate that.

    So, rather than being published, the true indication of quality in an article is the frequency with which it is cited by others - and the period over which they do so.  A poor quality paper might attract a small number of citations from refutations published shortly thereafter - but papers with many citations and which are cited years after publication have indeed been judged by the experts to be of high quality (which is not the same as being judged correct).

    Having pointed that out, what of the actual science in Sokeland's papers?

    I think his proposal of the existence of invisible tornadoes and hurricanes in his second paper sums it up.  It is nonsense, pure and simple.

  50. Global Warming Paws Fails to Materialise: Earth Still Warming and Global Sea Level Rising Like Gangbusters

    Tom Curtis, thank you for response and the reference to the article on the dire state of our oceans, and the implications for marine species survival and indirectly impacts on humans.

    However, this article does not answer my question. Nowhere does it mention phytoplankton and therefore doesn't address the fact that phytoplankton produces 60% of the oxygen in the atmosphere, and that combined with deforestation there is a real chance that terrestrial lifeforms too will suffocate.

    We talk a lot about rising sea levels, wild weather, drought and so forth, but no one seems to be addressing the primary issue that none of this will matter to us because we will be asphyxiated, dead, finis! The end of oxygen breathing life in the oceans is discussed in the article, but it doesn't address the end of oxygen breathing life on land as well. Even the cockroaches will die.

Prev  805  806  807  808  809  810  811  812  813  814  815  816  817  818  819  820  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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