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  855  856  857  858  859  860  861  862  863  864  865  866  867  868  869  870  Next

Comments 43101 to 43150:

  1. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B

    Andy. His family benefit from cheap milk but they would also benefit from him selling the milk at market prices. As son of a dairy farmer, I can tell you that there is no way we would have enjoyed inch-thick whipped cream on scones etc if we were making rational economic decision. Ditto the cooperative. 

    I would say both case represent consumption subsidies. Consumption would be lower if price was rational.

  2. An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy

    Terranova @55.
    You appear to be offering the argument here that any who disagree with you are "quibbling" and therefore wrong.
    You evidently here are not able to find fault with AGW being described as being "real" but have a problem with AGW being described as being "dangerous." Now that is quite a bizarre position to defend.
    Indeed, can AGW be anything other than "dangerous" if it has the power to be "the primary cause of recent global warming"? While some may consider that climatology and climatologists should not decide what is dangerous or otherwise, the reaction of many climatologists to inaction in the political sphere suggests that many climatologists are not of that view.  AGW certainly could not be considered "beneficial" as you suggest denialists may term it because the "climate policy" for which a "scientific consensus is an essential element to gain public support" is entirely understood to be a policy to reduce the impacts of AGW, not to boost them.
    BarackObama's tweet makes no mention directly of Cook et al 2013 but called on readers to "read more," to read that "Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, hit 400 parts per million in the atmosphere last week, the highest in perhaps 3 million years. Governments have agreed to work out, by the end of 2015, a deal to slow climate change that a U.N. panel of experts says will cause more floods, droughts and rising sea levels." That all sounds a bit dangerous to me. Then again you may find such statements controversial and unfounded although I'm not sure I could accept such a view.
    And your inability to present an adjective to describe AGW that you would be comfortable with strongly suggests to me that in truth you are actually uncomfortable with AGW existing at all. And given the now established consensus, you are perhaps able to work out for yourself what such an opinion would result in the holder being. Or FWIW perhaps not.

  3. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B

    The discussion on what constitutes a subsidy is or is not seems unnecessarily heated to me. At the risk of throwing fuel on the fire, consider the following:

    if a dairy farmer provides milk directly to his family, rather tha buying it in a shop, is he or she subsidizing consumption?

    Imagine a renewable energy co-operative. If the co-op sells electricity to its members at less than the grid market price (or the feed-in tarriff) is it subsidizing its members' consumption?

  4. Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate

    Good points, deweaver. Also not mentioned was the topography of the subsea ocean bed. There are many deep canyons, the walls of which could have methane stores that are quite close to the 'surface' that may degas violently at any moment, thereby destabilizeing the entire area, leading to more degassing.


    Also missing was any mention of the vast pools of highly presssurized free methane that lay beneath the permafost and hydrates, just needing a pathway to erupt explosively into the water above and thence into the atmosphere.

     

    Finally, how about the fact that well trained scientists with years of experience, such as Shakhova and Semiletov, have seen with their own eyes unprecedented levels of methane bursting into the atmosphere, burtst more than a k across.

     

    post script:

     

    Methane Hydrates - Extended Interview Extracts With Natalia Shakhova

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ

    This is the last thing Shakhova says in the video:

    "strictly speaking, we do not like what we see there. Absolutely do not like."

     

    (pps. If dor can quote evidence that anyone is "wishful" for this calamity to happen, (s)he should link to evidence or stfu.)

     

  5. An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy

    Michael Sweet at 56

    I agree with you that politicians can make a judgment to term AGW dangerous based on other sources. But, the Tweet, whether intentional or not, makes it appear that it was the result of the Cook study.  That is inaccurate and was repeated in print and in electronic media all over the world and never addressed by Cook or anyone else at SkS. It would be a simple thing to address through this forum if nothing else.  

    So, we agree that the study neither said, nor implied, the dangerous part.  That was purposely or mistakenly added by the person responsible for the Tweet. The implication is that it came from the Cook study. Based on the number of articles generated about this subject, I am not the only one to think so.

    In your opinion is this an important issue or not?  Politicians aren't responsible for accuracy, but scientists are.  

    And, FWIW, I am not a denier and don't read Spencer's blog.  

  6. michael sweet at 04:28 AM on 3 August 2013
    An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy

    Terranova,

    The scientific consensus is that AGW is happening and caused by humans.  It is a policy decision to determine if that is dangerous or not.  Obama gets to make whatever policy choices he wants to.  Since Obama has other sources of information, it is completely within reason for him to determine he thinks AGW is dangerous.  Politicians make these types of judgements all the time. 

    Why should scientists be responsible for what politicians say when the denier scientists lie all the time?  The denier politicians are even worse. 

    Have you gone to Spencers blog and asked him to correct his testimony in congress where he said he was part of the 97% when all his papers were part of the 3%?

    I am sick of deniers who say scientists must be perfect while the deniers are allowed to repeat the same old lies for decades.

  7. An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy

    MA Rodger at 54

    You are quibbling.  Let's stick to the point. I've already suggested that the tweet not use any adjective.  The study was about the consensus in scientific papers that stated a position on AGW.  The published paper did not make any inference to any effects caused by AGW (positive, negative or neutral).  

    However, the Obama tweet did add the adjective which was inaccurate.  In the article I referenced to you, Mr. Cook could have addressed that.  (Maybe he did and the writer did not print it.  I've been misquoted before).  Mr. Cook did gleefully accept the praise that his work generated, and rightfully so.  

    The tweet was repeated all over the internet and in print.  That becomes one of those "sticky" ideas that Mr. Cook referred to in his 1JULY13 post.  Not once have I seen any attempt to correct it.  

    Imagine a scenario where the folks over at WUWT had added the adjective beneficial.  I am certain, and you know it too, that it would have been addressed on this blog and over Twitter regardless of the limitiations that you think a tweet has.

  8. An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy

    Terranova @53.
    You tell us "This is not about silliness, but about accuracy." I find that difficult to accept as your insistence on accuracy is very selective. You complain that one thing is 'not accurate' and should be urgently corrected while other things that are also inaccurate need no correction, indeed you happily repeat a mistake, because you do not object to the error thus made. You are surely trying to have your cake and eat it.

    You are happy to accept an inference that "scientists" equals "peer-reviewed papers on climate change 1991-2011 whose abstract expressed a position on AGW"  thus providing the 97% result that you assert is "accurate" even though this introduces an obvious error.
    But you take exception to the use of the adjective "dangerous" within the same tweet because in your opinion that is not accurate reflection of the findings of Cook et al 2013, a paper that is not in fact mentioned within the tweet.

    @50 I suggested that a tweet is not a medium for incisive accuracy, a proposition you appear to disagree as you ignored that suggestion. Yet perhaps we can work round this ignorance of your. Do you disagree that "dangerous" can be inferred from the references used by that tweet? If so, perhaps you could suggest an alternative adjective that you would be more comfortable with?

  9. Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate

    What I have failed to see in these discussions that could add a lot of insight are the following:

    1- A phase diagram for methane hydrates ( methane partial pressure -- fugacity, temperature, water chemical activity, CH4/H20 ratios in the hydrate). This is well known information from the oil/gas industry -- plugging pipelines and equipment with methane hydrates is a real problem for this industry that they solved in the 30's with a full understanding of both the thermodynamics and kinetics.

    2- Heat transfer calculations using well know math, at least for petrochemical engineers. It would be easy to calculate how fast it could melt the permafrost how deep.

    3- Very little discussion of the amount of methane in shallow permafrost and distinctions between recent biogenerated gases in thawed organic materials being anaerobically decomposed and historical gas in the permafrost.

    4- No real discussion of the microbiological response of the aquatic system. If methane seeps out of sediments in 50 meter deep water, it is reasonably soluble in the water phase and one would expect bacteria to oxidize it to CO2 and water using O2, NO2, NO3, S, etc. as the electron acceptor. Are there reports of huge hypoxic zones? If we are getting massive emissions from a large area, that massive area would be anaerobic and a dead zone before any methane gets into the atmosphere. People may be thinking of a little pot hole where methane can bubble up through a meter of water without being fully adsorbed into the water column, but deeper columns of water provide more (a calculable) ability to dissolve into the water column (a standard mass transfer problem). This is what happened to the huge amount of methane produced by the BP blowout in the Gulf and other methane seeps around the world.

    5- No discussion of the minimum substrate concentration (Smin) of methane oxidizing bacteria (the minimum concentration of methane) to support the growth of methane oxidizing bacteria in soils or in water. If you are above that Smin, bacteria can grow exponentially and reduce that concentration to Smin. We are hypothesizing a factor of 10 increase in the atmospheric concentration and that may cross the Smin level and soil bacteria will increase and dramatically speed up the removal kinetics.

    Considering the above, it appears that this Nature article was really “advocacy science” and not a real study of the issue. It is this type of “advocacy science” that is destroying the credibility of solid science in the publics mind. This type of advocacy has been common in “environmental science” for decades and effectively use against powerless opponents, like aquaculture in the US, but in this case opponents are not powerless and the amount of money at stake is significant on a world scale. The loss of credibility for science will be significant and very detrimental.

  10. An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy

    MA Rodger @ 51

    Thanks for your guidance, but I read the paper when it first came out.  In the conclusion it states: "Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW."  

    I fully realize it is referring to the percentage of published papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, or to quote Dikran Marsupial "there is a broad consensus amongst scientists working on climate-related science that the majority of climate change is anthropogenic."

    In this article Mr. Cook had ample opporunity to clarify that the paper wasn't referring to "dangerous" AGW.  

    This is not about silliness, but about accuracy. 

  11. An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy

    Terranova @51.

    I can but assume that you have never read Cook et al 2013. It might be beneficial for you to do so as I can assure you Cook et al 2013 does not as you assert establish that "97% of scientists agree that climate change is real and manmade"  Of course, you could continue to ignore the paper and keep making silly comments, or not.

  12. An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy

    MA Rodger at 50,

    In referring to the recent Cook, et al paper:

    "97% of scientists agree that climate change is real and manmade" is an accurate statement.

    "97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, manmade and dangerous" is not an accurate statement.

    Yet, the President's tweet was promoted and never corrected.  There were (and still are) opportunities to correct it.  

    If the tweet had said, "97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, manmade and beneficial", you know as well as I do that it would have been corrected.  

  13. Where SkS-Material gets used - Coursera's Climate Literacy Course

    From your description it sounds like a well structured course.
    I have had mixed results with the Coursera MOOCs. Out of the 3 I have tried, the first was brilliant, the second was terrible and the third was OK but could have been brilliant.

    I only got a pass in the first course which was well structured and organised (and often funny, thanks to the good lecturers).

  14. Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate

    mikeh,

    This is not the first time issue of gas leakage has been raised. I remember Ray Pierrehumbert's response in those previous occasions was the same: even if the leakage is higher than current estimates of 1%, then the short and long term climate effects are still far lower than the effects of burning coal for the equivalent amount of energy received.

    I completely agree with Ray here. The issue can be put to bed. Maybe one can show the actual minimal amount of extra forcings from increased methane concentrations due to leaks to prove the veracity of Ray's opinion. But I don't need that: the numbers in my head look obvious.

    The extraordinary claim of Whiteman et al article is a different matter because the amount of C release is much larger. The key circumstance they rely their claim on is the extraordinary condition of ESAS. For example, to the assertion of Gavin Schmidt, that Arctic used to be warmer in early Holocene and Eemian, they reply, quote:

    In the Early Holocene, the ESAS was not an underwater shelf but a frozen landmass, illustrating the pointlessness of this past analogy with contemporary conditions.

    This looks like the basic assumption why the permafrost & clathrate feedback "will be vastly different this time". I don't know what to think of this assumption because I'm not an expert. Maybe others will analyse it.

     

  15. An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy

    Terranova @48.

    Barry Woods made very many points down this thread. They were mostly ignored, probably because most of what he said was simply not worthy of a reply. The Obama tweet you refer to was "especially" quoted by Barry Woods @1thus:-

    @BarackObama Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://OFA.BO/gJsdFp

    As a statement, this tweet is inaccurate in a number of ways. But to correct this would require more space than twitter allows and, importantly, the statement does end with a reference to further information which does allow any problems with accuracy to be corrected. Indeed, the tweet is surely imploring the reader to "read more."

    Is the point you attribute to Barry Woods that the Reuters article the twitter links to is unfactual? If so, in what way? If not, what is the substance of this point that you are advocating for Barry Woods?

  16. An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy

    Perhaps Dana could use the same wording to correct BO as Mr Watts has used to correct Mr Inhofe over the last few years.

  17. Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate

    Further to @6, Ray Pierrehumbert has commented on natural gas and leakage here.

    I do not want to take the discussion on Chris's excellent article off topic. Perhaps SKS can look at this issue in the future.

  18. Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters

    ajkuiper - perhaps you should read the paper on which the article was based. The input and uncertainities are discussed both there and in the referenced papers. The number is good agreement with estimates from historical data (eg and in particular this referenced by the paper). 

    "Declared as Fact" is simply sloganeering on your part. It is simply the best estimate from science so far. If you wish to object to the conclusion, it would be better to discuss the actual paper and what difficulties you might have their methodology, assumptions or way of reaching a conclusion.

  19. Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters

    ajkuiper55- I assume you followed the link to the paper that this article discusses? Can you please explain how the evidence, data, facts and past history presented in this paper doesn't exist?

  20. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

    Actually, like many low-lying islands they are doomed. I was just pointing out the path to inundation is a complex one.

  21. Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters

    2.3 meter rise per degree of warming is a ficticious number pulled out of a hat and now declared as Fact. There is no Evidence, Data, Facts, Past History to support that conclusion.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Please refer to this site's Comments Policy.  Comments constructed such as this one of yours fall under the heading of Sloganeering, as scaddenp helpfully notes.  Please comport all future comments to comply with the Comments Policy.

    Thanks in advance for your compliance; have a nice day.

  22. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?

    michael sweet @30, based on Turco et al that would have been the dominant impact of nuclear testing on climate.  I believe Turco et al over estimated the impact of nuclear exchanges on climate, primarilly by underestimating the moderating effect of the thermal mass of the oceans.  Further, many nuclear tests were underground (eliminating the aerosol forcing) or at sea (minimizing it), so it is not certain that he net forcing would have been negative, though still likely.   However the effect in either direction would be far to small to distinguish from the impact of other factors on Earth's short term climate in the fifties and sixties.

  23. michael sweet at 10:42 AM on 2 August 2013
    How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?

    Google finds this article, unfortunately behind a pay wall.  The abstract claims that the global temperature hiatus from 1950-1970 can be attributed to fine dust from above ground nuclear tests.  Very few cites by scientists so apparently other scientists did not think much of the hypothesis. 

  24. An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy

    Barry Woods has a point that is being ignored.  If the Obama camp (I seriously doubt he keyed it in himself) tweeted a statement from the original SKS post that was inaccurate (the dangerous part), then the best response from SKS, and any other website parrotting it, should have been, "Great, but to be accurate this is what we said..." 

  25. michael sweet at 09:59 AM on 2 August 2013
    How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?

    I read somewhere that the dust from nuclear testing might have had a cooling affect from increased albeido.  Does anyone know if that is real or just something that is spread on the internet?

  26. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?

    Glenn @27, as you know I strenuously object to the use of the "Hiro" as a unit of energy, both because (as I understand it), the residents of Hiroshima find it offensive, and because its impact factor comes from its association with the explosion of Little Boy at Hiroshima, with the deaths of 100,000 people immediately or from injuries recieved, and further deaths of 100,000 people +/-  from radiation exposure.

    I also consider it a scientifically limited comparitor with the total forcing or TOA energy imbalance because it leaves out the essential factor of entropy.  The energy imbalance due to the greenhouse effect is not like the dropping of four atomic bombs a second at random over the Earth's surface because far less destructive (while noting that the much less destructive effects will also be much longer lasting, and indeed will outlast the energy imbalance itself). 

  27. To frack or not to frack?

    New study on natural gas migration into water wells here.

    From the abstract:

    "Methane was detected in 82% of drinking water samples, with average concentrations six times higher for homes <1 km from natural gas wells (P = 0.0006). Ethane was 23 times higher in homes <1 km from gas wells (P = 0.0013); propane was detected in 10 water wells, all within approximately 1 km distance (P = 0.01). Of three factors previously proposed to influence gas concentrations in shallow groundwater (distances to gas wells, valley bottoms, and the Appalachian Structural Front, a proxy for tectonic deformation), distance to gas wells was highly significant for methane concentrations (P = 0.007; multiple regression), whereas distances to valley bottoms and the Appalachian Structural Front were not significant (P = 0.27 and P = 0.11, respectively)."

  28. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?

    earthhouse @26, that is an interesting analogy.

    Assuming that all energy from nuclear tests was dissipated as heat in the Earth's atmosphere (which without doubt over estimates the amount of heat generated), 0.000044 W/m^2 of energy was generated over the years of nuclear testing.  For comparison, the total waste heat from human industry, power generation and transport is 0.028 W/m^2, or 636 times as much.  The current Top Of Atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance is approximately 0.6 W/m^2, or 13,636 as much.  The current forcing by CO2 is 1.9 W/m^2, or 43,368 times as much.

    Comparison with the power output of individual cars could, no doubt, be calculated, but I do not think the result would be informative.  However, the total energy released by nuclear testing (2.5 x 10^18 Joules) is equivalent to that which would be released by burning 71.4 billion liters of gasoline, or 18.9 billion gallons.   However, actually burning that amount of gasoline would release 164 million tonnes of CO2, which as it happens is a mere 0.012 ppmv of atmospheric content, considering only the portion retained in the atmosphere.  The additional greenhouse effect of that tiny amount of additional CO2 would be 0.00016 W/m^2, or 3.6 times the amount from the total energy release from nuclear testing, with the difference being that that increased greenhouse effect would continue year on year, while the nuclear testing is over and done, and it forcing along with it.

  29. Glenn Tamblyn at 09:09 AM on 2 August 2013
    How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?

    earthhouse

    As a comparison, a common unit that is being used to describe the amount of heat accumulating in the worlds oceans, where over 90% of the heat is going, is the Hiro. The Energy of 1 Hiroshima bomb. Energy is accumulating in the oceans at around 4 Hiro's per second. The very largest bombs ever exploded were of the order of a 1000 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb but only a tiny number of those were ever tested. quite a few bombs that were 10 to 100 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb were tested. Possibly hundreds.

    Wikipedia suggests there have been nearly 2000 tests.

    So lets say as an upper limit that there were 2000 tests at 100 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb.  200,000 Hiro's. That is the equivalent of just under 14 hours worth of heat accumulation in the oceans. So totally insignificant compared to the heating being observed.

    It can be hard to get our heads around the relative magnitudes of different very large quantities.

  30. Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate

    The methane story that we should all be concerned about is this one given the way gas is being promoted and implemented as a "clean" alternative to coal.

    "As a longtime oil and gas engineer who helped develop shale fracking techniques for the Energy Department, I can assure you that this gas is not “clean.” Because of leaks of methane, the main component of natural gas, the gas extracted from shale deposits is not a “bridge” to a renewable energy future — it’s a gangplank to more warming ..."

    I recall reading in a Slate article about 6 months ago that Ray Pierrehumbert was working on a paper that looked at this issue - is anyone aware if that was published.

  31. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?

    Please my ignorance, but the way it was described to me many years ago in high school, dropping an h-bomb was equal to taking a teaspoon of the sun and exposing it to Earth's atmosphere.  Is there any way someone might describe the thermal change caused by above  ground testing in terms of heat from automobiles or dmage done by coal emissions?

  32. michael sweet at 08:10 AM on 2 August 2013
    Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

    ROb,

    The Marshall Islands are far enough north but are only rarely affected by tropical cyclones.  They are further East than the normal west Pacific Typhoons and further west than the East Pacific Hurricanes.  They were affected by Typhoon Paka in 1997 source.  Their situation is more on the edge with every centimeter of sea level rise and a single moderate hit (like 1997) could wipe them out.  If they are lucky the IPO might shift to help them a little.  Overall, ocean winds have increased from AGW which causes them problems.  They are so low that  any increase of the trade winds can potentially flood the country.  Fresh water resources on small islands are always precarious and rising seas threaten the water they have.  Currently the northern islands are starting to recover from a severe drought.

  33. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31A

    shoyemore @2, I used to stop over at Mauritius in flights from Africa to Australia (and reverse) as a child.  A beautiful island without doubt, and my favourite small island in either hemisphere.

  34. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

    Michael - the Marshall Islands appear to be very close to the equator. Tropical cyclones don't form close to the equator because the Coriolis Force moves toward zero - there is no way to impart the spin necessary for cyclone formation.

    Counterintuitively, the region is likely to see a decline in the rate of sea level rise once the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) switches from the current negative phase to a positive one. In other words, the greater-than-globally-averaged sea level rise is a result of the extra water mass being pushed there as a result of winds which power the wind-driven circulation. When those winds weaken, so too will the rate of sea level rise in that region. 

  35. Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate

    Chris Colose:

    Thank you. I had mistakenly assumed that you had finalized your OP before Ahmed's article was posted on The Guardian. 

  36. Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate

    #1- John


    I dedicated a paragraph to Ahmed's article in the Paleo-analog section

  37. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31A

    An add-on to the above news.

    Professor Micha Tomkiewicz of Brooklyn College recently returned from a conference in Mauritius on climate change in Africa. Readers may find his comments of interest, and read more about the conference.

    climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2013/07/30/back-from-mauritius/

    Mauritius is my favourite Southern Hemisphere island, from where my wife hails.

  38. Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate

    One of the lines of evidence people point too is the increase in global methane levels since the mid 2000s. However this also co-incides with the huge surge in shale oil and gas drilling in the US. There has been a large amount of flaring of gas in these wells, espeically the Bakken, so it is more than a touch imprudent to conclude this new methane must be from the ESAS. 

  39. Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate

    Thanks for this excellent article. There appears to be a great deal of wishful thinking and handwaving among many of the proponents of this apocolypse scenario and its based around precious little information. 

  40. Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate

    Chris Colose:

    A counter-argument to your position is presented in the article:

    Arctic methane catastrophe scenario is based on new empirical observations by Nafez Ahmed, Earth Insight, The Guardian, July 31, 2013

    Is there a middle-ground between your perspective and that of Ahmed's?   

     

  41. East Antarctica Ice-Sheet more vulnerable to melting than we thought: new research

    Hi Chris - yes the uncertainties are large,much of which is down to the fact that isostatic adjustment may have affected raised shorelines in either direction. One good example of that is in E England where there are sea-cliffs composed of Pliocene/early Pleistocene fossiliferous marine sediments and the deposits extend a fair way inland, although the area in question is slowly sinking at present.

  42. East Antarctica Ice-Sheet more vulnerable to melting than we thought: new research

    Thanks John, for the summary of this very interesting, I would say a breakthrough article: we are gathering more and more evidence from paleo to our understanding of climate change.

    I guess, the they are quoting eustatic SLR, right? I don't have access to the full text so cannot find out, myself. I'm also interested in the detail where the relatively large uncertainties (+-10m) come from. If we are take into account the SLR adjustment to the changed gravitational pull of the melting IS, then the SLR number  should go higher although I'm not sure by how much.

  43. A Change in the Weather at 23:02 PM on 1 August 2013
    The Albedo Effect and Global Warming

    Maybe I'm being dense, but this article isn't clear to me. I'm left with the impression that the Earthshine data still shows increasing albedo. The CERES graph is something of a cipher.

    Dr. Francis makes good points. Just because there may be a cloud-driven increase in albedo in the higher atmosphere doesn't mean the albedo below is also increasing, nor does it mean that the planet's surface is cooling. In fact, those same clouds could be acting as a blanket, capturing a larger share of the energy that does penetrate. Again, this isn't clear from the write-up.

    In fact, this piece doesn't read like a rebuttal at all, let alone a basic one, but a discussion with no strong conclusion. Time for re-draft, with the conclusion stated clearly at the top, and then supported by discussion?

  44. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31A

    The "More carbon emissions = less global warming?" is the follow-up after a well debunked, screwed article in the Economist. I don't understand why a blog, such as scientificamerican.com, still publishes news based on such false allegations and misinterpretations, that were  totally thrashed by Dana and subsequently by bunch of commenters on SkS, 10 days before. I thought our debunking should have put this news to bed. Not so: the falsehood is sticking hard.

    IMO, scientificamerican is making a mistake by repeating this bunkum unnecessarily: contrary to the rules in the Debunking Hadbook on the right margin.

  45. michael sweet at 20:48 PM on 1 August 2013
    Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

    Tom,

    Your post is excellent and clearly shows that Morner is fast and loose with the data. 

    The post is about the Marshall Isalnds and not the Solomen Islands.  For those who are not familiar with remote islands, The Marshall Islands are home to about 68,000 people.  The average height of the islands is about 1 meter (see this Wikipedia article) They have had severe flooding problems from over 20 cm (that's 20% of all the above sea level height they have) of sea level rise in the past 30 years.  Since they are a protectorate of the USA presumably they will be moving to the USA once Majuro is no longer habitable.  A single large storm could decimate the country at any time.

  46. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

    Tamino has documented yet another case of Morner presenting an argument whose entire weight is based on not considering all the available evidence, in this case in the Solomon's.

    In this case, Morner compares two tide guage records from different locations in the Solomons.  One clearly shows an rising and accelerating trend.  In the second, Morner uses an inflated sea level scale to make the positive trend less obvious.  He also uses a different time scale, starting from about the time of the acceleration in the other record.  He concludes there is no acceleration.

    Tamino points out that there is another, overlaping tide gauge record from the second island.  Combining the two records for the same island shows that, yes, the sea level is rising, and yes, it does accelerate at about the same time as the acceleration for the other island.

  47. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B

    JvD,

    Your analogy concerning the Australian iron ore is not helpfull. Iron ore is not a scarce resource, so the market price is very close to the production price.

    How do you expect your arguments to be taken seriously when they are full of such obvious errors? (There's a phrase that you like to throw around that I'm more reluctant to use, so I'll stick with "errors".)

    From page 51 of Rio Tinto's investor chartbook, their 2012 cash cost of iron ore was US$23.50/tonne. The all-in cost to deliver to China including royalties, shipping, and underlying capital costs was $US47/tonne.

    The market price peaked at $US191.90/tonne in 2011.

    Mark ups on iron ore for global miners BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are now at a staggering 160 per cent, with profit margins at 62 per cent, nearly double that of the world's most valuable tech company, Apple Inc., as of June 30, 2013.

    [...]

    Iron ore rose from less than $US20 a tonne in 2000 to a record in 2011 near $US200, before levelling off.

    In comparison, oil, the only traded commodity market larger than iron ore, rose only half as quickly when it hit an all-time high above $US147 a barrel in 2008 from about $30 in 2000. (Source)

    If iron ore is not a "scarce" resource, perhaps you can explain why just two countries (China and Australia) account for over 60% of the world's production? (Source) Add in Brazil and you've got 73%; add India and it's 81.5% in just four countries. In comparison, oil is positively ubiquitous, with the top two producers accounting for just 26% of world production and the top four barely cracking 40%. (Source)

    So not only was my analogy helpful, it turns out to be even more exaggerated in the characterists that define the oil industry. Yet Australian's don't get to buy iron ore at $23.50/tonne from Rio Tinto, nor do we get to buy it at $47/tonne [*]; we have to pay whatever the going rate is for it on the world market. Any requirement otherwise would amount to price support and a subsidy on the Australian consumption of iron ore.

    [*] This gets back to the point I made earlier - just what is the "cost" of Saudi oil that you're referring to? Does it include amortisation of capital expenses, or just the marginal cost of extracting an extra barrel? I'd be surprised if the "true cost" is even publicly known, yet you've been asserting repeatedly that the Saudi's are selling it at that price with no references to support that that I've seen. Not that it actually matters to the argument, because either way it's still below market price, but I'm disinclined to take your word for it given the egregious errors you've made in areas that I am familiar with.

  48. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B

    scaddenp @56, based on the IEA map of the location of energy subsidies, they come predominantly from fossil fuel rich nations, or middle income nations such as China and India:

    The same impression is given by the chart of the top15 providers of subsidies, with the only OECD nation among them being Mexico (13th).

    I assume, therefore, you are drawing attention to the chart of the benefit recieved from the subsidy by income group,showing that the bottom 20% by income tend to recieve just 5-15% (8.5% mean) of the benefit depending on the fossil fuel subsidized.  That does show that the poor are not well targeted by the benefits.  Given the nations concerned, far more than just the bottom 20% of income in some of the nations could be considered poor by world standards, and in all those nations by western standards.  Consequently a more usefull chart would be one showing the benefit gained by the top 20% by income in each nation.  As it is, suggesting that the gains in reduced emissions from eliminating these subsidies would be paid by the (moderately) poor is not unreasonable.

    It is likely, however, that the societies in question would benefit from eliminating the subsidies and redirecting the money saved within country.  By doing so they would be able to reduce overall taxation, and at the same time better target aid the the poorest in their nations.  It is also quite reasonable to claim, however, as does Faith Birol that the elimination of the subsidies would see a large reduction in CO2 emissions.

    Returning to JvD's comment @4, "industrialized nations" has frequently been used a name of a group of nations including the OECD plus Warsaw Pact nations.  On that basis only six industrialized nations contribute to the subsidy (5 warsaw pact plus Mexico).  However, I do not think it reasonable to currently describe South Korea, India, China and Indonesia as not industrialized.  So, approximately a third of the nations involved are industrialized, but less than a third of the subsidies are from industrialized nations.  Consequently, I agree that the statement by the reporter (and not Dr Romani) that, "Industrialised nations plough $600 billion a year to subside coal, oil and gas activity" has to be considered inaccurate at best.

     

  49. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B

    And before claiming that "the poor" would be financing the Green fund, have a look at the graph of who is getting the subsidy (bottom 20% compared to top 80%) from IEA data shown here.

  50. The Albedo Effect and Global Warming

    francis@4,

    Can you tell us why such distinction (planetary vs surface A) is important? My uneducated guess is that surface A may have large impact on arctic amplification (positive feedback in mid-to-high N lattitudes), while planetary A feedback may be confined to lower lattitudes only. But that's just may guess and I'd like to know your expert opinion.

Prev  855  856  857  858  859  860  861  862  863  864  865  866  867  868  869  870  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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