Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


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


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

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

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...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 54 out of 54:

  1. Mark Bahner #23

    You said 'the statement that AGW could cause "devastation on a similar scale to the impact of an asteroid (1-2 km in size) in the next 100 years" is patently ridiculous. ....

    ....And the effects are much more devastating for a 2-km asteroid. Estimates for that size asteroid are that more than 1 billion people would be killed.'

    Estimates of yeild declines with temperature for a range of major grain crops report drops of 10% or so per degree C of temperature rise. Rice in many parts of the world is currently grown near the upper limits of its temperature range. Extreme weather events have a similar effect. 50% of the worlds food supply comes directly or indirectly from cereal crops.

    Warmer water can hold less oxygen and reduces the carrying capacity of a patch of ocean, so warming of the ocean might reduce available fish stocks in the ocean. Ocean Acidification is already starting to impact the shell formation abilities of some small marine creatures at the base of the ocean food chain. The ocean supplies the primary source of protein for 1 Billion people.

    As temperatures rise, growing season times are changing. This potentially changes the relationship between plants and their pollinators and predators.

    For every 1 DegC of temperature rise it is estimated that wet bulb temperature, which governs how much an animal can cool itself through evaporation, rises by 66-75% of that. That animal might be a human being, who might be able to retreat into an air-conditioned space if they live in the western world. But it could also be a sheep, goat, cow, chicken etc that can't. With excessive heating heat stress sets in. Even if the animal doesn't die (some will) yields of essential food products (meat, milk, eggs, even blood) drop off.

    If temperatures warm by several deg C latter this century, yield declines of all food production of 20% aren't unreasonable. Might be higher, might be lower. 20% seems rather middle of the road.

    The world's population is currently around 7 Billion, trending towards 9-10 billion by mid century. And roughly speaking, current food supply is just managing to feed 7 billion. Yes, there are inefficiencies etc, but the food system we have now just manages to feed 7 billion. A 20% decline in food production, retaining current efficiencies would mean that we would only feed 5.6 billion.

    And if our population has risen to 10 billion, that is a shortfall of 4.4 billion.

    A middle-of-the-road estimate of how much all the effects of AGW might impact says tnat 4.4 billion people would starve. Not guaranteed. Might be less than that. Might be more.

    But it doesn't look so patently ridiculous to me. Just because devastation happens in decades not days doesn't make it any less devastating.

    0 0
  2. Mark Bahner. You insist that your questioning requires answering on terms that you yourself set, yet your questioning revolves around a single statement made in the first 30 seconds of the Dessler video clip. If you find the answers provided in this thread less than what you wish for (I note you even list your own comments in this regard), do bear in mind that this questioning of yours is entirely off topic.

    So here is a question for you to answer. Why don't you watch the video clip to the end? I ask that because I cannot see how somebody could have done so and then go on to assert that the statement "97% of scientists agree that global warming may be severe." is "unactionable;" Or indeed be so intent on demanding that a possibility ("may be severe" ) be converted into a quantified probability for a specific prediction of global climate, economy and society in the year 2100.

    0 0
  3. And  if this URL reference doesn't scare the H--- out of you, then flash back to the early '60's,   take two hits of the then legal Sandoz Labs LSD, and go see "A Clockwork Orange", or other thriller.

    (No illegal action is hereby advocated.)

    We are absolutely living in a horror story.

    0 0
  4. Yah, KR, I was hoping that pointing out Kampen's lack off engagement with the actual science would deter further garbage, but then the guy threw Chris Essex at me.  My ensuing sigh nearly collapsed my lungs.

    0 0

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2022 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us