Area 51 » Science

followers

Follow It!

51 Example Questions (2 closed)

active oldest votes

up vote 15 down vote

added by CrazyJugglerDrummer May 13 '11 at 12:32

Nice question. I'd love to know the answer! – Cody Brown Nov 14 '12 at 15:44

let us see. "climate change", works in both ways, the presence of present tense ("is getting colder") makes me think that you mean recent global warming trend, and not climate change. Aplaces that can get colder is northern europe. if you are melting the ice, you produce much freshwater in north atlantic, which might shut off the warm atlantic current to north europe, cooling it down. in general milankovice cycle peridocally contracts (warm periods) and elongates (cold periods) of earth which may cool down or warm up the whole planet. – Sean Dec 27 '12 at 23:41

up vote 12 down vote

added by CrazyJugglerDrummer May 13 '11 at 12:32

Remember that votes above 10 do not help a proposal definition, so many consider every vote above 10 as a wasted vote. It is far more useful to use your vote to approve of a question with fewer than 10 votes. Also, if a question you have already voted on now has more than 10 votes, remember that you can remove your up vote and put it on another suitable question. These two tips will help get this proposal get through the definition phase more quickly. – Mark Booth Oct 2 '12 at 10:44

up vote 11 down vote

added by CrazyJugglerDrummer May 13 '11 at 12:33

I think that's a general-reference question, which SE sites generally discourage / close / delete – EnergyNumbers Oct 11 '11 at 9:48

This is an critical and highly relevant question. Many people seem confused about this difference and about how to weigh claims of meteorologists in discussions about climate change. – raxacoricofallapatorius Oct 28 '11 at 15:09

Also, some general questions are allowed since whole classes of other questions can be closed as duplicates of them. – Mark Booth Oct 2 '12 at 11:50

up vote 11 down vote

added by Deditos Jun 2 '11 at 12:36

I'm interested to ask a variety of questions related to deviations from the IPCC scenarios. The is lots in journals about potential major system shifts due to events, like large ice sheets breaking off. – AlanSE Feb 8 '12 at 16:28

Probably a better wording for this question is something like "what's the predicted likelihood that climate sensitivity is greater than 5°C?" – naught101 Mar 7 '12 at 1:02

@naught101: Good point, the previous wording could have been answered with a meaningless "yes". – Deditos Sep 6 '12 at 20:42

up vote 11 down vote

added by user1873 Sep 5 '12 at 21:41

Great question. Although it might be more appropriate to ask about global temperature change, rather than just temperature, perhaps? – naught101 Sep 6 '12 at 1:35

Agree. this is a really good question and relates to a hotly debated topic - the impact of cloud cover in a changing climate. The question doesn't yet have a definitive answer, but that might even make it a better question. – Eric H. Mar 25 at 18:48

up vote 10 down vote

added by Henry May 11 '11 at 16:12

I'm curious to know why this would be off topic. If it's because of the ethical interpretation of the word responsible, then it's definitely off topic. But if it's because "there is no answer", then that would shut out many climate change questions, including non-controversial ones. Or maybe there's another reason. – Deditos Jun 1 '11 at 12:05

I'd say that a question phrased a bit different would be on topic, but this is too simplistic a question as stated. If it was 'What are the links between human activity and global warming' that might be more appropriate. – rsg Jun 1 '11 at 14:01

Yes, it's very broad, so would require a (too) long answer. – Deditos Jun 2 '11 at 12:24

How on earth can this possibly be considered "not constructive" or off topic. The question is simply about the the identity of the agent behind recent global warming, which is the subject of (very active and high quality) scientific investigation that has produced a richly documented answer. – raxacoricofallapatorius Oct 28 '11 at 15:12

Surely such a question would have more detail in a real site, and if not, clarification could be asked for? – naught101 Feb 6 '12 at 7:16

show 6 more comments

up vote 10 down vote

added by Henry May 11 '11 at 22:23

	I don't know about the license, but clearclimatecode.org might be a good place to start – naught101 Feb 6 '12 at 12:33
	CliMT is a promising project, which uses python as component glue to allow more uniform access to a number of (mostly Fortran-based) submodels and parameterizations. It is mainly set up to do idealized simulations (e.g. Held-Hou tests), but is an excellent starting point. – Stochtastic Mar 24 at 15:47

up vote 10 down vote

added by CrazyJugglerDrummer May 13 '11 at 12:35

up vote 10 down vote

added by rsg May 26 '11 at 16:27

Surely this is a politicial economy question, and thus outside the current (physical science-based) site definition? Perhaps "Climate Change" is a bit ambiguous? "Climate Science" would better fit the current definition, and would also fit better with the proposals to merge with other geoscience sites, however, this might contradict the proposal to merge with green energy – naught101 Feb 6 '12 at 7:22

up vote 10 down vote

added by rsg May 27 '11 at 11:22

I would flag this question as not specific enough. What is an average person?? This answer is going to vary drastically across geographies, socio-economic groups, and cultures. If we want this site to fill with substantial and useful content, we'll need questions that are more specific than this. – Eric H. Mar 25 at 18:45

up vote 10 down vote

added by rsg Jun 1 '11 at 13:59

up vote 10 down vote

added by EnergyNumbers Jun 25 '11 at 13:32

Should cooling gases including aerosols be included in the scope of this question? What is the technical term for a gas that has a net cooling effect anyway? – AlanSE Jun 1 '12 at 17:39

@AlanSE: Aerosols aren't gases. They are particles. The cooling effect is caused by reflection. I don't think there are any gases that have a cooling effect (note that clouds also aren't gas - they're condensate), just gases that have no effect. – naught101 Jun 22 '12 at 2:33

up vote 10 down vote

added by Abe Oct 5 '11 at 23:10

This is my favorite question out of all that I've read. – AlanSE Feb 6 '12 at 20:57

Good question, it is something that is often misunderstood. The answer of course is that it doesn't! – Dikran Marsupial Mar 2 '12 at 12:47

@Dikran it does, for example a range of ~2-175 is used in note (a) under table TS2 – David Mar 3 '12 at 1:34

No, that note refers to the adjustment time, not the residence (turnover) time, see the definition of "lifetime" in the glossary (page 948), where they give a turnover/residence time of 4 years and approx 100 years for the adjustment time. See also dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef200914u – Dikran Marsupial Mar 3 '12 at 18:36

up vote 10 down vote

added by Abe Oct 5 '11 at 23:17

up vote 10 down vote

added by naught101 Feb 6 '12 at 7:32

Huh. Would be interested to know the reason for the downvote here.. – naught101 Feb 9 '12 at 7:58

I agree. This is a very relevant question, and this has been answered for specific models but I am not aware of a general solution. – David Mar 3 '12 at 1:38

+1 I agree this is a perfectly reasonable and potentially interesting question. As this is not the only one of naught101's reasonable questions that has been downvoted, I suspect that someone has been votong on a basis other than the scientific merits of the question. Sadly this kind of thing is rife in discussions of climate change. – Dikran Marsupial Mar 3 '12 at 17:35

up vote 10 down vote

added by naught101 Feb 6 '12 at 12:30

Good alternative to the other one that simply asked if climate change was man-made. – AlanSE Feb 6 '12 at 20:58

up vote 10 down vote

added by AlanSE Feb 8 '12 at 16:25

up vote 10 down vote

added by user1873 Aug 15 '12 at 23:22

I think there is a potentially good question here, but there are a few misconceptions: 1) The IPCC doesn't do modelling. It just reviews and synthesises papers. 2) Accuracy is difficult to quantify (there are many metrics, none pick up everything. How do you weight them?) 3) revision is difficult to quantify (i.e. the time between reports is 5-6 years. Is the addition of new data 'revision'? It will inevitably produce different estimates, even if exactly the same numerical and statistical models are applied). If the IPCC had infinite resources, estimates would be revised with every new paper. – naught101 Aug 17 '12 at 1:04

@naught1, (1)semantics. They base reports off of models of WG1.(2)Accuracy is difficult to quantify, IPCC says "increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade)" and sea level rises of 6cm/decade. The GMT/SLR is either inside that or not. What is the point of scientific models, if not to make predictions (if we cannot tell how accurate they were, what is the point?) (3)New data isn't a revision to a prediction. If predictions have changed with revisions, (perhaps only predicting 3cm per decade, GTK) – user1873 Sep 5 '12 at 21:39

@user1873 1) in that case, just ask how accurate the IPCC's projections are. 2) Those are confidence intervals. If the true value falls outside the interval, there is still a chance that the interval is a good predictor of future behaviour. It's not yes/no. 3) data guides model construction. With new data, models will be updated, revising predictions. It may be the case that only parameters change, and not model structures. Hence old models + new data = new predictions. – naught101 Sep 6 '12 at 1:14

@naught101, and it would be nice to know how accurate their previous predictions have been, and how wide their confidence intervals were. That way, the correct weight can be placed on any new predictions. – user1873 Sep 7 '12 at 1:28

up vote 10 down vote

added by Rody Oldenhuis Aug 18 '12 at 9:48

	What disappearance of CO2 sinks? I wrote a paper on the first question, which you can find here: dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef200914u . If the rise were natural, atmospheric CO2 would be rising faster than anthropogenic emissions, rather than slower. A mass balance analysis shows that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, which has been growing in magnitude over the last 50 years. HTH – Dikran Marsupial Oct 13 '12 at 18:31
	@DikranMarsupial: I imagine the destruction of peat bogs would count as sink disappearance. – naught101 Oct 15 '12 at 11:05
	cheers @naught101. The disappearance of peat bogs will be automatically included in a mass balance analysis (which doesn't make any assumptions regarding the mechanisms of the source or the sinks). – Dikran Marsupial Oct 15 '12 at 13:09
	@ DikranMarsupial Naturally, as is the problem for many interdisciplinary scientists, your paper is paywalled to me -- the abstract is all I have to go on. Therein, you state that "it is straightforward to show [..] that the natural environment has acted as a net carbon sink throughout the industrial era". Please explain how that can be straightforward. – Rody Oldenhuis Oct 15 '12 at 14:08
	@RodyOldenhuis : we know that there were X billion tonnes of CO2 emitted over the last ~200 years, but the amount in the atmosphere is less than background levels + anthopogenic emissions, therefore the "natural environment" (which I guess means anything outside a building) must be acting as a sink, unless CO2 is floating off into space. – naught101 Nov 1 '12 at 3:40

show 3 more comments

up vote 10 down vote

added by user1873 Sep 6 '12 at 1:48

+1 excellent question. – naught101 Sep 19 '12 at 1:44

up vote 9 down vote

added by AjiPorter Oct 16 '12 at 3:07

This is likely representative of a class of questions which will be asked regularly, and if it's specific to a particular type of power, and a particular effect, then it's probably good to have at least one canonical question for each power source. – naught101 Oct 16 '12 at 13:12

Thanks for pointing out. :) Actually when I was typing this question I'm not sure whether I'll ask a specific one... 'cause I'm afraid it'd get closed because of being too localized. :D Thanks again. ;) – AjiPorter Oct 16 '12 at 15:48

I definitely agree with naught101. This is a good sort of canonical question and needs to be specific per power source. Even then, answers will change and evolve with new technologies and studies. I suppose there might be a problem in that it'd be hard to accept a single answer for these questions. Any accepted answer would really have to be more of a wiki. – Eric H. Mar 25 at 18:54

up vote 7 down vote

added by EnergyNumbers Oct 11 '11 at 9:45

Basic question, but well defined. Would upvote, if I had votes left. – naught101 Jul 10 '12 at 3:42

@naught101 - Remember that you can change your votes at any time, so if you have voted up a question with more than 10 votes, you could reallocate your votes here. – Mark Booth Oct 1 '12 at 9:51

@MarkBooth: I know, but there are 5+ other questions that I also think are good. And no, I don't have any votes on questions with 10+ votes :) – naught101 Oct 2 '12 at 1:50

up vote 7 down vote

added by naught101 Feb 7 '12 at 6:21

I don't know why this was downvoted, it is a perfectly reasonable question regarding the operation of GCMs – Dikran Marsupial Mar 2 '12 at 12:50

Considering 5 of my questions on this proposal, and some on other proposals, all got down voted within a few minutes of each other, I think it's because I annoyed someone :D – naught101 Mar 2 '12 at 14:12

Global Circulation Models does not, but special models do, here is an article, on a special model :Robock, Alan, 1984: Climate model simulations of the effects of the El Chichón eruption. Geofísica Internacional, 23, 403-414. , and another which models the reverse, i.e. how climate change triggers volcanic eruptions: scientificamerican.com/… – Sean Jan 13 at 10:38

up vote 5 down vote

added by AlanSE Feb 6 '12 at 21:02

that is amusing! – naught101 Feb 7 '12 at 6:27

Interesting question though. And, with the onset of space-mining, perhaps lugging water into space to balance out the total mass would be a solution to two issues =) – mkoistinen Apr 26 '12 at 18:10

haha, energetically, I think it would be fairly easy to show that lifting sand from the bottom of the ocean and dumping it in Canada would require a lot less work. – AlanSE Apr 26 '12 at 20:16

up vote 4 down vote

added by Jennifer Davis Apr 25 '12 at 4:43

Interesting question. Do you mean studying the effects of climate change on sea ice, or something like albedo feedback effects? Or are there drivers of sea ice change other than climate change? – naught101 May 17 '12 at 9:34

I agree that it is probably a cycle that is difficult to pick apart, in classic chicken-egg style. What I am studying is changes in sea ice; as sea ice changes, climate is affected, which is why I threw "climate" in the question, but I am primarily interested in measurements of sea ice from year to year. – Jennifer Davis May 22 '12 at 23:57

@JenniferDavis: I think the question would probably be better without the "climate change" bit - sea ice is definitely a component of climate science, for many reasons. Also, many of the large satellite data sets have huge holes over the poles, so it's even more appropriate than it first sounds. – naught101 Jul 10 '12 at 23:46

up vote 3 down vote

added by naught101 Feb 7 '12 at 6:24

I would upvote this if I had any votes left. It isn't an unreasonable question. – Dikran Marsupial Mar 3 '12 at 17:48

up vote 3 down vote

added by Azula R. Jan 19 at 19:46

up vote 2 down vote

added by user1873 Sep 6 '12 at 2:35

up vote 2 down vote

added by Surya2089 Sep 21 '12 at 3:53

Probably needs to be more specific about causes. – naught101 Sep 27 '12 at 6:07

Since there is an increased buildup of carbondioxide and other carbon based gases in the atmosphere, would it eventually block out sun's heat and lead to a ICE AGE? – Surya2089 Sep 28 '12 at 10:34

The theory behind greenhouse gasses is that they let through lots of shortwave radiation (e.g. visible light), and block long wave radition (e.g. infra-red). Light hitting the earth's surface is absorbed and re-emitted at longer wavelengths, which is why more heat gets trapped. So no, no ice age due solely to GHG build-up. But you might get a feed-back induced flip into an ice-age if something large changed in the Earth system - like a major change in ocean circulation. – naught101 Oct 15 '12 at 2:46

Maybe reworded: what anthropogenic effects, and knock-on effects, lower global average temperature? Or somewhat narrower: what negative-feedback loops in global climate change might help regulate temperature? – BobStein-VisiBone Mar 31 at 12:18

up vote 2 down vote

added by RioRaider Apr 11 at 4:25

	I support this, but I feel it would be an even better question if it read, "is there any scientific merit to this" rather than "is this true." – buckminst Apr 21 at 6:25
	I would edit as you suggested but there are not enough characters allowed. – RioRaider Apr 21 at 17:34
	How about "The radiative forcing due to CO2 is non-linear, is there any scientific evidence to suggest this is saturated after only 1 or 2%?". The answer being "no". – Dikran Marsupial May 19 at 19:46

up vote 1 down vote

added by clupert May 29 '11 at 17:12

This would only fit if the scope were widened significantly. Can also see potential for this causing massive arguments. I think it would be better to stick to the physical sciences, and leave politics out of it. (climate/environmental politics might be a good separate site) – naught101 Feb 6 '12 at 7:24

I agree about sticking to the science; introducing politics and motivation into the discussions is a recipe for ill tempered partisan squabbling, and there is already too much of that in the debate on climate. It is a reasonable question, but probably better suited to another venue. – Dikran Marsupial Mar 3 '12 at 17:38

Agreed, that whilst the sentiment is clear, it would lead to another pro- v anti-AGW argument. For example, you cite oil companies, but on the other side of the fence are the climate scientists looking for their next grant :-) – Andrew Oct 12 '12 at 21:04

up vote 1 down vote

added by AlanSE Feb 16 '12 at 18:57

Good for science, because it could be part of a testable prediction. Except maybe it falls prey to the same shortcoming of verifying predictions of average temperature: if you don't measure everywhere you get an inaccurate test -- there might not happen to be a thermometer handy on that hottest day ever somewhere miserable in Libya. – BobStein-VisiBone Mar 31 at 12:14

up vote 1 down vote

added by Rody Oldenhuis Aug 18 '12 at 9:46

Off topic. This is about climate science, not climate policy. – naught101 Aug 20 '12 at 7:02

@naught101 You're right. Rendered it into a more relevant question. – Rody Oldenhuis Aug 20 '12 at 7:22

@RodneyOldenhuis: Still not directly related to climate science. This might be more appropriate in a group like area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5167/… (although that proposal failed) – naught101 Aug 20 '12 at 7:49

@naught101 I still think the thought is useful...let's rephrase again. – Rody Oldenhuis Aug 20 '12 at 8:02

Also, affect climate projections, not models :) – naught101 Aug 30 '12 at 0:27

show 4 more comments

up vote 1 down vote

added by Rody Oldenhuis Aug 18 '12 at 9:50

Good question, but the first sentence is more or less redundant. – naught101 Aug 20 '12 at 7:04

True, that would eventually go into the question's body. It does add to the notion that we could make reasonable estimates now. – Rody Oldenhuis Aug 20 '12 at 7:14

@naught101 see comment above (forgot to notify you) – Rody Oldenhuis Aug 20 '12 at 7:23

estimates about oil are very inaccurate. There is tons of oil in sand that we dont know how to extract yet but still use it for other purposes in manufacturing most estimates dont include that oil. – Xitcod13 Oct 10 '12 at 1:38

@Xitcod13 We know for sure that it will cost a lot more energy to extract oil from Tarsands than the readily available "underground lakes" we're pumping up currently. That is the principle behind peak oil. We also have at least once credible source stating that peak oil occurred somewhere in 2006 (the International Energy Agency). "Hard to estimate" is mostly due to the unreliable predictions/statements made by oiil companies, however, doing measurements on how much oil actually is produced/consumed is a lot easier, and that is actually declining. – Rody Oldenhuis Oct 17 '12 at 11:09

show 4 more comments

up vote 1 down vote

added by martin Dec 19 '12 at 10:44

	I think it would be more answerable if it was for region types, rather than certain areas. e.g. for deserts, alpine regions, east coast temperate regions. – naught101 Dec 21 '12 at 1:49
	Sure, that works too. I was initially going to omit the area specification completely. – martin Dec 21 '12 at 13:23

up vote 1 down vote

added by Eric H. Mar 25 at 18:58

up vote 1 down vote

added by RioRaider Apr 28 at 6:35

Potentially misleading as water vapour is a feedback, so would you assign the effect of the additional water vapour to water vapour, or to the CO2 that resulted in the warming that gave rise to the additional water vapour? The question could do with being re-worded to make it less ambiguous. – Dikran Marsupial May 19 at 19:40

up vote 0 down vote

added by Larian LeQuella Aug 26 '11 at 15:26

closed as not constructive by EnergyNumbers, Dori Oct 11 '11 at 5:40

This question is not a good fit to our Q&A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.

This is meant to be an example of a question that could be considered argumentative. – Larian LeQuella Oct 7 '11 at 13:11

However, real science is affected by politics, and it's a valid question (even if it's not worded in the best way). Where would a question like this belong? on a philosophy of science SE? – naught101 Feb 6 '12 at 7:26

up vote 0 down vote

added by Thomas Wessel May 29 '12 at 19:47

I think this is probably bordering on closed due to argumentativeness ("that I can trust"). The problem is partly related to the fact that most such calculators aren't very open about that calculations they are performing, so they are very hard to compare. – naught101 Jun 19 '12 at 5:09

Could also be moved to Sustainable Living.SE – naught101 Jul 10 '12 at 3:40

Sustainable Living SE is now live. Welcome with your question! – gerrit Feb 12 at 22:40

up vote 0 down vote

added by Neal Kruis Feb 5 at 16:19

If you're asking about personal impacts, then this question is probably more suited to the sustainable living beta. If it's from a social perspective, then it may be too policy-focussed for a science site (if that's what this will be). – naught101 Feb 18 at 10:32

I suppose this is more policy-focused. Has this site defined itself to be strictly policy? This will be a hard line to define as the science and economics will (hopefully) drive the policy. – Neal Kruis Feb 18 at 15:54

No, it's leaning more towards science, and away from policy (which is too opinion driven for a good Q+A site). – naught101 Mar 26 at 1:24

Suggest you split this into two questions. Tag the first a "soft-question", if this ever goes live. @Naught101 suggests a good third question, what can an individual do? – BobStein-VisiBone Mar 31 at 12:06