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  1055  1056  1057  1058  1059  1060  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  Next

Comments 53101 to 53150:

  1. Climate time lag
    Falkenherz, you make a typical error in assuming that forcing (the Watt per square meter value, aka the extra energy per time and area input to the system) has something to do with climate sensitivity (roughly: the expected warming, aka temperature, for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere). "Serious" skeptics like Lindzen, whom you seemingly refer to, claim that climate sensitivity is low and that we should already have observed more warming. However, as you can explore by follwing the link to "Lindzen Illusions" up left, he (and others) has failed to provide conclusive evidence for his hypothesis. Instead, there are multiple lines of evidence that climate sensitivity is roughly 3+-1 K, and you can explore that here . If other "serious skeptics" claim that solar forcing has a huge time lag while CO2 forcing has not, they should present that evidence. Remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To demand more knowledge is just another moving the goalpost move to prevent addressing the issue in the first place.
  2. Climate time lag
    Falkenhertz, which "serious" climate skeptics would you be talking about? The forcing from GHGs is much larger than the solar radiative forcing (see for example here). It is the dominant component forcing climate at the moment. Feedbacks (water vapour, carbon cycle, albedo etc) operate in response to any forcing, and do not select one forcing over another. "they consider current knowledge as not enough in order to accept the AGW-theory for more than speculation" ... the theory of climate is based on an awful lot more than speculation (also here and here) - you may want to check that your sources have not been feeding you fairy tales. ... as long as possible other theories are not as intensively examined and researched. Do you seriously thing that other theorieshypotheses have not been thoroughly researched?
  3. Climate time lag
    Falkenherz could you please elaborate on the claim that 0.25 W/m2 of TSI increase in a couple of centuries should have more impact than 3.4 W/m2 in 50 years? I can't see how one can reach this conclusion.
  4. Models are unreliable
    New study of seven climate models finds skill demonstrated for periods of 30 years and longer, at geographic scales of continent and larger: Sakaguchi, Zeng, and Brunke.
  5. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    C99, I agree. Wouldn't true conservatives conserve? Surely a real conservative would follow the precautionary principle? Be risk adverse? I'm saddened to hear that a scientist has to hide behind a mask to draw attention to the fact he can't follow his vocation unfiltered from the public view.
  6. Climate time lag
    BTW, I am not entirely sure; is the 3,4W/m2 current data or the calculated rate for a CO2-doubling?
  7. Climate time lag
    The climate sceptics I consider more serious argue that the known forcing of 3,4W/m2 is associated with a too high climate sensitiviy, and the part of global warming actually caused by GHG is much lower. Their main argument seems to be what I tried to reproduce here, that long-term TSI increase and lags of its transformation in global warming are not considered properly as an explanation (basically, since the little ice age, hundreds of years of increase of TSI should have more impact than a 50 year CO2-development of +3,4W/m2). As uncertainty cuts both ways, they consider current knowledge as not enough in order to accept the AGW-theory for more than speculation, as long as possible other theories are not as intensively examined and researched.
  8. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    With a little astronomy and cold climate experience, I am unaware of any obvious explanation for mirage effects that would optically displace the Sun and stars laterally. I've seen Fata Morgana mirages, but as mentioned before, they displace objects vertically. Events like June's spectacular Venus transit, which happened just as predicted centuries in advance, tell us that the Sun and stars have not actually changed their position of course! But as mentioned, there's absolutely no reason to doubt the honesty of the Arctic observers. There's another possible explanation for an apparent lateral shift: If there is some kind of change in local conditions producing a strengthening or weakening of surface refraction (and it would only be apparent in Arctic areas where there are particularly stable surface layers), it might be possible for this effect to cause a apparent lateral shift in the object's rise point. In the Arctic, the Sun, Moon, stars and planets rise at a very shallow angle to the horizon. If a given level of refraction is causing the Sun to apparently rise in a particular location at a particular time, a change in the strength of the refraction would cause the Sun to appear to rise some distance to the left or right of the previous rising point. Because the rising angle is so shallow, a small change in the refraction strength would lead to a large horizontal shift in apparent rise position, rising a little earlier or later than expected. I cannot imagine that the surface conditions are sufficiently consistent for this change to be perfectly repeatable, but if the air temperature is on average X degrees warmer, perhaps the change in refraction strength is on average Y degrees in elevation, and consequently the rise position is moved +/- Z degrees laterally? All conjecture of course, but an interesting phenomenon to explain.
  9. Climate time lag
    Falkenherz, it is hard to follow you and to know what you actually mean. For instance, I don't believe you "cannot read mathematical formulas". Your paragraph starting with "Could it be ..." is not a theory, but speculation. That this speculation is not supported by any evidence is answered by yourself in the next paragraph. The two numbers you listed, called climate "forcings" are different, and unless you assume that 0.25 is bigger than 3.4 (note that the unit is the same, i.e. the impact on the planet is not another degree removed from this number), I do not see how you can make it support your speculation. Perhaps if you listed those "more serious sceptics" you talk about, it would be easier for us to understand what it is you want to get at. And just in case: People claiming that GHG forcing is much smaller than the number you listed are not "serious sceptics". Regarding very early Earth history, there is no reason to assume that high CO2 (likely not in "spikes" though) concentrations in the atmosphere had much different physical impact then than today. That it was not extremely warmer such as would be expected from its greenhouse properties, can indeed be explained by a fainter sun. That we may not know the "exact relations", better said the exact concentrations of CO2, levels of T, and TSI, has to do with the fact that scientists cannot retrieve these values with as high confidence (or not at all) from the proxies used as they can from younger Earth ages. Your conclusion "then CO2 necessarily must have had less effect than assumed" would only be supported if we knew T and TSI for these ages well enough and could exclude that TSI was below a certain value. Remember: Uncertainty cuts both ways. And because uncertainty for the climate during these Earth ages exists des not undermine what we know about CO2 and climate at present time.
  10. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    The refraction angle is dependent on the slope of the temperature inversion. If said inversion has not changed over time in the morning, but was altered due to warming (in a very general sense) in the evening, it may indeed explain the Inuit observations. Inversion strength is affected by surface radiative properties (T, emissivity), cloud cover (more clouds, less surface cooling), and (warm/cold air) advection. Historical vertical temperature observations would help ... Here is another another thought: If the Inuit live by the seasons instead of by a calendar as we do, then the lateral position shift could be explained by a shift in season lengths. In other words, the "sun sets in a different position" on 15 Sep compared to 10 Sep, and if the seasonal change observed by the Inuit and are used to now occurs on average on 15 Sep instead on 10 Sep, their interpretation may simply be reversed if they assume the seasons remain unaltered in their timing. This would be symmetric, however, if season expansion is symmetric ...
  11. Climate time lag
    IanC, thank you very much, your explanation helped also for understanding a lot of other things which puzzled me (I cannot read mathematical formulas). Regarding the lag: I understand that a decrease in radiative imbalance from TSI is countered by a raising GHG-forcing. The point of the more serious sceptics is that they don't deny GHG-forcings but believe that it is overestimated and GHG is only a lagged "top-up" to (also lagged) TSI-forcings. So, we have two temperature lags to account for: TSI-lag, and a top-up CO2 lag. Could it be that TSI had a slow but constant increase over the last 150 years, and rising GHG-levels continue the resulting upward trend of global temperature for a little while before the imbalance from dropping TSI causes global temperature to finally drop? This would result in a long term curve similar to those seen in the arctic ice cores. If that was true, then we should see that, despite still raising CO2-levels for the next centuries, the global temperature should nevertheless drop after, say, another 50-100 years: As I understand from the ice cores, CO2 was still raising about 800 years while temperature was already dropping, but the known effects of CO2 implies that TSI must have been dopping x years before the temperature actually dropped. (I don't know if I explained that clear enough) So far the theory; but I think I also read that the radiative forcing of CO2 alone is about 3,4W/m2 (compared to ~ +0,25W/m2 TSI since 1700)? I also understand that rising CO2levels are large part antropomorphic. However, I am not sure if these factors would contradict said theory or just result in a longer raise of CO2 and temperature before finally temperature has to follow the downwards trend from a long term weaker TSI (which I am not sure we can assume after just 50 years of exact measuring and another 150 years historical approximations). (Another argument and excurs: We have had huge spikes of CO2 in early earth history, x thousands of ppm, and it is said it was "countered" by a very much weaker TSI at those times. But we don't know the exact relations; for example, if TSI at those times was a bit stronger than we believe, then CO2 necessarily must have had less effect than assumed.) Sorry, a lot of different thoughts, and I admit it is difficult to keep things apart.
  12. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the 2012 minimum of 3.4 is the daily extent minimum. The SEARCH predictions are of the average extent for the month of September. We won't know what that is until early October. It sticks out even more because of the word 'Actual' appended to the value. Can this be amended until the real figure comes in? As it happens, there was a late entry in this year's SEARCH predictions, which did consider the absolute (daily minimum). Late Summer Update
  13. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #38
    Scrap that last. I opened new tabs instead of refreshing, and found the comments, and this by way of explanation:
    Moderator Response: As a general note, comment numbering is off on this thread due to Mr. Keyes opting to recuse himself from all participation in this venue.
  14. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #38
    Sorry to treat this like an open thread, but I was wondering if anyone else was having trouble seeing the comments on threads at Lewandowsky's "Shaping Tomorrow's World"? All I see are the original posts, with the page numbers below but no comments.
  15. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Thanks Bob and DB. My experience of mirages is average, but I do not recall one in which the image was displaced laterally to any degree. I have only experienced them when the false image was directly above or below its true position. In the Inuit movie, elders say that the sun is setting in a different lateral position from where it used to occur, but sunrise is normal. I am having trouble conjouring up a scenario in which a lateral-shifting refractive illusion exists in just the same manner day after day, which would mean the atmospheric condition causing it is exactly the same day after day and, at the same time, did not occur 'in the old days'. That is not what I have seen, but it could be possible and I am just curious as to whether a lateral displacement of an image is possible, or is a reasonable explanation for what the elders are seeing.
  16. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Doug H: The upside-down mirage effect (there is, I think, a name for it, which I can't remember at the moment) is more common in the morning, after a long, cold night leads to strong inversions. It can, however, also be caused by something like an ice flow (cold) in warmer water. I have seen it most pronounced in very flat, but not perfectly flat, terrain, where a slight hollow with no air drainage leads to a pocket of cold air: you see the effect looking across the pocket of cold air. Depending on weather, you could get the right conditions at sunset - just less likely. It is most pronounced with the sun on the horizon: think of refraction when looking at a stick in the water: you don't get refraction if you are looking straight down through the water - only when you look on an angle. When the sun is high in the sky, the sun's rays pass perpendicular to the plane of constant density (like the water-air surface in the stick example), so refraction doesn't happen.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fata Morgana?
  17. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    I fear Dr X will not be difficult to unmask, and retribution will be swift in coming. The Government of Canada Harper Government is not, insofar as I have followed its relations with the civil service, known for tact or valour. The stereotype in politics is that one becomes more conservative as one ages and has children. As I have grown older - and especially since the birth of my son just over a year ago - I have become increasingly intolerant of the policy promulgated by Canadian conservative parties. I wonder if that is because I am going against the stereotype, or because the Conservatives are. I fear it is the latter case.
  18. Sea level is not rising
    Ahhhhhh. I think you are correct there: the myth Monckton promulgates in the 'Monckton Myths page' is different than the myth he promulgates at the top of this article (surely a Monckton vs Monckton moment if ever there was one). However, your point stands: when Monckton claims sea level isn't rising, this is the article to go to. When he claims, as per myth #1 on the Monctkon myth page, that sea level rise is not accelerating, surely there is another, better rebuttal to use. This one might do.
  19. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Elizabeth May's newspaper article lists a sorry litany of science avoidance by the Harper government. Is shooting the messenger a valid part of prudent governance today? It used to be the action of a fundamentalist religiosity and enlightened Western governments were supposed to be above such stupidity, but now the inmates seem to be running the Canadian asylum. No doubt such awesome leadership is soon to be coming to a conservative government near you.
  20. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Thanks for the clarification, Bob. Would the effects of changed refraction include sunrise position being normal, but sunset being apparently shifted? This was mentioned in the movie linked by David @ 12 above. I intuitively thought the effect would be consistent at all times of the day, if it was pollution related. I suppose the heat of the day could cause the air to warm enough to change its refractive properties and cause sunset only to shift, but I am curious about the apparent difference in effect. Nevertheless, whether the sunset position and star locations have changed or not, the effects of melting up there are pretty dramatic. Interesting that a couple of speakers in the movie think the polar bear population is increasing, whereas environmental scientists are telling us the population is in decline. I suspect the lack of sea ice is concentrating the remaining population on the land, where there is likely to be more interaction with people, but that is a totally unqualified guess (I am not a scientist). It is tough on the Inuit to be the canary in the mine for the rest of us. My heart goes out to them.
  21. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Doug H: Under standard atmospheric conditions, when the sun is on the horizon there is about a 0.5 degree shift in apparent position due to atmospheric refraction. This is due to the changing density between the surface (more dens)and the upper atmosphere (less dense), and is well-known. The refraction follows the curve of the earth, so that the sun appears slightly higher than it really is. The amount of refraction does depend on atmospheric conditions. The most obvious example is the mirage: over a hot surface, light follows a curved path (opposite to the earth's curvature), so that when looking at what should be the ground in the distance you actually see sky. The heated air at the surface is much less dense than that above (opposite to normal), Our brains interpret this as a reflection, making us think the surface is covered by water forming a reflecting surface. Less common (for most people) is the opposite of a mirage: a very cold layer at the surface (inversion) refracts light the other way (light path follows the curvature of the earth), and it is possible to see things that are supposed to be below the horizon out of site. Think of it as normal vertical density changes on steroids. I have personally seen the following, under these cold inversion conditions: a) short buildings or trees in the distance, looking like Manhattan sky scrapers or huge trees. The vertical exaggeration can be quite spectacular. b) two sunrises - one early, because of the refracting layer making the sun visible several minutes before it officially rises, followed by a second when the sun rises normally above the shallow refracting layer. This is really neat to watch: the sun rises, then just kind of disappears, then reappears higher in the sky (still very close to the horizon) and continues to rise normally. Several early arctic explorers were fooled by a), thinking that they saw towering mountain coasts in the distance when it was really probably just some ice floes on the horizon that were expanded upwards due to the refraction. No need for further research - well-known for about a century.
  22. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    "Replacing evidence based policy making with policy based evidence making." How beautifully said! That one is going into my lexicon. Dr X is worried about loss of funding. So much for the world government, green conspiracy and its umpteen gazillion mega-bucks whose origin nobody can explain. Maybe the scientists actually have a case!
  23. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    Peter Lang. You mention the issue of uncertainty. Having the ice cap melt faster than climate models have predicted is surely a cause for concern when you consider the other implications of the same models?
  24. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    David @ 12, I am not convinced about the apparent position of the sun and stars being affected by temperature inversions, because it seems to make no sense at first blush. Perhaps this is a field for further research by scientists. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, Inuit elders saying this has happened have no obvious agenda that would be advanced by reporting the matter incorrectly. The warming and subsequent melt are more easily accepted, as they conform with what science expects. Writing off all the elders testimony just because it is hard to accept everything they say, without scientific backing, would be very imprudent. I predict, therefore, that this will be one of the reactions by those well-balanced folks that inhabit WUWT etc.
  25. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    One thing that Inuit communities all over the North believe is that the sun and the stars have changed their position in the sky. Many scientists discouraged them from bringing the attention of the outside world to this observation because, as NASA explained to the makers of the movie Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change, it was impossible. This has been the attitude of many scientists to Inuit knowledge. But NASA was wrong. Pollution has altered the atmosphere in the Arctic creating inversions in the North which makes it look to observers on the ground that the sun and the stars have changed their position. Toronto Globe and Mail article on the subject is here. The Inuit might tell us some other things, like we should not destroy the stability of the climate system, but I suppose what we're saying collectively by our inaction is that's another thing we think is impossible.
  26. Sea level is not rising
    Composer99: thanks for the very useful reply. However for clarification: my citations are copied directly from the table on the front page of SkS 'Monckton Myths', hence my comment about these seeming muddled. Could I suggest a clarification?
  27. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    Looks like some goalpost shifting is underway. It's the Antarctic that 'skeptics' have moved their attention too.
  28. Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
    I feel it's my duty to point out that Tamino has a pretty good dressing-down of Dave Burton's sea level "analysis" over at Open Mind.
  29. Climate time lag
    Falkenherz, In Wang 2005 they are reporting the solar constant S, which will be the flux of energy received by a flat disk facing the sun. However as the earth is a sphere, one will need to adjust this in order to make proper comparison with black body radiation and greenhouse gas forcing in simple climate models. For the earth with radius R, the rate of energy intercepted by the earth is given by S*π*R^2 (in Watts). In simple conceptual climate models this is assumed to be evenly distributed on the earth which has a surface area of 4*π*R^2, and thus the solar irradiance is in fact: S*π*R^2/4*π*R^2 = S/4 The solar constant S is about 1366W/m^2, which translates to about 341W/m^2 in the context of radiative balance for the earth. In addition the change in solar forcing is only 1/4 of the change in solar constant. In figure 15 of Wang et al. 2005, the bottom curves is the estimation from Lean 2000, whereas the Wang et al. approach gave the top two curves, which has an increase of less than 1 W/m^2 for S. Diving this by 4 gives an increase of at most 0.25 W/m^2 in solar forcing. THe 0.17W/m^2 figure quoted in this article is likely based on the thick solid curve in fig 15 of Want et al. 2005. Regarding the lag: I think the point is that if the current warming is solely a response to the increase in solar irradiance prior to 1950, then we should've seen a decrease in radiative imbalance over a period of 25-50 years, but radiative imbalance is in fact increasing (according to Hansen 2005 for example).
  30. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    LarryM@10: perhaps we ought to start a fund? Someone who may have contact with Ms. Baikie could ask if she'd like to take a trip to DC/Canberra and speak to the folks there. If so, I'd chip in for it.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed spelling.
  31. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Thanks very much for this article on the human side and the immediacy of climate change impacts. Periodically the U.S. Congress holds climate-change-related hearings that often feature fake-skeptic speakers. It would be great if they could occasionally hear from directly impacted persons who have the eloquence of Ms. Baikie.
  32. Climate time lag
    On the time lag... I don't understand two things here from the article: First, the TSI increase is said to be only "between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007) since the Maunder Minimum". In the essay from Wang 2005 , I found this graph in figure 15, where you have the TSI from three studies compared, and you can eyeball an increase from 1 W/m2 to 2,5 W/m2 from the different curves. Second, it is said that "Hansen 2005 estimates the climate lag time is between 25 to 50 years", and then "climate reached radiative equilibrium around the late 80's (give or take a decade)". If I count from 1960 onwards and assume 50 years, there could be a lagged warming until 2010 (which of course does not exclude additional warming by GHG).
  33. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Bernard J@8: took the words right out of my mouth. Well-said.
  34. Sea level is not rising
    Antwerpenaar: If only you were correct. The summary of the myth is ambiguous but when combined with the graphs that are part of the SPPI document I think the meaning is clear. At any rate, I suspect you have inadverently mis-paraphrased the myth statement, which cites Monckton as claiming:
    Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data. [Emphasis mine.]
    When combined with the SPPI graphs, it is IMO clear that Monckton is claiming sea levels are not rising at all. I assume you have cited an actual quote by Monckton as well (in fact, it would not surprise me if it was from the same document that this rebuttal cites), which is probably par for the course from Monckton.
  35. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Sadly, in the scheme of Western social response to the climate damage our culture has wrought, people such as the Inuit will simply be regarded as a bit of collateral damage in our progress to... somewhere. My heart breaks for Caitlyn's people, and their melting world.
  36. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    woops..I meant to state "Decreasing our individual carbon footprint."
  37. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Falkenherz, the NASA study (Willson et al. (2003)) found that a slight trend (0.5%) was beginning to occur in the valleys of the 11-year cycle. As they say, "Although the inferred [total] increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more." Not also that the study is ten years old. It doesn't take a precise analysis to tell that the most recent valley does not support the proposed trend.
  38. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    Peter Lang@18: Read this... ..the ask the question again, "why the concern about arctic Ice retreat?" Decreasing our carbon footprint *will demonstrably* be a good first, if tiny step: all need to do as much as they are capable of doing. The biggest bugaboo will be getting governments in line with that thought, and passing stricter controls on carbon, such as the cap and dividend scheme. If we *all* focus on that, and NOW, there is some chance to avoid a really bad outcome. BAU, and the game's up. It's really quite that simple.
  39. Climate time lag
    Side Note: PETM warming is usually presented in simple form as 6C over 20k years or 5C over 12k years. If we get 3C from 1850 to 2150, we'll be warming at 24 times the latter PETM rate.
  40. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    philipm, I'm affraid Peter@18 may be incensitive to the medical emergency analogy. I know deniers who even in the wake of such emergency (hart attack) ignore any wisdom and seek help with e.g. homeopathy. Peter's complete misunderstanding of uncertainty (or denial of the meaning of uncertainty), as indicated by his bold text, suggests that he may also misunderstand/deny the graph from Holland 2006. So maybe this newer article from the same site debunking the true intentions of those who (like Peter) want to delay the policy response, will open his eyes. But, back to the topic, the article in question makes big claim that fossil fuel companies do go with mainstream science & predict the arctic ice is going to melt soon when it works to their advantage but there is no citation to back up such claim. I'm interested if the proof of such claim exists, or if the claim is unverified rumours, giving deniers an argument that this article is "another conspiracy theory by warmists"...
  41. Climate time lag
    My understanding from hearing paleo talks is that rapid species radiation following a severe event is pretty common. A proposed model is that in normal times, the competition for resources means that most mutations are unsuccessful. After the stress is removed and many niches are depopulated, then all sorts of mutations manage to survive because the pressure for resources is reduced, greatly increasing the scope for speciation.
  42. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    Peter @ 18: possibly a troll but let's give you a pointer: if you have a heart attack you will accept any solution that's likely to be effective and worry about cost later. If you have sore toe, you may think twice about extensive surgery. I have a couple of posts on one of my blogs about this year’s massive drop: the minimum was about 3.4sq-km (e.g., this one, with a graph showing the minimum). If you update the graphs here and linked articles with the new minimum it looks pretty dramatic. Anyone remember the 2006 paper that was widely attacked for being “alarmist” for apparently predicting a near ice-free Arctic as early as 2040? We are well ahead of any trend modeled in that paper. Here's the reference for anyone who wants to compare it with the new reality as in this graph showing one of their runs vs. today: Marika M. Holland; Cecilia M. Bitz; Bruno Tremblay. Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice. Geophysical Research Letters. 2006, 33(23): 217. 25
  43. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Thanks for your article Caitlyn. The methods of Western science aren't the only ones that have provided humans with valid knowledge. There is a movie, Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change, which can be watched online from its homepage.
  44. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Thank you for your contribution. I hope that your people can work out a way to the future.
  45. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    bratisa #3, See this paper which Ari had in the research post a couple of weeks ago. It is a study of the French grape harvest commencement. French Grape Harvest
  46. Climate time lag
    thingadota, I also have read the Wiki article on PETM with great interest. However, keep in mind that the "sudden" shift of temperature probably still strechted over thousands of years. Plenty of time for adaptation for flora and fauna. Also, the continents and oceans had totally different positions, resulting in a global mediate climate, which for example allowed for forest vegetation up until the poles. Therefore, I think we cannot assume that a sudden shift in temperature combinded with a rise in CO2 is positive for evolution. Last point, "explosive" evolution seems always triggered when a high stress on life conditions forces lifeforms to adapt; which means, they die and only newborn with genetic mutations fitting to the new conditions have a chance for survival. From all this, I don't think that the PETM events really translate into a positive outlook for our current, soon about 9 billion, human lifeforms for the next centuries.
  47. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Wonderful post, a fresh and important view on climate change.
  48. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Don't want to sound cynical, but how much one does want to wager against my predictions that deniers either : - will question the authenticity of this testimony - will say that one shall not focus on the small picture, but rather on the global picture - will try and cheer her by saying there will be beautiful crop fields on Arctic soon (!) I voluntary left aside the "we have time to adapt" meme, since they already used IPCC AR4 (!) for that purpose by saying "models (!) show that sea ice will disappear only by 2070" And I omit of course the fact that they will be blind to the accumulation of testimonies like that around the world. For instance, in France, grape season arrives earlier than before - last year, I've seen call for workers from farmers during August (!!).
  49. Solar cycles cause global warming
    CBDunkerson, the website you linked has no mentioning on which TSI data they used or if this is just a statement out of "common knowledge". However, from another commentary tread here on the article on climate time lag, there was a link to a NASA study, which seems to result in still increasing TSI. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html I don't know if that really makes a difference, but I am still trying to learn more about TSI. As of now, I am still with the three TSI curves from three different studies as shown in figure 15 of Wang 2005; also, see my comments above.
  50. It's not us
    I wrote to Prof Essenhigh a couple of years back when his paper came out. Not having received a response since, I thought I'd write an open letter to him: Open letter to Prof Essenhigh Brilliant that there's a peer review response now (Skeptical Science's Dikran Marsupial's response)

Prev  1055  1056  1057  1058  1059  1060  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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