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  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  Next

Comments 53651 to 53700:

  1. Antarctica is gaining ice
    John Hartz - Watts (at the hometown of denial) has already commented on this paper, dismissing it with "Oh wait, it's modeling, never mind." Golledge et al 2012 actually looks to be a very interesting paper - considering how fast moving peripheral glaciers in Antarctica may respond to warming oceans, with the potential to drawdown ice over very large areas. Essentially, at how speeding up these fast glaciers may "unplug" the ice stores over significant portions of Antarctica, allowing it to drain into the oceans.
  2. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    I believe Tamino and Nevin have both addressed this topic, on their respective blogs, Composer99.
  3. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Bernard J@158: that was a *hoot!* Good way to start off my science-y day...tanks! Dale@159: I will accept your apology, such as it was, as an honest effort to mend the error of your previously *doltish* ways..which leads me to... doug_bostrom@160: Indeed, let s/he who is w/o sin, cast the first prosaical stone. I too, occasionally 'fall off the wagon' of polite discourse and revert to Advanced Trolliana. Dale, you seem to have at least begun to listen to, and analyze, the real conclusions and findings of the past 50+ years of climate research. I hope that you continue to add *positively* to the discussion, and perhaps your postings on WUWT will be eventually moderated there, due to your coming over to the Light Side..;) If you've not already done so, I *highly* recommend Spencer Weart's book, "The Discovery Of Global Warming." truly a seminal work in the lexicon of those who want to learn of the history.
  4. Antarctica is gaining ice
    NEWS ALERT: What’s happening to the Antarctic ice sheet doesn’t bode well for the future according to the latest research described in: Warming Oceans Will Start Massive Changes In Antarctic Ice Sheet , by Nathan, PlanetSave, Sep 20, 2012 It will be interesting to see how the results of this new research is spun in Deniersville.
  5. Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for the year and the satellite record
    @70rn #3: Link fixed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
  6. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Tamino has another look at Antarctic sea ice based on 2012 data: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/
  7. Dikran Marsupial at 19:17 PM on 21 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntington1 wrote: "Dikran Marsupial, but adaptation to high altitudes does provide a perfect illustration of higher internal Co2 to O2 ratios." You are missing the point. How do you know that the effect is due to the difference in CO2 to O2 ratio rather than to other changes in body chemistry due to lower atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen availability. How do you know that the same effect will also be seen at sea level pressure with the concentration of O2 to which we are evolutionarily adapted? Now I suspect that if this were the case, then competent scientists would have performed the experiment to find out (e.g. monitor glucose metabolism in a sealed environment in lab conditions where all other factors can be controlled). The fact that you can't supply a single study where this has been done suggests to me that the scientists who work on this don't suspect that mechanism has a significant effect. So please answer this question directly and unambiguously: Is there anyone other than yourself that is promoting this hypothesis, yes or no?
  8. It's not bad
    one more thing AH1 (@313) is off by a factor of ten regarding harmful CO2 levels: "In summary, OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% CO2 (5,000 ppm) averaged over a 40 hour week, 0.3% (3,000 ppm) average for a short-term (15 minute) exposure [...], and 4% (40,000 ppm) as the maximum instantaneous limit considered immediately dangerous to life and health. All three of these exposure limit conditions must be satisfied, always and together." available here
  9. Philippe Chantreau at 18:39 PM on 21 September 2012
    It's not bad
    Last detail: "incidental cause" above should be "incidental consequence."
  10. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Has anybody found more details on the source of the TSI data in the graph of the Washington Times, which is named "University of California-Berkeley Earth-Surface Temperature Project"?
  11. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    I don't have anything to add regarding the thorough treatment of misreporting of the NewsHour on climate change, but it should be remarked that its general reputation for fairness, intrepid investigativeness, and veracity should be challenged: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=37 http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/newshour/
  12. Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for the year and the satellite record
    The link to the NSIDC's Arctic sea ice News and Analysis website in the body of the text (under the final Serreze quote) seems to 404. I think there's something wrong with the URL.
  13. Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for the year and the satellite record
    That is a fantastic photograph. Nice pick.
  14. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Hey, it's possible to improve. I was chastised and edited several times at RealClimate in times gone by; some of the stuff I wrote there I now feel a bit squeamish over. Takes years to get over bad habits. I still fall off the wagon now and again.
  15. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    John @157 (and DB): Just want to point out, I said "last couple of months". February is not, the "last couple of months". In fact, it's 7 months ago. Also, I will refer people to a recent SkS thread where I admitted my previous prose was not constructive and that I recognised that and wanted to attempt to change. I believe in the "last couple of months" my change of prose has been much more civil.
    Moderator Response: [JH] Thanks for the clarification. I will consider the above comment to be an apology. Other SkS authors may or may not consider it to be such.
  16. Philippe Chantreau at 15:03 PM on 21 September 2012
    It's not bad
    And mods, feel free to snip whatever content above you find inflammatory, as the substance will be unchanged.
  17. Philippe Chantreau at 14:57 PM on 21 September 2012
    It's not bad
    How weak of me to be suckered in to this again. For my defense, I have to say that AH1's stuff is really funny in a way. For the sake of the sincere reader examining this thread, here is some more: AH1 gives every indication that he searches the web with the purpose of finding every little bit that could be used to say "CO2 is good for us." In the course of doing so he finds stuff that he does not really understand and makes bold assertions that he later amends by trying to imply that he meant something different. We had this on post#250: "neither aerobic nor anaerobic bacteria can survive without Co2 highlights this fact." With a link to paper that does not exactly say what AH1 says it says. From the abstract: "the observation that relatively low concentrations of CO2 were adequate for satisfactory growth of certain anaerobes was of particular interest." Walker and Winslow showed as early as 1932 the ability of E.Coli to grow in the absence of CO2 on a medium more complex than the very basic one. That's obviously not the kind of depth where AH1 will go. Whatever. Then we get this: "High altitudes provide a real life example of a population that breathes a higher Co2 to O2 ratio", in the same post. When corrected on this, AH1 amended himself by saying that it was a "mis-type", and what he meant was that people living at high altitude have a higher "internal" CO2 to O2 ratio. I had to introduce the concepts of PaCO2 and PaO2, which are very familiar to those of us who really work with this and really save the lives of people in respiratory failure. He showed no evidence of that supposed imbalance. Instead he cites this article: http://jap.physiology.org/content/16/3/431 The article says nothing at all about PaCO2 to PaO2 ratio but only reinforces the well known higher ability of high altitude residents to transport and use oxygen: "The higher O2 consumption per kilogram of FFM, C, or S in the high-altitude resident seems to be one of the many mechanisms developed by the body in its process of adaptation to the low O2 tension." I will add that, from a purely physiological point of view, CO2 elimination should be easier at high altitude. The body processes are unchanged and the PaCO2 resulting from metabolism remains about the same, but the absolute pressure of CO2 in the ambient air is much lower at high altitude, thereby facilitating CO2 elimination in the lungs. The published litterature suggests that high altitude dwellers are in fact in a steady state normal acid-base balance adapted to the lower pressure of CO2, exactly as one should expect from regulatory mechanisms: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P(1)MC3068777/ I note that this paper represents a change from the previous dominant idea, which was one of chronic alkalosis. I showed a study looking at Sherpas that found a slightly higher PaCO2 than other people. AH! AH1 jumped on it with the belief that it proved his point but he missed that part: "(1) respiratory alkalosis was a common finding both in Caucasians and Sherpas." He also seemed to have missed this part: "Apparently a more efficient adaptation to hypoxia allows Sherpas to limit alkalosis through a lower ventilatory drive and to maintain SaO2 at the same PaO2 by decreasing the [2,3-DPG]/[Hb] ratio." Sherpas limit alkalosis by a more efficient response to hypoxia but still experience it. I'll note that Sherpas seem to be unique in this ability; that points to a genetic difference that has not surfaced in other people living at high altitude like those in the Andes. The point is: there is no PaCO2 to PaO2 imbalance in high altitude dwellers. Alkalosis is the initial response and an incidental cause of the reaction to hypoxia. Balance is restored with aclimation. Alkalosis is seen in higher altitude excursions even in highly adapted dwellers. The alkalosis is brought by responses to hypoxia, not hypercapnia. AH1 tries to wiggle out of his gross error on altitude sickness by trying to imply that the sickness is due to alkalosis as an overreaction to hypercapnia and that is what would happen to people exposed to suddenly increased high levels of CO2 at normal pressure. Total nonsense. If one was suddenly exposed to high levels of CO2 at normal pressure, ventilation would increase in order to restore normal PaCO2, then would stabilize as that goal would be reached and alkalosis would not develop. In altitude sickness, hyperventilation persists despite alkalosis because of hypoxemia, leading to further alkalosis. The vascular changes associated with low Co2 and low O2 are currently believed to be the most likley causes of vessel permeability leading to pulmonary edema and cerebral edema. AH1 made an argument about people's death rates at high altitude. I took the bait and looked at life expectancy, which of course did not support his argument. Then he went on to remind us of the distinction in terms and listed all sorts of factors that are more likely to affect mortality rates than life expectancy. Right. Makes sense. It is difficult to devise a good metric for population health. Despite controversy, according to numerous demographics textbooks and the E.U. demographics department, one of the best, if not the best, indicators of population health is the expected number of years without disability or disease: healthy life expectancy. Its detractors have yet to come up with a better one. Let's see how that pans out. This paper has plenty of details, methods, etc, and nifty graphics on healthy life expectancy: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper38.pdf No evidence of special benefit to high altitude locales. Easier to look at: healthy life expectancy ranking http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html Conclusion: AH1 makes all sorts of claims for which he has no evidence, cites papers as evidence of assertions of his that the papers in fact do not support, misunderstands his own cites and that of others, selects quotes in his and others' citations, makes sweeping statements not supported by any evidence existing out there, adjusts his language when he's caught spewing nonsense. Impressive. This time I'm really done. I'd advise all to resist temptation better than me and NFTT.
  18. It's not bad
    AHuntington1, I'll make it easy for you. 1. My statement is that your statement about mitochondrial respiration is irrelevant, because the negative impacts of temperature and water availability will vastly outweigh any possible positive influence on mitochondrial respiration. 2. There is no actual evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 will result in improved health for any fauna through improved mitochondrial respiration. If you are in opposition to either of these statements, you are asked to supply specific references that clearly support your position. You are also asked to paste in the quotes of any segments from the conclusions which support your position (simply providing links to papers and claiming that they support your position will not be adequate, because it leaves you with too much latitude to simply fudge it).
  19. It's not bad
    Oh yea, I'm sure you took all the other potential factors into account as well (such as rates of smoking, drinking, self-flaggelation, empty calorie consumption, intake levels of and quality of fat, average caloric intake, STDs, the fact that many countries vary wildly in internal altitude etc.)
    Oh, the irony...
  20. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale at #13:
    I will admit though, that I found it quite amusing how Jo Nova reported it. "Record minimum Great Southern Ocean extent". You have to admit, that's 'headline brilliance'. Hehehe.
    It's merely eflected brilliance. Codling is slavishly emulating the prior work of real, actual, genuine brilliance.
  21. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    @Moderator: Given that Dale characterized all SkS suthors as "dolts" in February on WUWT and has not subsequently aplogized to us for doing so, can he banned from further posting on SkS?
  22. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    What null hypothesis, fretslider? Can you provide one so that we may continue this discussion in more concrete detail? Take the veil off your comments if you're interested in progress. Get down to brass tacks.
  23. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Between the (IMO highly disingenuous) potshots at NOAA, the tiresome reference to Galileo, and rhetoric such as:
    Have you forgotten the most basic principle of science, falsifying the null hypothesis.
    I must say fretslider appears to be trying to frame the discussion on this thread in a manner better suited to climate pseudoskepticism, a framing which I for one categorically reject. The attempt to sidestep the massive body of physics, paleoclimate reconstruction, empirical observation, and experimental support undergirding the mainstream understanding of Earth climate (and supporting the consensus position on climate change) with reference to poorly-defined (at the immediate point of use), much-abused concepts from the philosophy or practice of science (as a process) is a behaviour which I personally find infuriating (as compared to conspiracy-mongering, which is amusing). It is IMO exactly this sort of behaviour that fretslider is engaging in with this sort of nonsense (which also IMO happens to be a personal attack - by oh-so-careful insinuation - against DSL, at least if DSL is a practicing scientist). Bluntly put, the four pillars supporting consensus climate science - theory, paleoclimate, experiment, observations - are of such size and robustness that they handily falsify any would-be "null hypothesis" which attempts to eliminate or minimize the human element in the modern climate change we find ourselves in - a change, I might add, which is occuring at breack-neck pace (however slowly it might be perceived). Many self-styled skeptics have been asked to pony up the evidence to support their positions and have fallen short (or fallen silent). So I appeal to fretslider to dispense with the snide innuendo and empty philosophy and get down to providing evidence.
  24. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    Pardon my confusion, AHuntington. I was responding to this claim of yours @ 47: "From an ecological perspective, desertification is almost strictly a land management problem." and then especially this: "DSL, if you believe that human emissions of fossil fuels, and human errors such as overgrazing, deforestation, etc are causing desertification, you believe that all desertification is anthropogenic. Isn't this correct? What aspects of desertification are not anthropogenic?" and now you give me this: "I agree completely, and add that since humans have existed on earth, we have become a factor that can either rapidly intensify natural desertification and ecosystem breakdown, or promote biodiversity, and ecosystem growth." which I agree with. The second quote suggests that you were not aware of any natural mechanisms for desertification. I'm suggesting that you be a little more precise in your presentation. Your first quote could be excused because you did say "anthropogenic desertification" in the preceding paragraph. The second quote is an inexcusable non sequitur: it does not follow that if I believe the enhanced greenhouse effect can cause desertification that I then must believe that all desertification is human caused.
  25. Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for the year and the satellite record
    Jeff Masters Wunderblog for September 20 has an excellent discussion of Antarctic/Arctic temperatures and sea ice. Cross posted at the PBS "Balance.." thread as well.
  26. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Jeff Masters Wunderblog for September 20 has an excellent discussion of Antarctic/Arctic temperatures and sea ice.
  27. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Please note that discussion of moderation detracts from the OP of this thread. Further comments about moderation will be deleted, as will comments pertaining to Antarctic sea ice.
  28. It's not bad
    doug_bostrom, um, would you please be a little more specific? Again, I have no idea what you are referring to (nor should I be expected to read your mind). thanks, Sphaerica, (-snip-). (-snip-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped. Please ensure all comments comply with the comments policy before posting further.
  29. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    fretslider @ 145: Don't you worry, I read the journals. I'm well aware of what is out there. Oh, I haven't been moderated in quite a while. Perhaps this one will be the one that gets me in trouble. If so, I'll understand why. Not supposed to post links without explaining why. (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] You surmise correctly; inflammatory snipped.
  30. It's not bad
    AHuntington1, 1) You have not supplied a single citation which proves your point. 2) It is a "strawman" only because you refuse to address the point. A positive which is outweighed by the negatives is of no value. It is a simple reality. The fact that you want to ignore that reality does not make it a strawman, it makes it an argument you want to avoid because it's one you can't win. Let me state it more clearly, then: Your point that CO2 will provide the benefit of improving mitochondrial respiration, true or false, is irrelevant because it ignores the other greater, negative impacts associated with CO2.
  31. It's not bad
    Ahuntingdon1, you're declaring bankruptcy for your premise. You know that, right?
  32. It's not bad
    doug_bostrom, what attendant risks are you referring to? For humans to be negatively affected by atmospheric CO2 it would have to be over 4% (which is when deleterious effects begin occurring, if I remember correctly). Increasing atmospheric CO2 from 400 ppm to 10,000 ppm overnight would have negative health effects, but this is not very realistic. you asked, "What's the risk/benefit equation here? Be specific. For instance, for a person living in Dhaka, Bangladesh is the payoff worth it?" I have no idea- again it has to do with many other factors. Eg. if someone is starving or dehydrating increased CO2 would probably not be very effective.
  33. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    DSL, Hadley-type circulation did exist prior to anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing, this results in deserts with sporadic fluctuations in rainfall over time. As to why Hadley cells are widening, I was under the impression that you thought anthropogenic CO2 emissions were responsible. Thus the spreading of deserts or desertification would be anthropogenic. you said, " Desertification has occurred as large-scale circulation patterns have shifted in response to major forcings over the course of Earth's history. " I agree completely, and add that since humans have existed on earth, we have become a factor that can either rapidly intensify natural desertification and ecosystem breakdown, or promote biodiversity, and ecosystem growth. Sphaerica, you said, "The main cause of deserts is the Hadley Cells (and in a few special cases altitude). This is readily apparent by noting that the latitudes at which deserts occur are the same (above and below the equator) and is readily explained by the mechanics of the Hadley Cells." 1. I never said that the Hadley cells weren't an important factor. They are not the only factor however, this is apparent when looking at this graph: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002-193/fig5.gif Notice the northern arid regions that are experiencing desertification. 2. I feel like you are missing my argument, but because I have tried to explain myself (and you seemingly ignore my points) and you haven't posed any specific questions re the information I have presented, I will not elaborate further (unless you have specific questions or criticisms of the points I am making, of course). you said, "some of those arguments will be valid in some cases, but this does not change the fact that one major, unavoidable and already observed effect of global warming will be the expansion of the Hadley Cells, which will in turn necessarily and proportionally expand the existing deserts poleward." Well good, we are in complete agreement on this point.
  34. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    fretslider - consider for moment that it is proved that there is too many errors in the surface temperature record for it to be a reliable indicator of climate. Now how do you explain away the same signal, same trend in satellite MSU readings ( UAH, RSS). How about global glacial mass loss, or OHC? It is the consilience of independent measures that gives strength to the science (and confidence that the surface temperature record is useful).
  35. It's not bad
    Let's rinse and repeat, ahuntington1, since we've been through the citation mill again and still have not heard any specific claims useful for evaluating whether metabolic benefits of increased atmospheric C02 concentration might be worth attendant risks. Can you describe specifically how one's day might be so much better breathing an atmosphere with a higher C02 concentration? What would a subject notice? What would be the impact on mortality and susceptibility to adverse health experiences? What's the payoff outside of a test tube? If you can show in concrete terms how the population stands to benefit from increased C02 respiration, how likely are the specific benefits you've shown? Certain? Sometimes? Almost never? What's the risk/benefit equation here? Be specific. For instance, for a person living in Dhaka, Bangladesh is the payoff worth it?
  36. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale, did you post this at WUWT Is it true? It is possible to post something but forget the exact words later on.. Same question to the mods, did any of you edit Dale's comment here? Do any of you ever edit comments? I can say with certainty that none of my comments have ever been edited here.
    Moderator Response: [d_b] Edits to comments are rare and will be explicitly pointed out by moderators. Such edits might be performed if a comment is of high merit but the author slipped up and was gratuitously rude, that sort of thing, with an eye to cleaning up the comment so as to comport with moderation policy.

    The matter sounds as though it was a misunderstanding on the part of the "victim."
  37. It's not bad
    Sphaerica, you said, "You haven't established benefits that CO2 exhibits on organisms, you've merely claimed them." Well, way to ignore all of the evidence I have supplied so far. Please address my info, or stop posting. you also said, "Because I live in the real world, where imagined minor benefits do not outweigh proven major drawbacks." You are still attacking the same strawman... you say, "it is silly to make the presumption that increased CO2 will be beneficial to all species equally. In fact, try reading this article." Ok, well here's a new strawman, at least. Where did I ever say that elevated CO2 would be beneficial to all species equally? Where are you getting this from, if you don't mind me asking? Bottom line: consistently attacking strawmen and using red herrings does not make a point, nor even come close to proving me wrong. Implying that I do not live in the "real world" and that I am "imagining" things, drawing up bogus comparisons between CO2 and cyanide, using red herringss to distract from my point- these things are not acceptable in a scientific discussion and some of them border on ad hominem attacks. I will not engage in a discussion with you until you display the ability to carry on a respectable, scientific dialogue.
  38. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Roger & skywatcher: A minor bullet can still kill you. But compared to what could happen if Antarctica melts? As bad as the Arctic melt will be, it'll pale in comparison to the change that will occur if Antarctica melts. I will also now follow mods direction and drop the ice discussion. I apologise, I didn't notice the msg till pointed out just now. John @148: I've probably posted what, 5 or 6 times at WUWT in the last couple of months? And in I think two of them I mention this site. Neither inflammatory or derisively. Please get your facts together first.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] As Eric(skeptic) notes below, your very own words hoist thee by thine own petard.

    Dale says:

    February 9, 2012 at 1:19 am

    As typical of SkS I posted a comment (not insulting, but a summary of Mandia’s review to prove to the dolts I’d actually read the reviews) and it was deleted by John Cook. Asking if my deleted post breached comment policy also got deleted. I also notice my original comment was “amended”. I’d originally said:

    “The book looks to be more about Mann’s sob story than any real science.”

    It now reads:

    “But since the book looks to be more about Mann’s sob story than any real science, I wouldn’t have read it regardless.”

    SkS at its finest.

    Note that when inflammatory comments are needfully moderated at SkS, the offending text is hidden with html text rather than deleted. This makes it possible to later show what the offending, "excised", text actually was in the first place.

    In the interest of full transparency and to illustrate the impoverishment of Dale's position, here is the original comment that Dale made at SkS in its entirety, unedited:

    As a reader of both sites (SkS and WUWT) and having read the Amazon reviews, I must admit to being disappointed by both sides.

    It's obvious that both "sides" are going in and contaminating the waters. The negative reviews slamming Mann and the book in my opinion are the same as the positive reviews literally fawning over Mann like he's a deity.

    To be honest, if I were looking to buy this I would be ignoring all of the reviews as it's obvious posturing by both "sides". But since the book looks to be more about Mann's sob story than any real science, I wouldn't have read it regardless.

    Climate denial at its embodied finest.

    dolt

    A mental retard who is clueless not only about current events, but also has the IQ level of a rock.

    Nope. Nothing inflammatory nor derisive about that.

  39. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    One interesting takeaway from the upcoming Lars Larson segment will be the opportunity for the "what's that little horizontal bar next to the number" aka "negative and positive: never the twain shall meet" problem to be cleared up. If inability to deal with adding a positive to a negative is repeated on a nationally broadcast radio program that'll be a very sad thing. Listen for "110%," if you bother to listen at all.
  40. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale #147: You have some potential to make an interesting point here, but unfortunately with several misconceptions ... namely that you think melting of the Arctic sea ice cap is largely without serious consequences. But what's happening? You are changing a large shiny white and dry part of the Northern Hemisphere to be a large dark absorbant and humid part of the NH. That is extremely likely to significantly change weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, perhaps very substantially indeed. Meteorologically, the Arctic may become a region dominated by low pressure and rising air, rather than high pressure and descending air. As whether the observed changes in the jetstream will have an impact, in the words of Jennifer Francis, "How can it not?" Of course, you may think that fundamentally altering the weather patterns across the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the world's food is grown, is of little consequence, but I would disagree. And that's without considering the consequences for Greenland (likely enhanced melt and SLR). We need to be very concerned about the Arctic.
  41. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    OK Dale - maybe I misunderstood your point. And regarding 'minor bullets' vs 'thermonuclear weapons', I have to admit I'm not versed enough in the science to distinguish one from the other. But I'm skeptical that the Arctic melt rate is accurately described as a minor bullet. And of course to do so is to make that case that there is only minor global warming if/ when it goes the rest of the way and simply disappears...but as the moderator noted above, this Arctic vs Anarctic discussion is deviating from the topic of Dana1981's post - so I'm done with ice here.
  42. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    @ Dale #137: I find it rather cheeky of you to ask Sphaerica to summarize the findings of a paper for you because you are so busy. Perhaps if you were to cease bashing SkS on WUWT, you would have the time you need to do your own research. I suspect that you have a hidden agenda in posting comments on SkS.
  43. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Roger D: I'm not trying to push the sceptic msg that Antarctica "cancels things out". It doesn't, I know that, it just reacts differently. What I'm trying to point out is that the REAL global warming story is in the Southern Hemisphere. Due to geographic configuration, the SH is dampening GW presently, due to the oceans. But when it starts to change, it will change in a big way, and very strongly. For instance, if all Arctic ice melts what's it do? No sea level rise, some methane escapes and a little extra ocean heat content absorbed. If Antarctic all melts what's it do? Probably sharply uptick humidity and vapor content, raise sea levels massively and generally destroy life for billions of people. Which is more important? A minor bullet from the Arctic now, or the thermonuclear weapon being primed in the Antarctic? ANY change in the south is massively important.
  44. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    ["Ergo, sea ice loss in the Arctic does not prove global warming - or that it is anthropogenic."] Right - and right. Increasing temperatues in the Arctic prove, umm, that the Arctic is warming. On balance, more places on earth (i.e. the globe) are warming, including the antarctic. That proves global warming. My point was that "skeptics" just want their audience to think everyting just balances out so they will not ask "what do climate scientists think is causing the global warming?"...and see the bigger picture.
  45. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    fretslider @142 - There are several studies attributing Arctic sea ice loss to anthropogenic factors. Don't you worry, I read the journals. I'm well aware of what is out there.
  46. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Note that while we haven't discussed this year's barely maximum Antarctic sea ice extent (as other commenters have noted, tamino has), we have compared Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents and trends here. It's even got an animated GIF. fretslider @142 - There are several studies attributing Arctic sea ice loss to anthropogenic factors.
  47. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    ["And more ice does not neccessarily mean cooling just as less ice does not neccessarily mean warming. Sea ice growth in the antarctic does not falsify global warming or somehow balance out the problem."] Ergo, sea ice loss in the Arctic does not prove global warming - or that it is anthropogenic. According to your logic, of course.
    Moderator Response: Please follow the existing discussion of Antarctic versus Arctic ice loss/gain here: How does Arctic sea ice loss compare to Antarctic sea ice gain?
  48. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Let's see: NOAA is undertaking a validation of the surface temperature record, and that is an example of "thou shalt not question?" How does that follow?
  49. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    DSL Nice spin, however, not taken. The general tone is one of thou shalt not question, Galileo went down that path - under duress. Have you forgotten the most basic principle of science, falsifying the null hypothesis. (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped.
  50. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale @127, It's not about taking sea ice minimums or maximums "seriously". It is about those who disingenously imply that sea ice growth around the south pole means that the rapid loss of summer ice at the north pole is not of concern. But many "skeptic" blogs, articles, etc say or imply just that - an examle is a current WSJ piece by James Taylor. And more ice does not neccessarily mean cooling just as less ice does not neccessarily mean warming. Sea ice growth in the antarctic does not falsify global warming or somehow balance out the problem. Understanding the bigger picture is crucial to understanding what is really happening, and it is hard to justify the opinion that Watts and other "skeptics" want you to see it. So thanks to sks for for showing that bigger picture.

Prev  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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