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  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  Next

Comments 53751 to 53800:

  1. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    I'm very annoyed with SkS. You've been running a conspiracy and yet I have not been invited to partake. Harrumph. (Insert sarccy smiley about here.)
  2. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    I would have thought GC had passed algebra. Guess not.
  3. It's not bad
    No, it doesn't help anything. You refuse to specify the benefits you anticipate from additional C02 in the atmosphere.
  4. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    OK, I've been working on what I hope will turn out to be a useful instructional software package. I didn't know what to call it until skepticalscience provoked the latest Watts "melt-down". That inspired me to call it the "WattsBuster" package. ;) Basically, I built on the crude global-average temperature project that I had posted about here many moons ago -- I "duct-taped" an updated version of my global-temperature code together with gnuplot and the QGIS (Quantum Geographical Information System) app to produce a "pointy-clicky roll-your-own" global-temperature computation package. The package consists of a QGIS "client" plus a global temperature anomaly computation/display "server". To create the "client", I hacked at one of the QGIS plugins a bit to get it to extract the ID# of the station that was just clicked on and send it to the "server" side via a TCP socket connection. I then created a QGIS project file that when loaded into QGIS, creates a global map display overlain with clickable GHCN station locations. The server side (my simple global-anomaly code inside a TCP server-socket "wrapper" function) then launches a gnuplot session (via popen) that displays the raw and homogenized data of the station that was just clicked on. If you just click on a station on the QGIS map, the server app displays just the data for that station. If you hold down the control key while clicking on stations, the server app updates/displays global-average temperature anomalies based on the stations that were "ctrl-clicked" (i.e. each station that gets "clicked" on gets added to the average). The gnuplot display window shows results computed from raw and homogenized data, along with the offical NASA/GISS "meteorological stations" index for comparison. Below the global-average temperature plot in the gnuplot window is a plot of the number of the selected stations that actually reported data for any given year. So when the temperature estimates for the stations that you've selected deviate significantly from the NASA/GISS results for any given time-period, you can look to see how many (or how few) of your selected stations actually reported data for that time period. In my experimentation with this setup, I have found that by the time you've selected 30-40 stations (globally scattered) that report data for any given time period, the global-average results line up quite nicely with the NASA/GISS results. This holds true for both raw and homogenized data. It's really quite remarkable how few stations you need to produce global-average temperature results that line up nicely with NASA's. By the time you've selected a few dozen well-scattered stations, you will see that raw data, adjusted/homogenized data, rural data, urban data, etc. all produce similar results that line up amazingly well with the NASA results. I have found that the raw data results actually tend to match the NASA results a tad better than the adjusted data results do - go figure! I've tested the setup on Linux 32 bit, OSX 32/64 bit, and Windows-XP/Cygwin 32 bit systems (systems I had access to for testing). The stuff I've put together is useable, but it's definitely still in the rough "proof of concept" stage. It's definitely a bit of a project to get set up and running. Folks who have Linux boxen with all the trimmings will probably have the easiest time of it. It will be a bit more work for OSX and Windows systems. For OSX, you will need the gcc/g++ compiler package, a working X-server, and gnuplot (which I was able to compile from source-code very easily on a 6-year-old macbook). For Windows, you will need Cygwin/X (with the X-server, gcc/g++, and gnuplot packages). Cygwin/X includes gcc/g++ and gnuplot, but you have to make sure that those packages are selected by the Cygwin installer. QGIS is available at: www.qgis.org Gnuplot is available at: www.gnuplot.info Cygwin/X is available at: www.cygwin.com I've uploaded the whole ball of wax (including all the temperature data you need) to this easy-to-remember link: tinyurl.com/WattsBuster There's a README file in the package that explains (hopefully clearly) how to get everything up and running.
  5. It's not bad
    when I say overall, I mean including every other potential factor (eg. maybe the analysis would add points for increased rates of mitochondrial respiration and take points off for old people dying of heat stroke).
  6. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    It has been a while since I commented here
    'geoffchambers', is that you?
  7. It's not bad
    doug_bostrom, let me clarify my meaning here, I am not making predictions on net effects regarding the overall cost benefit analysis of anthropogenic Co2 emissions. I am making a claim on the specific effects that elevated Co2 has on the organism, which should be included in any cost benefit analysis. I am not claiming that anthropogenic Co2 emissions are either good or bad- overall. A missing factor in any cost benefit analysis can skew the result one way or the other. Does that help clear up the issue?
  8. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    Brilliant writing John. Am I the only one thinking there must be a book/movie deal in this?
  9. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    (-snip-). Can any of you explain that given Dana's attribution of 110% of climate change to CO2?
    Moderator Response: [DB] The endless complaining about moderation (snipped above) does you disservice and accomplishes the very thing you complain about: you force the moderation staff to intervene. Either find a different venue to complain in or cease with the complaints & offer up substantive comments that add to the discussion, not detract from it.
  10. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    John Hartz, well here is one piece of documentation implicating overgrazing (a complete land management issue) as a causative factor in desertification. http://www.academicjournals.org/ajb/PDF/pdf2011/17Oct/Saad%20et%20al.pdf There are many more- just google overgrazing and desertification if you wish to access them (or I will post more). Bernard J., Of course rumen-adapted bacteria primarily survive by living in the rumen of a grazer- I didn't mean to imply that they survive outside the animal for long.- lol I am talking about the bacterial carcasses, water, fiber, nitrogen etc. that the fecal matter and urine of massive herds of ruminants provide to decomposers on the drier soil surface- extending their lifespan a little further through the hot bacterial winter. Ruminants fertilize, chop grass, and till the earth's surface simultaneously. Lay out my non sequitur for me please, I am having trouble seeing it.
  11. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    Andy@4, That's a standard practice of most "skeptic"-criminals, including those who stole the East Anglia emails and later distorted Phil Jones' correspondence. All of that described with details in Mike Mann's book "Hockey Stick and Climate Wars": arguably one of the best documentary books on this subject.
  12. It's not bad
    Ahuntington1: I am not making predictions on net effects That's a remarkable typo. Reminds me of the epic crash of the ski jumper that was shown as part of the program intro for ABC Sports events. Just seemed to go on forever!
  13. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    I'm reminded to put in a plug for PICS. Those are good folks, they arranged a fine tour, got radio shows, etc. IF you ever get a chance to go, try to do, not just Vancouver and Victoria, but go to Prince George, at U of Northern British Columbia, about an hour's flight from Vancouver. They've done a great job on sustainability and they love to see outside speakers.
  14. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Bernard @102 Seen the video a few times now, and I agree. The responsible action is column A. However, the possibility of either those two columns occurring, is small. The probability of futures lies mostly in between those two scenarios presented in the video. Take column A. The possibility that humans are not impacting climate at all, is minuscule. Same as column B, the possibility that humans will completely destroy climate, is minuscule. Thus the weight of probability is in the middle somewhere. Thus single-focused action (or inaction) is not correct. It's some balance of middling action (in economic terms). With knowledge we can reduce the pool of possibilities and narrow in. Thus reducing the cost to human society whilst dealing with the problem. But throwing everything into one basket, is a bad investment. If everything goes into the basket, there's nothing supporting it.
  15. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    @AHuntington1 #51: You have conveniently ignored my request to provide documentation for your assertions. Personal opinion and sweeping generalizations have virtually no value in a discussion of scientific evidence and findings.
  16. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    Bacteria within arid environments (which are usually grasslands) primarily survive the dry season's "bacterial holocaust" by living in the rumen of a grazer.
    No, rumen-adapted bacteria primarily survive by living in the rumen of a grazer. Bacteria that live in arid environments have other adaptations to survive, including sporulation and simple dispersal by wind, water, and/or on fomites. Internal bacterial communities are remarkably resistant things, and don't much allow externally-adapted species to board the ark whenever the rains don't come. Apart from this, there is a gaping logical fallacy in your overall argument about climate change and land use. The form is:
    If A, then B. B, therefore A.
    I wonder if you realise what it is?
  17. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    If anyone sees any quotes mined from the stolen private forum, I would urge them to pay attention to the ellipses. In one quoted passage that I saw recently, there were eight ellipses. You can bet that the editing was done to remove context and qualifiers in the original and to try to frame the comment in the worst possible light.
  18. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    whoops...please excuse the grammar. i forgot the old adage, "post once, edit twice"..
  19. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale at #93. I'm also impressed by your comment. Kudos. Apply the same discrimination to the body of scientific evidence, and I might just have to 'friend' you on FaceSpace. Or MyBook. Or whatever. ;-)
  20. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    DSL, that is fascinating! This completely makes sense, as wetter regions can handle a high level of mismanagement (such as overgrazing) in comparison to drier regions with more sporadic temporal fluctuations in rainfall. As the planet warms regional rainfall patterns would change (horse latitudes begin drying), this makes the local environment have higher fluctuations in rainfall (and drier) and more susceptible to mismanagement (such as overgrazing) and subsequent desertification. For this reason anthropogenic desertification will always be faster in environments with higher seasonal fluctuation in rainfall over places with a less seasonal fluctuation in rainfall.
  21. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Further to Rob Honeycutt's comment at #56 regarding Dale's comment at #4:
    Well, not without taxing your own population into poverty...
    Dale might like to ponder the implications of The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See. And if, after watching the video, Dale still thinks that his fears trump Greg Craven's challenge, I would invite Dale to post a counter-analysis here actually refuting Craven's summary of the choices that we face.
  22. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    @John Cook: Nice article but you forgot to mention that all will be revealed on Dec 21 of this year.
  23. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    John Hartz, essentially, yes I do believe that the spread of the Sahara has been largely the result of mismanagement of land. Increasing rates of desertification across the globe are the result of the same mismanagement. When I say ecological perspective, I mean a perspective that takes into account the ability of bio-diverse ecosystems (or lack thereof) to influence local climate and desertification in general (water cycles, decomposition cycles, solar cycles, mineral cycles, carbon cycles). Ecological systems have evolved for millions of years in order to withstand and thrive in conditions with extreme variations in local rainfall over time. As humans learn to work with and exploit these natural systems, the "negative" aspects of more sporadic rain will be reduced and the positive aspects enhanced.
  24. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    AHuntington, are you aware of the relationship between the Hadley cells and desertification in the horse latitudes? Try Johanson & Fu (2009) for starters. From the abstract:
    Observations show that the Hadley cell has widened by about 2°–5° since 1979. This widening and the concomitant poleward displacement of the subtropical dry zones may be accompanied by large-scale drying near 30°N and 30°S. Such drying poses a risk to inhabitants of these regions who are accustomed to established rainfall patterns.
  25. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    Oh, when I say "arid environments" i am referring to environments with extremely sporadic, sometimes torrential rainfall contrasted with extreme drought. Not completely lacking in water but with extreme temporal variations in water level. This as opposed to a rainforest, which has (relatively) consistent temporal moisture content.
  26. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    What Watts doesn't know is that Dana gets a royalty fee from the scooter company everytime someone posts the picture on a blog. I sure would like to get on that gravy train. PS - There's also a virus embedded in the photo and Dana can activate as he sees fit.
  27. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    The stolen dump has been seen on the web by now then? It's been a while since I've been to SkS and now I wish I had been a little more regular lately.
    Response: [JC] The stolen SkS database has been online since March 2012 but there has been renewed interest since the release of Lewandowsky's paper finding a link between climate denial and conspiracy theorising - ironically in search for conspiracies in our private correspondance. Some bloggers have held off on republishing stolen correspondance for ethical reasons but have managed to overcome those pesky ethics more recently.
  28. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    @AHuntington1 #47: How about some references of peer-reviewed published science that support your currently unsubstantiated assertion that "desertification is almost strictly a land management problem." Also what exactly do you mean when you say "from an ecological perspective"? Finally, do you believe that the southward expansion of the Sahara desert is a "land management problem"?
  29. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    The state and variety of a given ecological system plays a huge role in desertification. In most arid environments there are essentially 2 seasons- wet and dry. Wet seasons in an arid environment often exhibit torrential downfalls. Dry seasons are usually characterized by extreme drought. It makes sense that increasing global temperatures would increase the landmass of "arid" regions and increase the sporadic nature of rainfall (and overall precipitation levels). Certain biological systems have evolved to cope with extreme variations in rainfall(notably huge herds of ruminants and deep-rooted perennial grasses characterize arid environments). Bacteria within arid environments (which are usually grasslands) primarily survive the dry season's "bacterial holocaust" by living in the rumen of a grazer. Similarly, deep rooted perennial grasses improve hydrological cycles by reducing erosion, increasing water permeation into the soil and acting as a storehouse of water during the dry bacterial winter. Large herds roaming the land effectively manage the grass; they "trim the lawn" so to speak, and also apply bacteria ridden fertilizer to the land, and their hooves "till" up the hard packed soil surface (which is common in arid regions) "planting" the seeds of native perennials and increasing the soil's permeability. Increasing the number of perennial grasses/square foot also help the solar cycle through increased photosynthesis which helps bacteria cycling(more sugar available to the immediate environment). My point is that land management is the primary factor driving current trends in desertification- not atmospheric Co2 levels. A slightly warmer world with increased precipitation and more arid land, could actually have amazing benefits, if land managers took steps to encourage the biological systems that evolved to cope with such harsh climates, and thrive within them. From an ecological perspective, desertification is almost strictly a land management problem. Proper planning would heavily negate the potential problems associated with higher levels of more sporadic, "extreme" rainfall.
  30. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    I think the denialists are in damage control mode with this year's Arctic sea ice extent shattering the previous record by over three quarters of a million square km. And they didn't appreciate Lewandowsky shining a light on their conspiratorial thinking. So they went into über conspiracy thinking and super attack mode, casting all ethical standards aside to troll through stolen private correspondence. Meanwhile back here in the real world, the SkS team will continue reporting on the goings on of the global climate, including that inconvenient and alarming Arctic sea ice record.
  31. It's not bad
    Doug_bostrom, If I did make such a concession, it was a typo. My claim is that elevating Co2 within a certain range increases kreb's cycle efficiency (metabolic rate), thru its antioxidant activity and its role in increasing the efficiency of oxygen distribution to the tissues via Bohr principle (as I have said many times).
  32. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    mandas @99 I agree. The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) has occasionally broadcast the views of "skeptics" for the sake of presenting a "balanced" view and my objections have been exactly the same as yours - and of course because the views expressed by the person interviewed (Lord Monckton) were so blatantly wrong yet went unchallenged. The upside of that interview was that it gave me, and more notably Dr Tim Lambert (UNSW), the opportunity of showing how wrong Monckton was, and is. While I do deplore public radio broadcasting unchallenged views on any subject which are wrong and unsupported by science, my particular criticism of PBS (and the ABC) is the failure to engage a well informed alert interviewer able (and willing) to quickly pick-up on the rubbish espoused by the person being interviewed.
  33. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Actually, I have absolutely no problem with PBS - or anyone else for that matter - interviewing Watts or any other 'sceptic'. What I do have a problem with is the reporters not doing their job and not asking the hard questions and taking 'sceptics' to task for their misrepresentations. When Watts remarked that Muller had not been peer reviewed, the reporter should have asked Watts if his work had been peer reviewed. When Watts raised the issue of UHI, the reporter should have asked him about adjustments etc. That would be the best way of dealing with people like Watts. Hold them up to the light so everyone can see just how lacking in substance they really are. While they hide out in their blogs, or only get interviewed on Faux News, they will not be exposed for the charlatans they are. PBS gets a mark for putting him on, but get marked down for not asking the proper questions.
  34. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    "...I haven't read the comments on his post about me, I'm pretty sure I can guess what they say." I think this clip sums up the comments, fairly well. Summation of WUWT comments about Dana and his electric scooter
  35. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale @93 - thanks. I wouldn't generalize about anyone in any given group based on the behavior of a single individual (unlike Watts, coincidentally). That being said, Watts does have the most traffic of any 'skeptic' site, and while I haven't read the comments on his post about me, I'm pretty sure I can guess what they say. That being said, the post kind of made my day. Watts tells me he's going to 'take the gloves off' and the best he can do is post a photo of me on an electric moped and illustrate that he doesn't understand how negative numbers work? Yikes.
  36. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Yeah John, I shouldn't say "the reason." After all, for most networks selling soap is job one. The "battered network syndrome" is just one of several reasons for cowering silence, I'm sure.
  37. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    @Dale #93: My repsect for you just went up a couple of notches. Civil discourse between two parties is always better than throwing hand grenades at each other.
  38. It's not bad
    Why should the metabolic benefits of Co2 in relation to animals/bacteria not be considered? What, with no actual claims attached? You've just said upthread that you make no conjectures on what might specifically happen in the way of metabolic benefits. How does one evaluate "it might be good?" W/regard to my "free land is good" argument vs. the "drowning land is bad" negative aspect, I'm sure you're aware of the sea level issue? Another thermal expansion problem, unfortunately, coupled w/ice loss.
  39. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    @doug_bostrom #90: With all due respect, you have ignored the 500 pound gorilla in the room -- the humongous amount of advertising revenues flowing to the media from the fossil fuel industry.
  40. It's not bad
    Honestly, the metabolic benefits of Co2 to plants already is considered here. Why should the metabolic benefits of Co2 in relation to animals/bacteria not be considered? This is the question you must answer. Or you could dispute the information I present.
  41. It's not bad
    doug_bostrom, you said, "emulating your level of justification for claiming that metabolic benefits of C02 should be considered w/regard to climate change--namely none--" This is ridiculous. Just saying that I have no justification, after I repeatedly provide it is willful ignorance (or just poor communication). What aspect of my argument is flawed? What are you talking about, specifically? If you can not be specific, you probably are dealing with an emotional attachment to a belief.
  42. It's not bad
    doug_bostrom, that is an interesting theory. Not to get too off topic but, I must ask, what do you mean by "For every km2 we get in handily expanded dry land we lose way more in freshly drowned land."? Would this be the result of increased evaporation and H2O in the atmosphere? Are you saying that total rainfall would increase on the planet during heating due to the greenhouse effect? (i vaguely remember reading something about Co2 causing the greenhouse effect which would cause increases in water vapor, which would wildly exasperate the greenhouse effect) Is this essentially the theory you refer to?
  43. It's not bad
    ...edit 284. should read "therapeutic hypercapnia" ...my bad
  44. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Watts rant on Dana is uncalled for. I may read his site (sometimes there's a really good article on science, but they are definitely drying up), but sometimes he makes it easy to be embarrassed for being a sceptic. *sigh* Dana, please don't take Watt's rant as indicative of what all sceptics are like. Some of us actually respect our fellow humans.
  45. It's not bad
    Well, emulating your level of justification for claiming that metabolic benefits of C02 should be considered w/regard to climate change--namely none-- then I claim we should consider the thermal expansion of the dry land on Earth in response to climate change as a possible benefit. Work it out; it's a surprising number. On the other hand, just as with speculation on how we might enjoy breathing more C02, there are downsides to all the thermally gifted "free land." For every km2 we get in handily expanded dry land we lose way more in freshly drowned land. Which leads to the further benefit of increased marine habitat, I suppose. Doubtless somebody's pushing that idea, too.
  46. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Advice to John and Dana: Don't let trolls post here. They will waste you and your readers' time, and drive you crazy, too, since evidence is something they prepare as if for a high school debate. At least in high school, the other side shut up after a while. These guys never do. Some of us have learned this the hard way.
  47. It's not bad
    *edit, post 284. "I don't know (nor have I claimed to know), but the beneficial aspects of higher atmospheric Co2 should at least be part of the cost-benefit analysis." should read, "I don't know (nor have I claimed to know), but the beneficial aspects which higher atmospheric Co2 would exhibit on mitochondrial respiration should at least be part of the cost-benefit analysis." -thanks
  48. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    ANTHONY WATTS: "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things ..." So who are "they", Mr Watts? Not a conspiratorial cabal, I trust. Heaven forfend.
  49. It's not bad
    doug_bostrom, you asked, "is it your assertion ahuntington1 that metabolic benefits of C02 are worth wholesale modification of Earth's atmosphere with attendant knock-on effects?" No, that is not my assertion. Where did you read that; can you quote me saying that? I am not making predictions on net effects. In fact, the more you make predictions on net, potential, future effects the higher propensity you have to be wrong. As to how increasing Co2 might help you in your daily life (whether through higher atmospheric levels or "therapeutic hypercabia") is up for you to decide for yourself, based on the available information and your specific health status. The same is true for Vitamin C, D, retinol and calcium. You asked, "What's the risk/benefit equation here, in other words? " I don't know (nor have I claimed to know), but the beneficial aspects of higher atmospheric Co2 should at least be part of the cost-benefit analysis.
  50. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    As to the mystery of why climate change is so nearly invisible on mainstream television, I suppose we're seeing the reason. For the person looking at viewer feedback there's no equation for success. Ordinarily this wouldn't be an issue but when folks are running anger machines bent on turning back the clock of knowledge the whole situation becomes chaotic. --Network runs piece on threats from climate change. --Network gets beat up by synthetic outrage from gullible people who've been coaxed back into the Dark Ages. --Network is traumatized. --Network attempts to show "other side." --Network is beat up by people attached to reality. --Network is traumatized. --Network decides to tiptoe away from topic entirely.

Prev  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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