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  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  1242  1243  Next

Comments 61751 to 61800:

  1. ‘Storm of the Century’ to become ‘Storm of the Decade’
    Adding to Bernard's comment - engineering design and costs are based on century extremes. They do not allow for changes to those extremes, until the event occurs (a disaster is the penalty). The key to the extreme-event consequence with AGW is the combination of speed and extent at which those extremes have, and will, change. It's basically the Achilles' Heel of the "adaptation" theory. If you need to understand why the century-rule won't be abandoned ... go talk to the cost engineer.
  2. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Kevin - yes my solar coefficient is probably a bit off. I agree the GCR-warming theory is pretty well dead at this point. Svensmark is far from the only researcher looking at this, and many other studies have found a very small if any GCR-cloud link. On top of that, as has been noted, GCR flux on Earth has been flat for the past 60 years, and was particularly high during some of the hottest years on record, when the hypothetical GCR effect should have been causing cooling. If anything it's a very small effect, and can't account for any of the warming over the past 60 years.
  3. Lindzen's London Illusions
    jzk @68 You could have warned me about the aweful music at the start of the second clip! Listening to the actual seminar (links @67), I can add to the comment @66. P13-14 uses graphs that stop in 1984 likely because as Lindzen says "No one's done this (analysis) in 20 years." Maybe he should have asked why nobody has. P35-36 He makes no mention of presenting a shuffled-up series of years. He perhaps mutters "decadal" as the final 4 are shown. There is no mention of winter trends or lack of trends, just "huge fluctuations." He says "And they're kinda random," (Ah ha, but is he referring to the fluctuations or the presented graphs?) However his main point is that there is physics at work here in the Arctic "...which is completely lost when you take annual mean temperatures." He is here entirely dismissive of any Arctic trend being anything to do with AGW, thus the throw-in 1922 report. I would add for jzk's benefit - the audience is never appraised that they are not being shown a time sequence of graphs while 'lack of summer trend' & an all-random fluctuating winter is proposed. That is plain sneeky. P15 was introduced with the words "But here's something that'll give you a little perspective on it." and after explaining the graph "Put in perspective of you regular experience." Perhaps most telling is a message from his 'take-away' from this section. "Say at least, so far, I mean if some day I see there are changes 20 times what I've seen so far, that would be certainly remarkable. But nothing so far looks that way." This refers to the global average temperature fluctuations so 20 times 0.5-0.7 deg C = 10 - 14 deg C!!!! Richard Lindzen - an alleged climatologist who doubts that anything short of 'Snowball Earth' or a 'Steam-Soaked Sphere' is worthy of remark.
  4. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    @Dale "GCR's are just one of a heap of forcings on climate." Nitpicky of me but I think you mean GCR's may be just one of a heap of forcings on climate. Since you acknowledge that Svensmark's theory is "just another unproven claim".
  5. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
    Actually, Trent1492, that's a link to an analysis from a couple of paid misinformers: Craig Idso and Keith Sherwood. Perhaps you could provide your own analysis of the Eldrett et al. 2007 article that I'm betting Idso and Sherwood grossly misread.
  6. New research from last week 10/2012
    @Composer99 Is it ever. I'm currently on a placement in Ottawa and the skating season on the Canal was abysmal this year. Lasted I believe around 5 weeks until it had to close during Winterlude
  7. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
    I got a new one that I have not seen before: The Tenacity of Greenland Ice.
  8. New research from last week 10/2012
    Someone is actually trying to make the case that double cropping causes an increase in temperature? Could it be that double cropping is suitable in places that have longer growing seasons, and hence higher daily temperatures? I would love to read this entire paper, but it seems only the abstract is available...
  9. Lindzen's London Illusions
    Sphaerica@69, My comment was that Lindzen made no claim about there being "no trend" in the Arctic. His claim was that summer temperatures are not changing, but winter temperatures are quite variable. What does that have to do with the point you are making?
  10. Lindzen's London Illusions
    68, jzk, You seem to have missed this point from the article above:
    ...many studies have examined this issue and found that there is a complex seasonality in the Arctic in how heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean throughout the year...
    I'm sure that at least one factor is the heat of fusion, the fact that no matter how warm the air in the Arctic might get, a lot of that summer energy is going to go into melting the ice instead of heating the atmosphere. This will naturally to some extent moderate summer temperatures. Lord help us when the ice melts soon enough that that cannot be the case.
  11. Lindzen's London Illusions
    MA Rodger@66, Going through each year of the Arctic daily mean temperatures seems to bolster Lindzen's point that the summer temperatures are not changing while there is great variability in the winter temperatures. I could find no mention of a trend in the Arctic other than the introductory sentence, so I am not sure what difference it makes in which order the graphs are presented in his talk. The discussion of the Arctic happens at about 20:00 in the second part of the talk. Maybe you could point to where he says that there is no trend?
  12. New research from last week 10/2012
    Given the importance of outdoor skating to Ottawa via the Rideau Canal skateway, the shortening of the Canadian skating season is definitely a big minus economically and culturally.
  13. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Robert & cynicus @38 & 39 Please read this sentence again: "it's all just a part of the general mix of forcings". GCR's are just one of a heap of forcings on climate. This article itself highlights another three, two of which bounce up and down too. GCR's don't have to explain the warming of the last decades. Isn't a famous SkS line to "look at the whole picture"?
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "Isn't a famous SkS line to "look at the whole picture"?"

    Indeed.  When looking at the whole picture of drivers of climate change, the observer will note that GCR flux is but a fleck in the corner of the picture.

  14. Lindzen's London Illusions
    Lindzen's London Illusions the videos. Note: The first part at least has been altered and a note added to mention the alleged screw-up, but I'm not aware that any further corrections have been made to remove the other errors. Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRAzbfqydoY Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz_EYi2U3Wg Q&A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69kmPGDh1Gs
  15. New research from last week 10/2012
    Indeed. I found the decadal rate of increase in mean temperature (.6 C) to be rather eye-popping.
  16. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    I've just noticed that the solar coefficient here is 0.7 - was that read off the graph in the F&R paper? If so, then it's a touch high. Tamino gave a corrected version of the figure here, but the most precise source is the rates.txt file:
    meivolcsolartau
    giss0.079103-2.3693680.0613220.017092
    se.giss0.0146340.4778190.0309610.001591
    Following on from Tom's question on uncertainties, I've started looking at this, but there is a problem. I'm probably wrong, but I think Tamino may have plotted 4-sigma uncertainties on the coefficients by mistake, rather than 2-sigma. I've posted a question on his blog. The largest uncertainty is in the solar coefficient. Assuming the version in the table above is correct, it has a 95% chance of it lying between 0.030 and 0.092. ENSO plays a bigger role but is much better determined.
  17. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Dale, as Robert Murphy points out there are usually multiple lines of independent evidence for a given theory and they all need to agree or, if they disagree, at least need to be explained why they disagree. There are the known properties of GHG's and their rapid increases, there are the direct GCR measurements and there are the paleoclimate records that disagree with the theory of GCR's moderating climate for a large part. For the GCR theory to be true all the lines of evidence against the GCR theory need to be explained which is very difficult. Preponderance of evidence shows it's very unlikely that changes in GCR are the source of late 20th century warming.
  18. It's not bad
    mohyla103, I'm afraid you are still arguing based on incomplete information, which is never a good idea. As an illustration with regard to that 49% average, can you answer the following questions : What is the maximum percentage possible ? When does that maximum occur ? How much of that maximum is contributed by glacier-melt ?
  19. Lindzen's London Illusions
    A bit of a Johnny-come-lately comment. I was prompted by a comment over on a RealClimate thread that said that Lindzen was now backtracking on the "significant warming" of the past century & now being dismissive of it. It occurred to me I had noticed that but not picked up on it. So I revisited the presentation & comment (also) here as this post is considering the London seminar in toto. pdf of seminar here P13-14 Lindzen goes all Winston Smith & presents temperatures 1851-1984. P35-36 Lindzen does a conjuring trick by shuffling the deck. The sequence of Artic temperatures he presents his audience is (filling in the gaps from here ) 2004, 2009, 1958, 2000, 1968, 1978, 1988, 1990. (His assertion that there is no trend is debunked by this post but I don't see mention of his sneeky shuffling trick.) And finally, the real unscientific stuff. P15 & his thin red line. (The 93rd Highlanders will be spinning in their graves!) Comparing Boston's weather with global climate is saying that variations in global mean temp of +/-4 deg C is not a problem (still "nomal") and +/-20 deg C would not be unprecidented. (Hope my F -> C convertion is correct.) In this I see Lindzen's membership of the Global Village Idiot Club having been upgraded to Full Life Membership.
  20. Robert Murphy at 21:06 PM on 13 March 2012
    Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    @37 Dale, it doesn't matter if he shows a strong effect from GCR's on clouds; GCR's have not been trending down over the last 40-50 years as would be needed in order to produce less clouds and therefore warmer temps. He has to rewrite cosmic ray history in order to be vindicated. Good luck with that.
  21. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Robert @36 If Svensmark can prove it, then it isn't effectively dead as an explanation. It puts it on the discussion table. But until that day, it's just another unproven claim. Besides as I said, it's all just a part of the general mix of forcings.
  22. Robert Murphy at 20:08 PM on 13 March 2012
    Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Dale@ 35 It doesn't matter what Svensmark's paper says or shows. The GCR hypothesis is effectively dead as an explanation for recent warming. Even if there was a big effect from GCR's on clouds (a very big *if*), there has not been a trend of decreasing GCR's over the last 40-50 years, which the hypothesis requires. The Sun has been going in the wrong direction for Svensmark's claims. "then it's possible that radiation from other suns may too (even if a tiny tiny amount)." You're talking many, many orders of magnitude too small of an effect. Changes in our Sun's TSI has a very small effect; nothing other stars do will be measurable.
  23. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Bern @33 The CERN experiments have really only started, so it's too early to tell. Svensmark has also announced he has a paper in review right now which is the last component of his theory. Once again, too early to tell. But I think it's fair to say that if radiation from our sun affects our climate, then it's possible that radiation from other suns may too (even if a tiny tiny amount). However it only takes a minute change in clouds to cause a big effect. It's all just a part of the general mix of forcings that make up our climate. :)
  24. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Michael Hauber @30 - the MSU satellite record exhibits greater year-to-year variability than the land surface temperature records, so in a statistical sense the chances of the next two years breaking the 1998 record are smaller. In other words, you could well be right - for satellite temperatures at least.
  25. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Dale @ 32: what are you sceptical of, then? The magnitude of AGW, compared to natural forcings (and thus the expected warming impacts over the next century or two)? Also re GCRs - I presume you read the SkS posts on that?
  26. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    scaddenp @25 A sceptic is not allowed to believe in an AGW effect? ;) As for GCR's, let's wait till Svensmark and CERN have finished their little projects, eh? But note I did predict it would be a very weak effect.
    Moderator Response: [JH] GCR = Galatic Cosmic Rays
  27. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    owl905 @26 I'd be careful using a few days data to compare against cycle predictions. Sure, this week SSN's may be anything up to 100, but less than 2 weeks ago it was around 33. Month by month SSN fluctuate wildly and we're seeing high SSN's right now due to the CME's. I'm sure by the end of the month SSN's will have calmed right down again. Flux is still pretty low, a small indication the cycle is still "calm".
    Moderator Response: [JH] CME = Coronal Mass Ejection, i.e., a massive burst of solar wind, other light isotope plasma, and magnetic fields rising above the solar corona or being released into space. SSN = Smoothed Sunspot Number
  28. Doug Hutcheson at 17:37 PM on 13 March 2012
    New research from last week 10/2012
    In Saudi Arabia temperatures have increased and precipitation has decreased significantly
    I wonder if the Saudi leaders will look at this result and question whether their own crude oil exports are so good for the common people after all. Those who have acquired riches from oil can afford to relocate, but what about the rest of them? As a very wise man once said, the love of money is the root of all evil.
  29. Michael Hauber at 17:13 PM on 13 March 2012
    Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    I've done some analysis of UAH monthly temperatures and ENSO and concluded that a 2-4 month lag of ENSO state is not the most accurate way to model the impact on temperature. I prefer a seasonal cycle, and the peak ENSO influence and temperature impact is actually in the same month. However a lag on average appears because a typical ENSO event builds gradually from the middle of the year, whereas the temperature impact is negligable until around November or December when the temperature change becomes quite rapid. Once the peak impact is reached in January an ENSO event typically decays steadily until roughly the middle of the year. However the temperature impact only reduces quite slowly until about the middle of the year when the temperature influence finally reduces relatively rapidly. The upshot of this is that the temperature of 2012 has been largely determined by the current ENSO phase. Any impact from a developing warm ENSO event will not be felt until very late in the year. With current UAH temperatures quite low, I can't see any more than a very low chance that UAH will challenge for the record on an annual basis. However late in the year (after June) will see a substantial rise in temperature and I believe would be a high chance of achieving a daily record (for day of year) and a moderate chance of achieving a monthly record at some stage. However a warm ENSO phase for 12/13 would then pretty much lock 2013 in as being a very warm, with a high chance of breaking the annual record. My current gut feel is that we will see a short lived warming ENSO event that will return to cool-neutral during the critical peak months around Dec-Jan, and that 2013 will have a very slight cool influence from ENSO, and will not reach a record. This is for UAH, which tends to react more to ENSO then GISS does, and I haven't looked in as much detail at the link between ENSO and temperature for GISS. I think the forecast in this article looks quite reasonable.
  30. It's not bad
    MarkOhio: Thank you. JMurphy: When I do find a way to get access to the articles I will read them. I don't understand why you would say "what's the point". Saying that it "would appear that [I am] not here to discuss, but only to make baseless accusations and to stick to [my] beliefs come what may" is not only rude but is also baseless and should be withdrawn. I *still* stand by my claim. Here is the HARD EVIDENCE which you have requested but, even though I presented it above, you have not yet confronted: The Singh, Jain, Kumar paper's abstract states "The average snow and glacier runoff contribution to the annual flow of the Chenab River at Akhnoor is estimated to be about 49 percent." It doesn't really matter what the rest of the paper says, the abstract already tells me that snow and glacier melt together make up less than 50 percent of the flow in this river. There's no way the paper can have any figure higher than 49 percent for glacial melt alone... unless snowmelt somehow imparts a negative amount of water to the river. Also, unless snow melt accounts for 0% of the flow in the river, the amount from glaciers MUST be even less than 49%. So for Barnett to cite this source as evidence for a 50-60% glacial melt contribution is in fact WRONG. Please acknowledge this or I will have to believe it is you who is going to stick to his beliefs come what may. Considering he definitely misrepresented data from at least this source, wouldn't you think it reasonable to examine the other sources more closely as similar errors are likely? Apparently peer review completely missed the error in Barnett citing this source, which is why I don't have the same "confidence that those who have produced all the papers referred to did so using figures that have been checked and confirmed by others" like you do. In light of recent discussion, I will restate my position: 1. "misleading claims that make me skeptical of AGW reporting accuracy in general;" I stand by this, as Barnett's use of data has been proven to be wrong in at least one case. Notice I said skeptical of "AGW reporting" not "AGW itself". It's the exaggerations in reporting that irritate me. 2. "Glaciers and annual snowfall are quite different things but Barnett seems to ignore the difference.;" I can rephrase this as "Barnett seems to ignore the difference in citing at least one paper, where he cited a 49% for combined glacier and snow melt figure as evidence for 50-60% contribution from glacial melt alone". 3. "After checking the three sources for these figures, I find this claim to be very misleading!" can be rephrased as "After checking the abstracts of these three sources, I find Barnett's claim to be misleading. At least one abstract proves Barnett misrepresented the data, so careful examination of the other 2 sources is definitely warranted." 4. "But I hope you'll agree, that Barnett's paper is misleading and a misrepresentation of data." can be rephrased as "But I hope you'll agree that the figures in this part of Barnett's paper are misleading and a misrepresentation of data."
  31. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    As Table 1 shows, 2012 may break the temperature record, though the prediction is well within the margin of error. Thus if the El Niño doesn't form as soon or as strong as expected, or if solar cycle 24 stalls, or if one of the factors not included in this simple analysis (such as aerosols or clouds or other ocean cycles) acts in the cooling direction, 2012 will probably not break the record.
    I had a stab at this prediction a few months ago, although I framed it thus:
    The annual GISS January-December land-and-sea mean global temperature anomaly for the next WMO-defined El Niño year will be: 0.70 ± 0.10 degree celcius.
    I'm happy to stand by it.
  32. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Is there a need for an alarmist view on things to come wrt to the global temperature? I started writing something of the 'known unknowns' as an exercise, and I'm currently on track to get nearly double values for the 2013 or rather for 2014, some of the effects are just too slow. The exercise: To get maximum value for delta-T in short term predictions (2-5 years), one would have to argue for the suppression of the arctic (and antarctic) ice loss by the incoming currents (possibly by the THC shutdown mechanism?), while stating what the sudden ultra-large methane bursts would do. Additionally one has to make arguments of the continued rise of ocean surface temperatures (increased stratification) to get the maximum effect on temperature. Clean up of SOx in China and the lack of volcanic eruptions (because the world gets rounder with the glacier loss) would have an effect. And then there's the possibility of the solar cycle to continue for long since the sun had a long rest period (giving hydrogen more time to sink to the fusion layer of solar innards). All this while all the oil/gas pipeline networks have fatal failures for a solar flare so large the controlling circuits fuse together (here you might guess this is made somewhat tongue in cheek). The text has very little maths currently, so it's easy to read! I won't post it here though. Maybe nowhere, since it's an exercise.
  33. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Excellent post Dana. With the caveats you've noted, I think you're pretty close to being on target. Now how well can we predict how the skeptics will respond to a new record warmth in he next few years? My guesses as to what they'll say: 1) It was all ENSO and Solar 2) Continued recovery from the Little Ice Age 3) Reduced cosmic rays caused less clouds 4) The uncertainty monster had a fever 5) Urban heat island effects 6) Residual effects from the 1998 super El Niño 7) Mars is warming too 8) Can we talk about "Climategate" instead? 9) Who cares? Plants love it! 10) Isn't Monckton an awesome debater! Finally, while over the long-term, there is little doubt as too the direction of tropospheric temperatures in the 21st century, with or without a new Maunder- type minimum, and also little doubt as to the cause of that increase, I am still more interested in watching ocean heat content, and certainly hope we can get more readings at deeper levels very soon. The troposphere can be quite fickle with such a low heat capacity compared to the ocean. Whereas the ocean is both s better record of the past and is key to dictating how warm we'll be getting from our antropogenic experiment on our planet's energy balance.
  34. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    From here, Dana1981 has put out a mid-line forecast for 2012. While some of the factors are treated aggressively, Cycle 24's dance with El Nino appears to be conservative. In contract to Dale 21 forecast, Cycle 24 is ready to roll. Hathaway's reduced forecast was partly a reaction to the screaming memee's yelling Dalton Minimum cooling. Hathaway's revised forecast But like many of the recent redacts and retracts, Solar Cycle may have a Cycle 23 punch in it - not never, just late. Spotless quiet days: Current Stretch: 0 days 2012 total: 0 days (0%) 2011 total: 2 days (<1%) 2010 total: 51 days (14%) 2009 total: 260 days (71%) (Source http://www.spaceweather.com/) And the sunspot activity is rising, not sputtering along - March is already beating Hathaways max 2 years ahead of his 'peak': Sunspot Activity Bar Chart Some volcanic activity would actually be a bit more good luck (put Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan under house arrest for the duration). The GHG concentration is primed for a combination with Cycle 24 and an El Nino - not only is warming back on, but the shallow ocean temp trend pushes up, and there's a lottery with the winning region getting a scorch. China hasn't been mauled yet ... they're due. Whattaworld - hoping for a volcanic surge and a La Nina ...
  35. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    "but only rising due to AGW and solar peak (weak as it will be)" That's not very "skeptical" of you! So, you position is that GHGs do have an effect but go with mysterious GCR effect to reduce the rise. Well actually observing a link between a weak solar magnetic flux and cloudiness would change climate science. We shall see.
  36. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    scaddenp @22 If I had to put figures on it, let's go with 0.53C for 2012 and 0.55C for 2013. I think SOI may still be a bit too high to indicate a moderate El Nino. If one does develop I think it'd be pretty weak. Personally I think we'll see a weaker La Nina than this last one, in the neutral zone, but still negative. I also think a weaker TSI and weaker solar magnetic flux will result in cloudier skies, which would only add to any dampening. Hence why I predict 'stead as she goes'. Spose it's not technically flat, but only rising due to AGW and solar peak (weak as it will be).
  37. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    sauerj @20 - Figure 1 is the average of all 3, while Table 1 is just GISS.
  38. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Good for you Dale. Want to hazard some actual numbers for 2012,2013? I hope you are betting too. Should Dana turn out correct (which I am not hanging my hat on - I'd go 0.58 provided weak El Nino develops), how does that effect your skepticism?
  39. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    You dared a sceptic to predict. Ok. I think we'll see a shorter than usual solar cycle. Currently, cycle 24 is progressing in start-stops, sort of like a car when you push the pedal to the floor, it accelerates then the cylinders skip and you stall. I predict this will continue throughout 2012 with a weak peak end of 2012/start of 2013. Flux is also indicating a weak cycle and early peak. Anyways, with that in mind I think TSI will not rise, but stay the same. With a weak sun this year, the trade winds will kick in over the Pacific (warm Atlantic, cool Pacific). If a La Nina develops as a result, it'll be pretty weak, weaker than the last. Overall with those points in mind I'm going to predict 'steady as she goes' with pretty much stable temps across the two years. After that it's anyone's guess. With predictions of a solar minimum (grand or not is yet to be known) we may see some slight cooling after 2013 for a couple of years. After 2015........ *shrug*
  40. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Dana, Very interesting! One question: The observed values in Table 1 don't seem to match the graphed values in Figure 1. The difference doesn't appear to be a consistent constant. Is this because Table-1 is only average of NOAA & GISS data, while Figure-1 includes HadCRUT data?
  41. Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
    Here's an image of a model calculation of a pulse of CO2 About half of the CO2 gets absorbed in the ocean very quickly (over centuries), another quarter reacts with calcium carbonate in seawater (over millennia) and the remaining quarter is removed by reactions with silicate rocks (over hundreds of millennia).
  42. Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
    PluviAL: I suggest that you read this general-readership article from Nature. The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a concept that is either easy to understand or quantify and the notion is not very intuitive. I too, intuitively believed that all the emissions would be rapidly absorbed by natural processes. David Archer (cited in that article) summed up the consensus view succinctly in his book The Long Thaw as:
    The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this.
  43. Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
    Andy, yes indeed that name seems familiar, and the hosting organization fits perfectly. Thanks for filling me in, and for a thoughtful original post.
  44. Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
    I differ intuitively with similarities item f: It seems if the contribution of CO2 by civilization is 29 "somethings" and the planetary budget is 750 of the same "somethings" measure. That is: the oceans and plant life contirbute a far greater amount, than that the anthropogenic CO2 contiribution. If so, than it can esily be consumed by nature once fossil fuels stop being used. I understand the oceans storage is an issue, but the same mechamisims apply. To claim an effective life 12 to 14 thousand years seems incorrect. My intuition is that once we get past fossil fules, the problem is not so big. The problem is replaceing the huge wealth of energy stored in corbon, and too hard to rationalize, to the consuming public, taxing it. This is a sincere concern, any direction is appreciated.
  45. Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
    ianw01: That speaker would probably be Chris de Freitas. I attended a lunchtime talk given by him sometime in the 1990's (it may well have been the same one you went to) hosted by the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. I too recall being a little shocked by his snarky attitude and the reaction of the audience. Had this been a talk on any other scientific subject, I doubt that the audience would have reacted the same way; it was most unprofessional. De Freitas subsequently, in 2002, published a paper in the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology. I have since learned that that paper was reviewed by Willie Soon and Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who were hand-picked by the journal's then editor, Tim de Freitas, Chris's brother. This particularly irks me because the Bulletin is otherwise a fine scientific journal. Earlier in the 1990's, I published a paper in the Bulletin and also acted as a reviewer. Because of the CSPG's unscientific and politicized stance on climate change, I choose no longer to be a member of the society.
  46. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Hi Dana, Interesting post. You are probably aware that the UK Met Office also issues a forecast for the global annual mean temperature, here is the link for those who are not familiar with their forecast. They are predicting that 2012 will be warmer than 2011, but not be as warm as 2010 was. I'll be bold and also make a prediction for 2012 using a simple analogue approach. Like others my assumption is that there will not be a major eruption the tropics loading the atmosphere with aerosols, and that neutral to weak El Nino conditions will dominate for the remainder of the year. Most current products are not predicting a moderate or strong El Nino at this time. Using the GISTEMP global surface temperature product my guess estimate for global surface air temperature anomaly for 2012 is +0.57 to +0.61 C, with a best guess estimate (very unscientific I know) of +0.59 C. IMHO, Dana's estimate of +0.65 C is at the very upper end of the possible range. So I very much doubt that 2012 will break the existing record (2013 is definitely a candidate though), but note that 2012 could be the first La NIna year which breaks the anomaly of +0.57 C set in 1998 following a super El Nino. If 2012 ties or breaks the anomaly set in 1998, that in its own right will be highly significant and disturbing landmark. So it could be an interesting year.
  47. Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
    Not to pile on the geology aspect, but my "moment" was in the mid 1990's when I was invited by a geologist friend to a talk by a noted climate change scientist at a luncheon hosted by a geologists' association. (If my memory serves me correctly the speaker might have been from New Zealand.) I went in eager to learn about the issue and was dismayed at his flippant attitude toward the possibility of humans having an effect. The lack of real in-depth data, and half-explanations left me shocked. But even more so, I was shocked by the receptive laughter to his jokes that mocked climate science. I only left with one conclusion: be very skeptical of so called "skeptics". Interestingly, I had another such moment years later visiting a web site associated with Tim Ball, who was cited in the local media. The half-true pseudo-science, clearly crafted to confuse people with minimal science background, was enough to prod me to do some real research, and SkS proved to be a credible source for me. I find it fascinating how I can credit the deniers for my climate science education. Well - more accurately credit to them and the SkS authors, who might or might not wish to share such credit!
  48. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    I'm curious why Indian aerosol increases are seldom mentioned, but Chinese aerosols frequently are. (I have some Google researching to do...) I suspect that continued summertime Arctic sea ice loss will have an increasing contribution towards increasing global temperatures. Some projections of sea ice coverage suggest extreme reductions in the next few summers. More energy will go to increasing surface temperatures and less to melting sea ice. (My gut pessimism on Arctic sea ice, however, is proven to be unreliable.)
  49. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Wait. I thought Monckton et al had promised us that we were beginning a long cooling trend.
  50. ‘Storm of the Century’ to become ‘Storm of the Decade’
    Structures such as a port have to be built on the coast (obviously) but wouldn't it be more sensible to pull every other construction back from the coast rather than trying to build bigger sea walls. The same goes for flood plains. Turn areas that will be inundated into parks, wild life reserves, even sports grounds and simply avoid the problem. If you have been to Hawaii, for instance, you will see hotels with the front door right on the beach. That is just asking for trouble and spoiling what should be a beautiful area for recreation.

Prev  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  1242  1243  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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