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  1259  1260  1261  1262  1263  1264  1265  1266  1267  1268  1269  1270  1271  1272  1273  1274  Next

Comments 63301 to 63350:

  1. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    By slowing the loss of heat at night (unless clouds/air that are warmer move in, then that can radiate and warm a cooler surface below), and in daytime by reducing sunlight, and increasing convection due to the low density of water vapour.
  2. Dikran Marsupial at 05:05 AM on 26 February 2012
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    YOGI Please answer my question, why does moisture moderate extremes (explaining how the dryness of a desert means there is a greater temperature range)?
  3. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    Nice explanation. Thanks Chris. It is the exponential characteristic of the WV feedback that I find hardest to communicate to people. Your graphs, especially Figure 5, demonstrate this quite clearly.
  4. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Earth`s average surface temperature is maintained by Ocean heat not 33C of back-radiation.
  5. Dikran Marsupial at 04:59 AM on 26 February 2012
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    YOGI Perhaps it would be better if you finished discussing the previous example you raised before initiating another? So *why* does moisture moderate extremes?
  6. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Dikran Marsupial moisture moderates extremes.
  7. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    Re: the statement in the post that it is "virtually impossible to trigger a true runaway greenhouse in the modern day by any practical means" Hansen discusses the Venus syndrome in this AGU Bjerknes lecture. I don't know why people say he thinks this is a "very remote" possibility. The words he actually uses are he thinks it is a "dead certainty" if humans are actually stupid enough to try to burn all fossil fuels they can get their hands on. He noted that "our model blows up before the oceans boil", in other words he is unable to simulate the scenario, but he says the model "suggests that perhaps runaway conditions could occur with added forcing as small as 10-20 W/m2. When discussing feedbacks he points out that what caused the last ice age, the Milankovich forcing, was very small, somewhere around 0.25 W/m2, but the eventual forcing that resulted as the ice sheet and vegetation feedback and the greenhouse gas feedback kicked in was 6.5 W/m2.
  8. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Now if I had a greenhouse with glass that was coated with a highly IR reflective layer, it should heat up considerably slower than one with panes made from a material which IR can pass through, according to this flow chart: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TDDizFtBw0I/AAAAAAAABMI/Hl_EW6F_-og/s1600/divine.gif
  9. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Peter Hadfield a.k.a. Potholer 54 has a good video on this topic on YouTube: 'Himalayan glaciers -- no melt in 10 years - YouTube'.(Sorry, haven't mastered this new fangled linking process!)
  10. Dikran Marsupial at 04:34 AM on 26 February 2012
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    YOGI Yes, but *why* does dryness mean there is a bigger temperature range?
  11. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    owl905- Actually there is background non-greenhouse gas imposing a surface pressure of modern-day 1000 millibars, with CO2 mixed into that. There is no methane, ozone, or other GHGs in these experiments. John Brookes- The adiabatic lapse rate is just the temperature structure that most of the atmosphere relaxes to (in the vertical) due to the properties of convection. chriskoz- Actually the model is quite good, but it is one-dimensional, a crude global average without cloud feedbacks, so it's not a GCM or suitable for getting a precise handle on sensitivity. Results from output of this sort have been used in the literature however, so I feel justified in using it here.
  12. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    "(i) Why choose a desert rather than say a rain forest?" its drier so has more temperature range. (ii)..it has considerable thermal inertia. yes, but the desert cools rapidly at night.
  13. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    Here's statement before the Senate in 2010 about acidification of the oceans: http://climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/TestimonyIndexOceanAcidificationJohnEverettUS_Senate.html
    Response:

    [DB] FYI, posting of links is allowed provided you also explain the context of the link and why it matters/why it's germane to this discussion.  Also, there is a robust body of evidence extant in the peer-reviewed, published literature.  If you wish to be credible, please draw support from that body with links to papers supporting your position/the point you're trying to make.

    Congressional testimony alone is not credible in a scientific forum such as this one.

    Future comments constructed such as this one will typically be deleted.

  14. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    David Lewis Thanks for pointing it out. The link I gave above is for download of the video, which is pretty big (241MB or over 30 minutes in my not-so-great internet connection). Your link seems to be more practical, and works fine for me, with video and sound.
  15. Dikran Marsupial at 04:06 AM on 26 February 2012
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    YOGI (i) Why choose a desert rather than say a rain forest? (ii) the sun of course, the back radiation is only there because GHGs in the atmosphere absorbs IR radiated from the surface that is heated by absorbing largely visible and UV light from the sun. N.B. the surface doesn't stop radiating IR when the sun goes down, as it has considerable thermal inertia.
  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    So what happens in a desert at night, does the CO2 back-radiation turn off when the sun goes down ? and what is warming the ground up quicker through the next morning, the Sun or the back-radiation ?
  17. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    If you follow the links I gave I just discovered you get video and no sound, at least this machine doesn't. The lectures are on Youtube where they don't work as well.
  18. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    9. Alexandre The David Archer video link to the individual lecture, or links to any lectures from the "comprehensive course" webpage which I can get to, that you gave in your comment don't work for me. Maybe you have access to them at those links after logging in somewhere. What does work for me here in Seattle is to go to the UChicagoNews Mindonline PHSC 13400: Global Warming page and select lectures from there. The lecture on the lapse rate you were drawing attention to is lecture 9.
  19. Was Greenland really green in the past?
    21, muttkat, Use the search box in the upper left hand corner. Type in volcano, read and learn. All of this stuff has been covered over and over again. It only takes a moment to read and learn, rather than throwing out questions and comments and links that really just help to make other people as confused as you are. Also note that there is a strict comments policy. Comments are expected to stay on topic. If you have a comment about another topic, find a relevant thread and post your comment there. Off topic comments will be deleted.
  20. Was Greenland really green in the past?
    20, muttkat, Big deal. It's a load of rubbish. Did you actually read the article above, and pursue scientific studies? Or do you subscribe to the theory that if you read it on the Internet, it must be true? Example... from your page:
    During this time, grape vineyards, which require moderate temperatures and a long growing season, were as far north as England. In comparison, today grapes vineyards are only typically as far north as France in Europe.
    And yet from this page:
    There are nearly 400 commercial vineyards in England and Wales covering approximately 2000 acres of land in total.
    So the claim that it was so warm that there were vinyards in England, but not today, is specious. Don't be so gullible.
  21. Was Greenland really green in the past?
    Here were some observations of that area from about 1920 to 1940. http://mclean.ch/climate/Arctic_1920_40.htm By the way, I don't seem to hear about volcanic activity in the Arctic & Antarctica areas but you won't hear about that in the mainstream green media. There was an underwater active volcano found in the Sandwich Islands near Antarctica. There was a volcano that went off in Iceland; has any of the data mentioned that? Theres bound to be some volcanic activity going on and thats usually hot. Another thing the Arctic & Antarctica use to be semi tropical. Things change
    Response:

    [DB] You already posted on these off-topic issues here.  You were responded to immediately afterwards.  Please read those responses.  If you have any questions on those responses, place those questions there, not here.

    Off-topic struck out.

  22. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    IanC#1290 "As for your question, in the OLR (20km looking down) graph and at regions without atmospheric absoprtion, you will be seeing radiation coming from the surface, which is ~265K." But the surface is at 287.7K so must be looking at something colder further up. "The closer you get to the surface, the less temperature contrast between the surface and the air temperature near the "instrument", and so the dip will be smaller." #1301 The closer you get to the surface the less absorption there is from the 600-750 band, and the majority of the effect is above 3km.
  23. Was Greenland really green in the past?
    I had found this article about the Vikings and crops being grown in Greenland and that there were trees growing in Greenland. http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html
  24. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    Ken L#80: "If sea ice largely recovers in winter - then the energy absorbed in a bigger summer ice melt is largely being lost to space." Winter sea ice extent is not recovering quite so completely. But you are correct about the increasing amplitude of the annual freeze-thaw cycle. --source The cycle has a very clear long term trend, so it is obvious it does not average around 0 from year to year. In addition, high latitudes consistently warm faster than mid-latitudes. -- source This combination of amplification in ice melt cycle and warming should indicate that not all this energy is lost to space.
  25. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    John Brookes at 23:20 PM on 25 February, 2012 You can also check David Archer's lecture about the lapse rate. It's part of a more comprehensive course on Global Warming for non-science undergrads.
  26. CO2 measurements are suspect
    John Marshall. Take the hint from Tom Curtis and Sphaerica - you are, to put it nicely, profoundly in error. If the conversation here is too technical for you, there was a more colloquial one on Deltoid, that should make you blush with embarrassment once you've read through it.
  27. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    KR #81 I said 'some' of the heat would go to ice melt at #66. That 'some' is small.
    Response:

    [DB] Rather than continuing with playing semantical games, please try supporting assertions with quantifications and references to peer-reviewed articles appearing in reputable journals that support your position.

  28. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    4, chriskoz, 7, Pirate, I'll leave it to Chris to give you his answer, but just off the cuff, as he stated in his closing note he used the freely available online material that Ray Pierrehumbert provides for use with his book "Principles of Planetary Climate." Along those lines, that model is complex enough to include things you've never even considered, but still simple enough to run on your desktop in an interpreted language like Python, and for the code to be easily understood by anyone who follows his course by reading the book, doing the problems and working directly with the model. So the point is... it's a teaching model, designed to demonstrate concepts. It's accurate enough to show how the pieces fit together, but not to use as a model for getting specific values (such as "the runaway point" for our planet).
  29. CO2 measurements are suspect
    52, John Marshall, Please note how easily and completely you fell for what is actually a well understood "lie". You read at a denial site about how CO2 levels were way higher in the 1800s and there's a paper to prove it. Except it turns out that everyone who cares to actually be skeptical and look at the science knows that's nonsense. Scientists go to great lengths to properly, accurately measure CO2, and they aren't stupid about it. At the same time, the paper cited by deniers to trumpet this issue was literally stupid about it. They know this. This information is readily available, and it's pretty obvious if you take just a little while to think about it. So why do denial sites keep feeding people this nonsense? The point is that you were tricked, and you came in here all full of anger because you thought the ones who tricked you were the scientists. But it wasn't, it was the deniers. [Fortunately, this site exists exactly because of those sorts of situations. Every time you have one of these "ah ha, got them" moments by reading something at a nonsense denier site, come here to SkS, use the search button, read and learn. After you've done it enough, you'll start to realize that there is no science or truth to the denial arguments. None.] So how do you feel now? Is your anger redirected at a more appropriate target? Or are you instead simply more firmly invested in finding something to justify your anger at "alarmists?" And if the latter is the case... doesn't that say something even more important about the "debate."
  30. CO2 measurements are suspect
    John Marshall @52, if you run your car in a closed garage and measure the CO2 concentration in the garage, it will be well above 390 ppmv. It would be obviously foolish to conclude from that that global CO2 concentrations are greater than 390 ppmv. You have a nearby source of CO2 that is contaminating the measurement. As it happens, there are many sources of CO2 contamination. Not only are there cars, factories and people in abundance in cities, all busily emitting CO2 in abundance, and consequently contaminating any measurement. Not only that, but trees and grass are net CO2 sinks in daylight, but net emitters of CO2 at night. Consequently measurements in a forest on a still night will show elevated CO2 levels, again the result of contamination. In the 1850s, and indeed, even in the 1930s this was not well known, and many measurements of CO2 concentrations were made in areas where contamination would be expected. What is worse, Beck, who should have known better compiled a list of measurements without compensating for local contamination beyond the crudest measure, and simply took an average of measurements to determine the CO2 concentration. Given that CO2 concentrations can vary by 100 ppmv or more on a daily basis due to local contamination, the result significantly overestimates background CO2 levels. To determine genuine background levels of CO2, you need to get away from local sources of CO2 emission by getting either very far away from their source vertically, as with these measurements over Colorado: Note that near ground concentrations shown can be as high as much as 50 ppmv above the upper altitude levels even at 500 meters altitude (let alone the 2 meter altitude used by Beck), but with gain in altitude, CO2 concentrations drop to background levels. Alternatively you can rely on strong winds to dilute the contamination to determine the background by plotting CO2 levels against wind speed: Again, notice when wind velocities are low, local contamination (mostly from forests in this case) can result in CO2 concentrations as high as 600 ppmv, but that the background level is clearly around 390 ppmv. Or you can get as far away geographically from any contamination as you can, by going to the South Pole: Citing measurements that do not take these precautions to ensure they are measuring the genuine background concentrations, rather than a contaminated sample are, of course of no interest.
  31. apiratelooksat50 at 23:21 PM on 25 February 2012
    Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    Nicely done! I have the same questions as Chriskoz and look forward to seeing your answers.
  32. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    Very nice thank you. I've read some stuff that mentions the adiabatic lapse rate. I suspect that this is part of the explanation above but left out for the sake of simplicity. Could you do another post where you expand on this part of the picture?
  33. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    That explanation sure deserves a thank-you. Really nice read. Interesting chuckle over how we get trapped by our frameworks. When the blackbody was given a thin CO2 atmosphere, 'say 400ppm' ... if it's the only element in the atmosphere it's 1,000,000ppm, isn't it? The density equivalence starts with 1.977 g/l (gas at 1 atm and 0 °C) ... but I had to look it up. Interesting that at 25dC, the density drops to 1.799g/L.
  34. CO2 measurements are suspect
    The problem with the graph showing the atmospheric CO2 content, with the rapid increase in the 20th century is that it is wrong. CO2 has never followed a level of 250ppmv over the past 10,000 years. That claim is a lie. In 1850's CO2 measurements showed atmospheric CO2 content to be 490ppmv, well above today's level and according to alarmists well over the 'tipping point' level.
  35. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    Fantastic article. Now I can realy see the GH effect in much better perspective. Few questions jump: Are those curves a true representatives of our real earth or just exemplary? If the former, can we say by how much the green and red horiz lines are appart when comparing recent solar energy with meander minimum during LIA? Then, what are the angles of intersection of red curve (CO2 only) and blue curve (CO2+H2O) with the current solar radiation line? Finally, if red curve represents 400ppmCO2 we have right now how far above the 280ppm curve would be? I'm asking those questions, because I want to have the feeling about the relative magnitude of the three forcings (solar, CO2 & H2O) we are talking about in this model. Thanks.
  36. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    Good article.
  37. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    I'm late to this thread, so others (especially Glenn Tamblyn) have already said what I will below, but I feel that it bears repeating with a slightly different emphasis. With respect to Malthus, Club of Rome, the Ehrlichs and similar, it is important to recognise, as Glenn and Adelady and others already have, that technology simply delayed the anticipated consequences of human population growth and societal complexity. The various resource limitations do still exist - they've simply been moved to a different timeframe through energy and technology use. After all, what technology will actually sustainably quench the world's huge and growing thirst for water? What technology will actually sustainably assuage the world's huge and growing hunger for meat, for timber, for the very space and topsoils that are used to grow such resources and much more? How will such future technologies be sustainably energised? Sorry owl905, but I'm with my ecological colleagues' (and Albert Bartlett's and Joseph Tainter's, amongst others) consensus on this matter. And all that technology about which you speak is coming with huge collateral damage, and it's largely because (most) humans don't live in the Arctic, or in a disappearing rainforest, or 100 metres underground in an aquifer, that they don't understand the cumulative damage to the biosphere that is occurring. When all is said and done it boils down to basic thermodynamics, and one of the thermodynamic penalties of humanity's co-opting of the planets' energy/resource systems will be that the bottoming-out, when it inevitably comes, will be all the more severe. Essentially, we've made a Faustian bargain in order to avoid paying the piper. As Glen observed in his post at #15, no technology currently in existence will allow humanity to avoid those thermodynamic consequences. Similarly - and here I am forced to differ somewhat with Glenn's otherwise excellent post - it is extremely difficult to see how a possible "future technology certainly could" enable humans to avoid the huge entropy imbalance that we've inflicted on the planet's life support systems, whether one is speaking agriculturally or ecologically. The numbers do not add up, and certainly not if future (larger?) human societies are to be equitable. If anything our technological trajectory seems to describe the thermodynamic equivalent of the story of the old woman who swallowed a fly... For this reason I am not a technofixophile. Not by itself, and not with the numbers of humans that we have on the planet. If we had at least an order of magnitude fewer people, and if we had a system that doesn't encourage the gross inequity and cavalier waste that we see in our societies, then perhaps our technology could catapult us toward what is currently science fiction, but in some cases even that would require skirting around the current laws of physics that dictate the ultimate finiteness of the resources available to us. And before someone puts their hand up at this point and mentions interstellar (or even interplanetary) travel, please calculate the energy and time requirements to successfully and productively achieve such, or point to the particular laws that might be circumvented in order to bring those otherwise literally astronomical numbers within reach of human endeavour. There's also the fact that our ever more sophisticated technologies, as the complex systems that they are, are vulnerable to disruptions. The more complex, the more that can go wrong, and in the case of serious failure, the more difficult it can be to recover. This is the stuff of whole threads though - indeed, of whole disciplines - and it's wandering from the basic subject of this thread, so I won't head down that path at the moment. And in case any readers here missed them, Tamino had a couple of interesting threads in the vein of this thread: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/what-is-epsilon http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/best-case-scenario/
  38. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    So obvious, once clearly explained. Thank you, Chris.
  39. Clouds provide negative feedback
    DSL - Strange how the Earth still got very hot in the past eh? The most likely explanation is that the lowering of cloud height is related to the ENSO trend, and the consequent top-of-the-atmosphere radiation flux over the last decade. The decade started off with weak La Nina and El Nino and finished off with strong ones, and the end of the decade was La Nina-dominant. A colder, drier atmosphere (relative to the beginning of the decade) should see less cloud formation and a lowering of cloud height. Nothing makes sense in mainstream media land, because they don't even make the effort to understand what's happening. Sad really. I'm writing up a post/rebuttal of Davies & Molloy (2012). Their findings have predictably been mangled - although a sentence in the study doesn't help.
  40. Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
    This is a fantastic explanation. I had spent a little bit of time thinking about this problem, but now reading this post I realize I didn't yet have the information needed to reason this through. Thanks!
  41. Scafetta's Widget Problems
    First, thanks for the positive comments. I did consider the El Nino index (e.g. Extended MEI) but data for it don't go back as far as the AMO. I could have included both MEI and AMO but while it might have added something to the accuracy it would have added little to the understanding of climate. I could also have included other measures of greenhouse gases. Basically my simple regression model has shown that if you include CO2 and a climate cycle you can simulate temperatures quite accurately. Using CO2 as an independent variable is more justified than using either the MEI or AMO. CO2 is a recognised forcing factor. The cycles/oscillations are not and it would not be legitimate for the IPCC to use them input in their models.
  42. Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
    Hansen, Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications, states that 1 Watt-yr over the full Earth surface corresponds to about ~1.61 x 1022 Joules. He infers that the Earth’s energy imbalance over the period 2005 – 2010 was 0.58 W m-2. He estimates that over a full solar cycle the figure would be somewhat greater, about 0.75 W m-2. Converting to Joules, I get 0.75 W m-2 = 1.2 x 1022 Joules. In comparison, he summarized his understanding of the data in his preferred sources in the literature for absorption of heat by ice on land, where "most of the energy is used in the phase change from ice to water" in this (Figure 8c) chart: Which appears to show a total of about a bit more than ~0.02 W m-2 worth of heat going into land ice by 2006 - 2007 or so. Its a massive amount of heat compared to what I use to boil coffee in the morning, but if it is compared to the heat that is accumulating each year in the planetary system, which goes primarily into the oceans, it is less than 3%. Convert that into Joules, and it seems you have 3.22 x 1020 Joules.
  43. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    cjs#65: It's the same article. And it still is off-topic. See CO2 is plant food. Let's try less selective quote-mining and more reading for content.
  44. Clouds provide negative feedback
    ABC (Aussie) has a summary of Roger Davies (et al.) work on cloud height decrease over the last decade. From the summary: "Experts from the University of Auckland suggest the change in cloud altitude could be the Earth's way of dealing with global warming." Earth's way of dealing with global warming. We don't need mitigation; Earth's got our backs. Earth's a smart cookie. It likes us. Wants to protect us. That Pluto . . . dumb as a rock . . . living way out there at the edge . . . freezing! Isn't even smart enough to grow a coat.
  45. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1297 Yogi, When I talked about the OLR graph in #1290, I said "the radiation coming from the surface", not radiation coming from CO2 near the surface. When you are looking down in the 600-750 band, you are seeing the emission from CO2 at the level near the detector. Using a standard lapse rate of 6.5 degrees, at 3 km, the brightness temperature should be about 19.5 lower than the surface temperature, so the dip will be relatively small. Using the standard atmosphere at 3km looking down, that is about right (it'll be clearer if you turn off water vapour, which tends to distort the top of the spectra). The closer you get to the surface, the less temperature contrast between the surface and the air temperature near the "instrument", and so the dip will be smaller. Now for clouds it appears to radiate as a black body. If you are on the surface looking up, you are effectively seeing the bottom, and if you are using heavy cloud/rain, the cumulus base is at 0.66km. The temperature on the surface is 288K, so lapse rate of 6 degree puts you at 284k at the base. that looks about right from the spectra. If you look closely at the 600-750 band you'll see a slight bump, since there you are actually detaching radiation from CO2 near the ground, which is warmer. When you are looking down at 20km, having cloud is effectively like having a surface that is cooler. If you compare the case without cloud, and altostratus at cloud top at 3km, you'll expect a change in brightness temperature in the 800-1000 band by about 20 degrees, and that is exactly what you'll get.
  46. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    This article from Columbia University says the opposite, that trees next to the Tundra are thriving “I was expecting to see trees stressed from the warmer temperatures,” said study lead author Laia Andreu-Hayles, a tree ring scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “What we found was a surprise.” http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/trees-tundras-border-are-growing-faster-hotter-climate Chris Shaker
  47. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1299, Yogi, Why is that, do you think?
  48. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    cjshaker#63: Your link has nothing to do with the 'divergence problem,' although there is a passing mention of it. This is clear evidence of warming. But it is not good news: The outlook may be less favorable for the vast interior forests that ring the Arctic Circle. Satellite images have revealed swaths of brown, dying vegetation ... Evidence suggests forests elsewhere are struggling, too. In the American West, bark beetles benefitting from milder winters have devastated millions of acres of trees weakened by lack of water.
  49. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    @adelady 26 "And what technology was that specifically? It was converting oil into fertiliser." You're kidding, right? Every aspect - information, science, remote sensing, biology, chemistry, education, finance, management ... there's no end to the technology paradigm - the period since the mid-70s is soaked in every aspect of technology invention and innovation imaginable. To make any claim that it is nothing more than oil into fertilizer in the agriculture world is Guinness-level myopia.
  50. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    Regarding tree ring proxies and the divergence problem, this paper claims that some trees such as western juniper are growing more rapidly in response to elevated CO2 http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/listing.aspx?id=7935 Chris Shaker

Prev  1259  1260  1261  1262  1263  1264  1265  1266  1267  1268  1269  1270  1271  1272  1273  1274  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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