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  1313  1314  1315  1316  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  1324  1325  1326  1327  1328  Next

Comments 66001 to 66050:

  1. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Sphaerica @32 - as we have repeatedly observed facts don't alter a fake-skeptics mindset, because it is based upon a set of preconceived notions, not scientific evidence. We have seen this affliction repeatedly with Pirate. Note how he just blithely ignores the peer-reviewed scientific papers that prove him wrong? No apologies, no concession that he doesn't know what he is on about, he just repeats a falsehood as if the evidence doesn't exist. Stephen Baines - the smoking and cancer analogy is particularly apt. How many people deny smoking causes cancer? Climate skeptic Fred Singer was one, but I don't know if he's changed his tune of that yet. And essentially what I wrote in comment @10 was that humans cause extinctions in multiple ways, so yes it is hard to disentangle the effects of global warming alone - no serious 'warmist' disputes this. But given that the same bloody-minded pursuit of money by the worlds rich is also causing increased fossil fuel extraction & combustion, and the other damaging perturbations to the environment, it's all the more reason to 'about-turn' current practices.
  2. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    DSL - Given that Dana69 has copied posts from two different authors (assuming that cohenite doesn't also post as Dave McK), I would suspect that it's not cohenite under another handle. DNFTT
  3. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Fascinating stuff, IanC. So either Dana69 is cohenite (aka Anthony Cox), or Dana69 is an intentional plagiarist. If Dana69 = Cox, your puzzlement, KR, is resolved. Cox has a vested interest in maintaining a specific position re climate. Until he can demonstrate an ability to accept his own error (learn), his posts can be considered nothing but trolling. If Dana69 is not Cox and is a plagiarist, then Dana69's ability to express his/her actual understanding is suspect, and further dialogue is probably (but not certainly) a waste of time (since one never knows who one is actually engaging in dialogue with -- a pastiche or the original brain). All of this is obvious, but it's worth pointing out to anyone tempted to respond to Dana69 (until such a time as Dana69 addresses the issue, of course).
  4. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    IanC - That's absolutely fascinating... Dana69 - Perhaps you could either offer your own opinion, or clearly link and credit to issues you feel important, rather than plagiarizing other folks words? I'm getting the distinct impression of a troll, rather than someone who holds their own views on the subject.
  5. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    KR, They are perhaps puzzling since both #109 and #104 are copied and pasted from comments on science of doom. #109 is posted under user cohenite while #104 is posted under Dave McK, appearing again at WUWT
  6. Stephen Baines at 07:36 AM on 24 January 2012
    The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    As a card carrying ecologist, I feel like I should step in here. There are lots of cases where climate change may be playing a role in species extinction, especially for species endemic to mountains, islands and isolated habitats, or species dependent on such habitats at key points in their life history. However, just as is the case for cancer and cigarette smoking, it is often very hard to pinpoint climate warming as the sole culprit in any one case specifically. There are so many contingencies at play. Moreover, especially at this early stage of global change, climate is usually one of several contributing factors. As with extreme climate events, it shifts the balance of probabilities. Finally, even when it is a major factor, it may act through intermediary processes that cloak the effect of climate. Temperature related stress can make species very susceptible to microbial or parasite infestations. Such has been suggested for the chytrid impacts on frogs.
  7. Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
    The lack of a methane spike in ice cores might not be all that mysterious. Methane in the atmosphere has a half life of around 7 years due to its combination with oxygen. Even if there is a huge outgassing of methane, a bubble of air trapped in ice is mostly Oxygen with a little methane. In addition, the top 50 to 100 m of a forming ice sheet is still connected to the atmosphere by diffusion which will provide more oxygen and blur the sharpness of any sudden production of carbon rich gas. A huge outpouring of methane should show up in ice cores as a Carbon dioxide spike as is seen at the beginning of each interglacial. http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/08/end-of-ice-ages.html
  8. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Pirate, Are the examples of extinctions that Rob Painting gave you in comment #20 insufficient?
  9. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Dana69 - Variations in surface temperature will increase the energy radiated, and Trenberth 2009 discusses that. Their estimates of 396 W/m^2 are an increase from the 390 W/m^2 stated in the earlier version of the paper for that very reason. "...regionalised variation which defeats any averaging..." - This is an issue recognized by folks in the field, where temperature variations are taken into consideration. Certainly not a "gotcha" moment, wherein it turns out that all of the science is wrong due to an overlooked variable... As I recall, you were involved in a discussion of CO2 and radiation over at the CO2 is just a trace gas thread. You demonstrated some understanding of the issues there, which makes your current comments puzzling.
  10. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Pirate: The NCSE statement you quote at #23 explains that scientists believe that climate is changing "rapidly and significantly," and notes that we are seeing changes consistent with that scenario, "including...extinction of plant and animal species." As a teacher, surely you're aware that the term "extinction" can refer to the process of population decline, as well as to the actual disappearance of a species? In case you don't, please note Merriam-Webster's definitions: 1. The act of making extinct or causing to be extinguished; 2. The condition or fact of being extinct or extinguished. Your attitude confuses me. You seem to realize that rapid environmental changes are stressors that can cause populations to decline, and also to understand that current warming constitutes a rapid environmental change. You certainly know that migration, breeding, food and habitat are temperature-sensitive for many species. Presumably, you also understand the importance of biodiversity and the role of keystone species. If you understand all this, why then do you go so far out of your way to misread and misrepresent this NCSE statement? Your claim that the NCSE is "simply incorrect" on this point strikes me as utterly frivolous, if not disingenuous.
  11. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Any increase in backradiation’s contribution to warming would still be subject to the defect of GMST; that is (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4 which shows that backradiation, like all Stefan-Boltzman effects, is subject to regionalised variation which defeats any averaging that AGW relies on as a metric.
    Moderator Response: [JH] "Dana69" is not an SkS author.
  12. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    @Tom Curtis - no one misrepresented your statements. My reading skills are fine. You just plain got wrong. And your ad homenem response makes a good bookend for your word-jumble to invent Hansen's response and "worst case" label.
  13. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Actually I think invasive species causing extinctions as a result of global warming is a very big issue.
  14. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Pirate'The Golden Toad' is assumed to be extinct partly due to global warming and its restricted range. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/3172/0 Species migration is likely to be a big factor and invasive species may wipe out native species as time goes by. I think your question is a problem because you haven't defined the range or any parameters for which you define an extinction by global warming.
  15. ClimateWatcher at 04:44 AM on 24 January 2012
    The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    #15 Rapid environmental changes are stressors on organisms. Can you elaborate on climate change as an environmental change in the context of diurnal change, seasonal change, and 'weather' change? All of those changes are larger in extent and very much more rapid than climate change. Also, evolution for most species has encountered numerous glacial/stadial cycles. Why would one expect selection to leave species which were vulnerable to such changes when past populations endured them?
    Moderator Response: Your question is addressed here. Please take further discussion to the appropriate thread.
  16. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    pirate#23: "the next part I teach is that while climate change is not the cause of the chytrid amphibian issues" Are you also informing your classes that what you are teaching goes counter to the research? What do you say if a student points to Pounds et al 2006? Analysing the timing of losses in relation to changes in sea surface and air temperatures, we conclude with 'very high confidence' (> 99%, following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) that large-scale warming is a key factor in the disappearances. I suppose you can debate the difference between 'a key factor' and 'the cause of,' but that misses the point entirely.
  17. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    It seems to me that the failure on Hansen's part (if it can be called a failure) to accurately define BAU is unrelated to the performance of the models. The name "business as usual" is only useful from a mitigation and prevention POV, i.e. politics, not from a predictive point of view. If we followed Scenario C closer than the others forcing-wise, then showing Scenario A (especially A) is misleading, to put it benignly. What more too, as has been shown in several previous posts, Hansen's model gave a climate sensitivity higher than the 3˚C accepted mean (4.2˚C). The model results are actually very good predictors.
  18. Philippe Chantreau at 03:42 AM on 24 January 2012
    Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Rob the volcanoes found on Venus are not of the type associated with plate movements. The front running theory on the planet's geology is that of periodic volcanic resurfacing, no plate tectonics. Although no active volcano has been observed, evidence of volcanic activity is everywhere to be seen on the surface.
  19. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    dana1981 @9, for me BAU means the foreseeable future development with no policies instituted to combat global warming. That may be consistent with with sharp reductions of greenhouse gas emissions if we could reasonably foresee, eg, peak oil resulting in a massive decline on fossil fuel consumption (although that consequence of peak oil, if real, is unfortunately unlikely). I can certainly see a case for calling continue current emission rates (scenario B), or continued current growth in emission rates (scenario A) as BAU.
  20. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Climate Change appears to be increasing the likelihood of extreme weather. Can we attribute any single instance of extreme weather to Climate Change? No. Climate Change loads the dice such that extreme events are more likely. Many of the impacts of Climate Change have the capacity to exert pressure on certain populations of flora and fauna. Does that mean we can look at a given extinction and determine whether it can be attributed to Climate Change or not? It will very rarely be clear cut. We can infer though, that the existence of Climate Change loads the extinction dice as well. Whether or not we can attribute particular extinctions to Climate Change is mostly immaterial.
  21. funglestrumpet at 03:31 AM on 24 January 2012
    How do Climate Models Work?
    Moderator (Muoncounter) @ my last post (numbers still all being ‘1’ at the time of writing) Thanks for redirecting me to a thread that appears to have died in September of 2010. May it rest in peace. Goes to show just how big the picture is considered to be. While I can accept that ‘barry’ @ 19 has a point, it is difficult to agree that there is not a political bias at an institutional level in this site when all those in the section that includes ‘Monckton Myths’ are members of the denialati. If there really were no political bias, it would also include, say, ‘GreenPeace Goolies’ for they and others like them have in their time produced misinformation as outrageous as any myths promulgated by his lordship and his mates. Having said that, I will try to adhere to the house rules, but would appreciate something a bit more relevant to the urgency of the situation than a long dead forum venue.
    Response:

    [DB] "a long dead forum venue"

    There are no "dead" or closed comment threads at SkS.  All 4,700+ threads are open and available for placing comments on.  The vast majority may be currently dormant, but since regular participants in the forum closely follow the Recent Comments thread, it is a rare posting that fails to get a response by someone.

    As for the other bits you raise, playing "whack-a-myth" is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process.  Feel free to develop your own examination of Greenpeace "and others like them" and their supposed misinformation and submit it for consideration as a guest-posting here (provided it conforms with the Comments Policy and falls within the aegis of the mission statement of this site).

  22. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Pirate-
    I disagree with the one statement that extinctions from climate change have already occurred "right now".
    The NCSE statement is simply incorrect.
    These two sentences tell a lot about your mindset.You aren't saying that you have doubts/questions about whether or not it is true,you are sure that it is not true.Right?
  23. A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
    pbjamm.... Okay, that was just a little too close to real. (@73) You can't imagine how many times I've read virtually those exact statements online, only with no sarcasm.
  24. A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
    Don't you see? SkS has failed to provide a summary of all the research/measurements/math/physics/and theory in one paragraph. Since you are unable or unwilling to do so you must be hiding something behind all that complicated math and all those long boring papers. Now that his inconvenient and probing questions have made the AGW Team uncomfortable he has been silenced! The only logical conclusion is that he has gotten too close to uncovering the Man Behind the Curtain. /sarcasm
  25. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    There's some subjectivity to how you define 'BAU'. To me, it's continuing on the same path as in the recent past. As Figure 2 shows, Scenario B fits that description almost perfectly. Perhaps others have a different definition of BAU. Regardless, the main point is that we did not follow a BAU path from 1988 to 1998, so the BAU definition is largely irrelevant anyway.
  26. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    pirate, setting aside the fact that (contrary to what you say) examples of extinctions linked to climate change have been provided... your characterization of the NCSE statement doesn't seem entirely accurate. The "right now" you keep quoting isn't even from the same sentence as the text about extinction. Parsing the sentence to exclude side clauses we get; 'We are also seeing similarly dramatic changes in extinction of plant and animal species.' The 'also' and 'similarly' refer back to the mention of significant changes over the past 150 years in the prior sentence. Have there been significant changes in extinction over the past 150 years? I'd say yes. Are all of these due to climate change? No, but the text doesn't say they are. It could certainly be taken as implied that climate change is involved in some, but then... even you concede that climate change 'contributed' to extinctions from chytrid. You seem to be choosing to make the NCSE statement 'false' by redefining it to be so. On its own it is a perfectly reasonable and accurate statement.
  27. apiratelooksat50 at 02:13 AM on 24 January 2012
    The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Actually, my questioning this statement is not off-topic. When I followed the link "Teaching About Climate Change", it leads you back to "Climate Change 101" you get this statement as the very first bullet point: "Is the climate changing right now? Scientists who study the Earth’s climate today and who investigate past climates agree that global temperature has increased rapidly and significantly in the last 150 years. We’re also seeing similarly dramatic changes in other aspects of climate and related effects on ecosystems, including the distribution of rainfall, storm activity, extinction of plant and animal species, and seasonal change." We are actually studying population ecology now and studying extinctions. This topic on SKS is apropos and there is treasure trove of information on the NCSE site that I intend to use. I disagree with the one statement that extinctions from climate change have already occurred "right now". That is why I asked anyone to list just one and it can't be done. My question, per their website posting, does not concern past extinctions or potential future extinctions. The NCSE statement is simply incorrect. Before I go any further with this post - what I teach in class is that climate change is occurring and does have negative implications for the environment. Today we started studying amphibian decline worldwide, and are drilling down on the chytrid fungus. We use a lot of information from Dr. Vance Vredenburg. We also study how science was wrong about frog deformities and mortality for many years. Blame was placed in turn on the coal industry (mercury), farming practices (fertilizer runoff), the ozone hole (UV radiation), and finally global climate change. Hypotheses were tested and discarded until the right culprit was found and now we can act on it. That is the way science works. Now, before anyone gets worked up, the next part I teach is that while climate change is not the cause of the chytrid amphibian issues, it does contribute to it. Drought causes frogs to congregate in moist areas and the fungus spreads more easily. Oddly enough, the fungus prefers cooler temperatures and actually dies at temperatures above 32 degrees C.
  28. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    And aren't Venus' volcanoes all but extinct? No more plate tectonics?
  29. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    But, Tom, what Dana69 says looks interesting. It's got numbers, and calculations, and references to laws. And it has an attempt to stop dialogue at the end of it--the hallmark of a good faux skeptic.
  30. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Dana69 @104, I'll grant you that it is a novel approach. To bad that you make such fundamental errors. The most important error is that there is no requirement that the heat be radiated away. In fact, most of the heat will be carried away by collisions with other molecules. Therefore your assumption that be comparing the heat content of molecules you can determine the relative contribution to the Outgoing Long wave Radiation, and hence the overall temperature of the Earth is a simple non sequitur. In fact, the radiation of IR radiation by each gas is a direct function of it temperature, emissivity and concentration, and nothing else. The heat capacity determines how long it takes for the gas to heat, or cool given a particular flow of heat. Indirectly it helps determine the lapse rate in the troposphere. But beyond those two factors is has no further bearing on the greenhouse effect. Finally, those so equipped can easily determine the absurdity of Dana69's suggestion. The need merely direct an IR camera at a cup of water as it is first heated then cooled. They will find that as it warms (and hence is absorbing more energy than it give of) it radiates more, whereas when it cools (and hence is giving of more energy than it absorbs) it radiates less. If you compare the IR flux measured using the camera, you will find the same flux for a given temperature regardless of whether it is warming or cooling.
  31. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    It should also be noted that Michaels' methodology of just taking the difference between start and end points, rather than the trend over the period, is exceedingly poor practice for anything as noisy as climate. Shift the start and end points a year or two and you can get radically different results. Obviously, this is a minor issue compared to using a data set bearing no resemblance to observations, but it is worth pointing out that he wouldn't have gotten a reliable result even if he were using the right data.
  32. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesif...d_159.html Gas or Vapor kJ/kg Air 0.287 Carbon dioxide 0.189 Water Vapor 0.462 Steam 1 psia. 120 – 600 oF That’s what it takes to change the temperature 1 degree K. When CO2 changes from 1 to -1 C, a change of 2 degrees C, it radiates 2(0.189 kJ/kg) = 0.378 . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization When water vapor changes from 1 to -1 (and condenses) it radiates 2257 kj/kg + 2(0.462 kJ/kg) = 2257.853776 kJ/kg. It does this every single time you see a cloud. But CO2 has no phase change so it carries no heat – the numbers: All gases at the same temperature have the same number of molecules per unit volume. (Avogadro) Water, being light, masses 18g/mole and CO2 masses 44 g/mole Using 1 mole of air, just to make math easy: We lowball the water in the atmosphere at 1% of the molecules So, in a mole of atmosphere, we have 0.01 moles of water = 0.18g now we highball the CO2 at 500ppm which is 0.0005, or 1/2000 of a mole of CO2. 1/2000 * 44g/mole = 0.000484 moles of CO2 = 0.021296g So in our mole of air with but 1% H2O and a generous 500ppm CO2- the water condensing radiates 0.18g * 2257.853776 kJ/kg = 406.41367968 J while the CO2 radiates 0.021296g * 0.378 kJ/kg = 0.008049888 J the ratio of 0.008049888/406.41367968 = .00001980712855516645290496438242332 or as much to say that water vapor in the example carries 50486.873814890343815963650674393 times more heat than the CO2 does. And that’s just rain. If it turns to snow- multiply by 5-6. Meanwhile, Venus is a ball of active volcanoes with a dry heat pump to radiate it poorly. That is why Earth’s climate doesn’t resemble that of Venus. Forget about CO2.
    Moderator Response: [JH] "Dana69" is not an SkS author.
  33. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    Indeed Yvan, the re-growth of forests in the former USSR is a major sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide too.
  34. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Dr. Johnson responded to my email about the teen's reaction to Dr. Johnson's arguments, and my suggestion that Skeptical Science's Arguments pages fit the teen's bottom line request for convincing evidence:
    Hi, Thanks so much for your note.  It doesn't come across in the short version of the interview aired, but I actually had a talk with Ira and Erin for an hour and a half.  I did recommend this website to her as one of the best out there to see the evidence.  When we started the interview, her perspective was "Global warming isn't happening, and the scientists are all on the make". When we ended, she got to "Ok, well maybe it is happening, but I'm not sure why".  To me, that felt like a minor victory - with more time, and a chance for her to investigate quality resources herself, there's a chance she'll get there. I'm really glad I did this interview - learned a lot from it, and have enjoyed getting emails out of the blue from people I don't know, sharing their thoughts.
    Dr. Johnson later wrote regarding Skeptical Science:
    I think very highly of it, and use it when I'm working with teachers.  Are you aware of our work re climate change professional development for teachers?  We also have extensive collections on climate change on the Windows to the Universe website, which gets about 14 million visits annually.  I've thought of being in touch with the Skeptical Science group, but haven't as of yet.
  35. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    A key point,that Hansen could not have predicted is the collapse of the USSR. Certainly this has reduced the GHG gas emissions by a large factor for at least a decade.
  36. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Bernard J - wasn't there also some white possums in Queensland that went extinct due to an extreme heatwave? IIRC they were restricted to one particular mountain, and started dropping dead in their thousands when it got too hot. Then again I could be mixing up several papers in my jumbled collection.
  37. A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
    Well the most basic equations, verifiable from satellite and ground measurements would be the RTEs, for which Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 would be the starting point.
  38. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Pirate - "Nothing like a bit of honesty, eh?" Dude, you're not addressing a fake-skeptic. I did tell you I've accumulated a stackload of peer-reviewed papers, there's no "gotcha!" with me I'm afraid. Range retractions and extinction in the face of climate warming - Thomas (2006) states: ".......However, recent papers on butterflies and frogs now show that population-level and species-level extinctions are occurring. The relative lack of previous information about range retractions and extinctions appears to stem, at least partly, from a failure to survey the distributions of species at sufficiently fine resolution to detect declines, and from a failure to attribute such declines to climate change. The new evidence suggests that climate-driven extinctions and range retractions are already widespread" Pirate -"What is the "warming spreading bacteria" you're referring to? What species of frogs are gone from that bacteria" Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming - Pounds (2006) "As the Earth warms, many species are likely to disappear, often because of changing disease dynamics. Here we show that a recent mass extinction associated with pathogen outbreaks is tied to global warming. Seventeen years ago, in the mountains of Costa Rica, the Monteverde harlequin frog (Atelopus sp.) vanished along with the golden toad (Bufo periglenes). An estimated 67% of the 110 or so species of Atelopus, which are endemic to the American tropics, have met the same fate, and a pathogenic chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) is implicated. Analysing the timing of losses in relation to changes in sea surface and air temperatures, we conclude with 'very high confidence' (> 99%, following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) that large-scale warming is a key factor in the disappearances. We propose that temperatures at many highland localities are shifting towards the growth optimum of Batrachochytrium, thus encouraging outbreaks. With climate change promoting infectious disease and eroding biodiversity, the urgency of reducing greenhouse-gas concentrations is now undeniable." Shucks, the golden toad probably did go extinct as a result of global warming after all. Just like I said. Also, ask your students to research the American Pika (just to keep it relevant to them). That ain't going to be around much longer. And you could also get them to research all the species that went extinct from previous (natural) global warming episodes too. Mind you this would require research, something you don't appear well-versed in.
  39. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Don't quote me on this, but I don't believe any species have gone extinct from it. Oddly enough the fungus was spread by researchers investigating population declines.
    Sorry, but I have to quote you on this, as off-topic as it is. There are a number of Australian anuran species whose extinctions are attributable to chytrid, even though the fungus's spread and virulence was such that it's really only possible to establish a post hoc, prima facie case. A couple of species of Taudactylus and both Rheobatrachus are almost certainly victims of chytrid, and I'd peg at least half of the recently extinct Litoria to the fungus as well. And this is apart from the worrying number of extant but endangered Australian species directly suffering from the impact of chytrid. The fungus works fast, and spreads inexorably. I've watched seemingly healthy Litoria citropa fall dead from streamside vegetation, having suddeningly succumbed from the fungus. So it's wrong to say that the fungus is not an extinction agent. It's also wrong to say that the fungus was spread by investigators studying declines. I suspect that it certainly was spread - in part - by investigators studying the frogs, but by the time that they were seriously investigating the disease-related declines there were decontamination protocols in place. The initial spreading probably occurred when the species were being studied in order to understand their autecologies, and in the case of Rheobatrachus, the genus's remarkable brooding physiology. This response to apiratelooksat50 might be pedantry, but it's important to nip the heresay in the bud. Here endeth the lesson.
  40. Philippe Chantreau at 18:55 PM on 23 January 2012
    A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
    The request of a set of equation for validation of the theory is disingenuous. Equations from quantum theory are needed to calculate the radiative forcing of CO2. The radiative forcing is a direct consequence of quantum laws, those laws seemingly so dear to Patonomics. The only way that heat will not build up in the atmosphere with added GH is if quantum laws somehow do not hold. Not likely. These calculations have been done by LBLRTM and MODTRAN. The results of the calculations closely match observations. Then, there is all the fluid dynamics equations necessary to model atmospheric circulation, and ocean circulation for AOGCMs. And then there is more, as climate science is complex. That is simply too much to list in a setting like this. It would require an entire team with varied areas of expertise. However, it is in fact possible to do so. It's just not really worth bothering; what would the point? to make a point. Feh... I affirm that quantum theory alone is enough to show witout any doubt whatsoever that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the heat content of the whole atmoshere/ocean system. The only possibility that it would be otherwise would reside with the existence, as yet uncovered, of a mechanism that would allow the extra heat to be radiated out to space immediately. Lindzen's hypothesis has not panned out so well. I find Patonomics' contribution so far to be of little value and I would encourage all to get back to the topic (I know, I just indulge for a few paragraphs myself).
  41. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    owl905 @4, while happy to cause you amusement, I suggest that your paring back a nuanced statement to just one element, thereby misrepresenting what I wrote, means you need to seriously invest in improving your reading skills.
  42. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Whilst I'm loathe to prolong the piratical diversion I'll just briefly suggest that a sensible response to your students would be to explain the complexity of the impacts we are having and therefore the inappropriateness of ascribing single causes to extinctions in individual cases, whilst emphasising the importance of understanding trends in an historical context. And perhaps a good resource would be this, from the Royal Society: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1558/3593.full
  43. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    @Tom Curtis - your reflection that it was a worst case, based on the expectations and outcomes of the CFC treaties, produced a guffaw'd laughter here. Kyoto stands as an example that treaties and signatures and commitments 'ain't necessarily so'. GHG emissions have been running 30% above the so-called 'worst case'. And even that's not a 'worst case', but it isn't a world away from Hansen's description of 'business as usual'. It was not, and is not, a useful description for Scenario A. Hansen's words made more sense - to frame it as a 'business-as-usual' non-response projection.
  44. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    Actually, this discussion has some relevance NCSE since it provides an interesting case study in one of the techniques the disinformation movement uses to manufacture doubt. I guess the form would is: - Raise a long term impact and demand short term evidence of the impact (a special-case of hiding the signal in the noise). - Attempts to point out the above would normally be greeted with the response 'why are you trying to avoid the issue?' (I know nothing about extinctions, and they are indeed off topic. But I wonder if there is mileage in compiling a list of distraction strategies in a similar form to the one above?)
  45. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    Owl905 @1, while I obviously, and copiously disagree with your first paragraph, I want to emphasize that your second paragraph is spot on. While it is not the only issue regarding Michaels testimony and subsequent defense, it is the main issue. IMO, that Michaels testimony fraudulently presented the data is so open and shut a case, it makes a very simple test of who is guided by ideology, and who by desire for truth among so called "skeptics". If somebody cannot bring themselves to recognize that Michaels either committed scientific fraud, or at a minimum perjured himself before Congress, then there is no desire for truth in their examination of climate change issues.
  46. A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
    Patonic built an off-topic distraction about the philosophy of science. He is poorly versed in AGW, but very well versed in philosophy 101 and knowing how to manipulate an internet thread. Basically he trashed a very important topic, and redirected it to where what he knows is more important than what others know. Example- the TAR is out-of-date. ... AR4 states outright that the definition of radiative forcing from the TAR is retained: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html He walked right by the best suggestion - go to the link and start with 'the Discovery of Global Warming'. He ignored the response where he could study a survey of CO2 properties.
  47. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    owl905 @1, Hansen's scenario A was definitely a "worst case" scenario. Trivially it is the worst case of the scenarios shown. More importantly, it is, and was described by Hansen as necessarily "... on the high side of reality", at least in the long run. The later is a qualification not made by Hansen, but which I am sure he would (and would have) agreed with. Therefore, in the long run it is a worse, than worse case scenario. In the short term it is possible that worse scenarios could have occurred after 1988, but unlikely. A worse short term case would have required growth rates in GHG emissions to exceed the record levels of the 1980's, not merely retain them as is done in scenario A. Indeed, at the time of his testimony, it was known that at least some GHG emissions where likely to reduce in the near future, as the Vienna Convention for the protection of the Ozone Layer, a precursor to the Montreal Protocol, banning the use of CFC's had been negotiated, and was open to signature as of September 1987. Finally, Business As Usual is a possible descriptor of Scenario A, but only if BAU means no major economic, hiccups, and no reductions in emissions of GHG for reasons other than planned reductions to combat global warming. The first is implausible in the extreme, as we well know post Global Financial Crisis. The second was known to be probably false in 1988, not just because of the Vienna Convention, but also because the ongoing reduction of British coal mining under the control of the Conservative Party from 1984-1992. There were good reasons for Hansen to describe Scenario B as "perhaps the most plausible of the three cases" in 1988. There is certainly also good reason to consider it as the BAU scenario, although as noted, scenario A also has a claim to that title. Of course, Hansen could not anticipate the collapse of the Soviet Block, which meant that in the event, even his most optimistic scenario was on the high side of reality over the period 1988-1998.
  48. Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
    Business-as-usual is the best description for Scenario A. There's no accuracy in calling it 'worst-case' - because it wasn't then and isn't now. Michaels' egregious distortion, a criminal act by any other name, was presenting Hanson's work to Congress with any single future line. The naming of it is minor semantics compared to the rewrite of Hansen's perspective. The alteration of removing Hanson's recognition of mega-trend variables is a disgusting smear so serious that Michaels should be held accountable for lying to Congress along the precedence set by the Barry Bonds testimony. Michaels took a strawman, and presented it to Congress as the work of James Hansen. Of course he wants the discussion to focus on the merits of his choice - so attention is diverted from his real magic trick.
  49. The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    apiratelooksat50 - Back to the topic at hand: Are you claiming (due to your inability to identify specific species at risk/extinct due to climate change, despite numerous examples of amphibian extinction, high altitude flora, polar bears, etc) that climate change is not worth teaching in the classroom? Or is there some other point to your side-track discussion? Because this thread is about teaching climate change and the science behind it. And you are running well off topic.
  50. apiratelooksat50 at 16:40 PM on 23 January 2012
    The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
    KR at 13 I'm referring to the NCSE website statement. Give me a list of modern species that are extinct due to climate change. I'm not saying climate change is not a problem. Rapid environmental changes are stressors on organisms. That's a basic fact that I teach.

Prev  1313  1314  1315  1316  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  1324  1325  1326  1327  1328  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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