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  1316  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  1324  1325  1326  1327  1328  1329  1330  1331  Next

Comments 66151 to 66200:

  1. How do Climate Models Work?
    climateadj @35, I do not see where you performed a mathematical step in order to examine seasonal variance rather than variance simpliciter. I'm not up on the maths involved, but it seems to me that if you just plot the variance of the data, it may well be dominated by quasi-periodic oscillations such as ENSO, or indeed possibly even by long term trends if seasonal variation is low compared to long term changes in temperature.
  2. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    Alex C @18, Tamino writes:
    "For the updated results, rather than use TSI (total solar irradiance) to represent solar variations I used sunspot counts, because they’re easy to get, kept up-to-date, and already available as monthly averages."
    The "easy to get at" and "available as monthly averages" may be particularly important factors in that his updated software passages included a program which gathers the data from the internet, and formats it for you so that you can easily keep the analysis up to date. It may be that the programming task was easier in that respect with sunspot numbers than TSI. Of course, I am speculating, and if you think it is important, you should ask him. What I do know is that in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), Tamino wrote:
    "To test whether the results might be sensitive to these choices, we also did experiments characterizing el Nino by the southern oscillation index (SOI) rather than ˜MEI, characterizing volcanic aerosols by the volcanic forcing estimate of Ammann et al (2003) rather than the AOD data from Sato et al, and using monthly sunspot numbers as a proxy for solar activity rather than TSI. None of these substitutions affected the results in a significant way, establishing that this analysis is robust to the choice of data to represent exogenous factors."
    That being the case, the switch to sunspot numbers should make no significant difference.
  3. How do Climate Models Work?
    climateadj; Thanks for the clarification and the link to your calculations. Alas, I am not qualified to assess the reasonableness of your computations and of your tentative conclusion.
  4. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    Tom Curtis @16: I have typically seen 11 year running averages, and thought that it was for much the same reason as that a centered mean cannot be given for an even number of years. I am aware of the solar cycle length average, but the thought that it was the primary driver behind a choice of 11 years hadn't occurred to me before (I suppose it should have, hm?). Thanks for the clarification. I personally found Tamino's switch to sunspot number interesting. I thought that TSI data was updated continuously (daily), why use a proxy instead of the real deal?
  5. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    It would be interesting if one of the tech savvy people at this site used Tamino's software to adjust for exogenous factors for the periods 1880-1940, 1910 to 1940, and 1880 to 2011. (I have just made the same suggestion to Tamino, so you may want to hold of to see how he responds.)
  6. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    Alex C @13, while the reason for the odd number of months is as you give it, the reason for choosing an approximately 11 year running average is almost certainly to remove the solar cycle. (I suspect your aware of that, and have merely phrased your response to Chris G @10 poorly.)
  7. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    Sorry, I forgot to include the link to Tamino's site for those not familiar with it.
  8. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    Grant Foster (Tamino) has updated the analysis from Foster and Rahmstorf to include (most of) 2011's data. The "most of" is because HadCRUTv3 has not yet released their data for Dec 2011. He has also switched to using sunspot data rather than TSI to allow for the influence of solar activity. For the computer savy, he has also updated his publicly accessible programs. His summary of the unadjusted data:
    "For GISS data, 2011 was the 9th-hottest year on record, for NCDC it was 11th-hottest, for HadCRU (using only data through November) it was 12th-hottest, for RSS it was 12th-hottest, and for UAH 9th-hottest."
    And of the data adjusted for exogenous factors:
    "In the adjusted data, GISS ranks 2011 as the 2nd-hottest year on record (just behind 2010), NCDC ranks it 5th, HadCRU (using only data through November 2010) ranks it 5th, RSS ranks it 2nd, and UAH 2nd. No, global temps are not in a crash — they still fluctuate (for a lot of reasons, including exogenous factors) but the trend continues. It’s called “global warming.” It’s caused by human activity. It’s dangerous."
  9. How do Climate Models Work?
    @John: The source of my assertions are my own calculations. The link below is my analysis. Since I'm just a hack with marginal programming skills, there is a high likelihood of error. I am not a scientist of any sort. Caveat Emptor: https://sites.google.com/site/climateadj/ocean_variance
  10. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    @Chris G: The running average I think is given at the center of the time interval, which only exists with an odd number of months. I don't think it has to do with removing the solar cycle.
  11. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    Dana, Recommend that you move the text caught up in the right-hand margin of the graphics to underneath the graphics.
  12. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    For a portend of what’s on the horizon, see “NASA Sees Repeating La Niña Hitting its Peak” posted on the NASA/Jet Propulsion website.
  13. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    Curious, why the 133-month average? I most commonly use a 132 because that smooths over any 11-year solar cycle effect, but then...I'm thinking that the solar cycle average may not be, actually, is highly unlikely to be, exactly 11 years, on average. So, maybe your rationale is the same, just using a more refined number for the period. I'd be surprised if it made any noteworthy difference though. Ah, good old friend Google. Seems the solar cycle average is more accurately 11.1 years; 133 it is.
  14. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    actually thoughtful#1: "1910-1940 warming looks similar, in slope, to the 1970-2010 warming" Another big difference is seen here: Summer warming, driven by solar output, was faster than winter warming in the early 20th century. Latter 20th century (and ongoing) warming shows winters warm more rapidly; a greenhouse effect.
  15. How do Climate Models Work?
    climateadj: What is the source of your assertion that GCMs "can't even mimic seasonal ocean temperature variability"? BTW, climate models cannot "replicate" the real world, they can only "simulate" it.
  16. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    @ actually thoughtful You will note from the 3rd figure in the OP that the La Niña's are consistently getting warmer.
  17. actually thoughtful at 08:44 AM on 22 January 2012
    2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    I suspect La Ninas will bring us more coldest/driest and El Ninos will bring us more record heat. That we are getting record heat in a La Nina should give doubters pause. Very big pause.
  18. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    The 2nd reference, "Physical Principles of Meteorology and Environmental Physics", under Further Reading is not free. The Table of Contents and Chapter 1 can apparently be freely downloaded for free.
  19. How do Climate Models Work?
    Quote However, the big questions, like "Is human activity warming the planet?", don't even require a model. The only things you need to answer those questions are a few fundamental physics and chemistry equations that we've known for over a century. You could take climate models right out of the picture, and the answer wouldn't change. Scientists would still be telling us that the Earth is warming, humans are causing it, and the consequences will likely be severe Exactly my point - For the Public Understanding of the issue the science is clear and uncomplicated. By surrendering that clarity of message and allowing the skeptics to muddy the waters a great dis-service has been allowed. Within Science itself of course debate, experiment and challenge must continue to tease out the nuances, feed-back loops and the simple understanding of process and detail but how Science works shouldn't have obscured the basic science and the clarity of its message to the General Public. Johnb.
  20. Pete Dunkelberg at 08:17 AM on 22 January 2012
    2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    The apparent cool spot in south Florida (fig. 4) is just lake Okeechobee.
  21. How do Climate Models Work?
    @John: I suspect that GCM's model radiative forcings, conduction, and convection. Annual variability is a function of all three. It is predictable and testable against observations.
  22. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    Another noteworthy event from the 2011 temperature records. The UAH annual temperature anomaly is higher than RSS for the first time ever. The differences between them were getting more divergent up to 2000 since when they have converged and now swapped places with the UAH anomaly diverging at a rate of 0.3 deg C per decade!
  23. actually thoughtful at 08:04 AM on 22 January 2012
    2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    Ironically two threads I am posting on over at WuWT are invoking the 1910-1940 (nothing to do with me or this post). Having just reviewed the solar contribution to the 1910-1940 I was able to quickly set the record straight. (not holding my breath that anyone posting at that site will accept said reality). In regards to WUWT - Must...stop...posting
  24. How do Climate Models Work?
    @John/Riccardo: Seasonal ocean temperature variability is a somewhat constant feature. I'm not talking about trends which fluctuate. It's simply measuring the annual variance of temps for each gridbox, averaging out the longitudinal dimension, and plotting the results. The ARGO derived pattern is consistent from year to year or any 12 month period, regardless of ENSO. There's a clear pattern that the CMIP3 ensemble doesn't replicate very well. Now the CMIP3 models were generated circa 2004 when the ARGO network was in it's infancy. Perhaps this test is asking too much. It'll be interesting to see if the CMIP5 ensemble does better.
  25. actually thoughtful at 07:19 AM on 22 January 2012
    2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    Dana - thanks. Still groggy from my time at WUWT. The evidence I find most compelling, when comparing 1910-1940 to 1970-2010 is the higher solar activity in the former time period, which is notably, stunningly absent in the the last 40 years (even more so for the last 10 years).
  26. 2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    actually thoughtful @1, You seem to be missing the point. In the absence of a log term underlying warming trend global SAT anomalies in 2011 should have been between -0.1 and -0.2 C. Instead they were over +0.5 C (w.r.t the 1950-1980 baseline) and according to GISTEMP the 9th warmest year on record. That, despite just emerging from a prolonged solar minimum and increased aerosol loading and about 7 of the 12 months having an ONI of <-0.5 (ONI values of -0.5 or less are typically consistent with La Nina conditions.
  27. Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
    John, I left this comment over at the ClimateProgress reposting of the interview, but in case you miss it there: In your second to last paragraph you say: "we now know without doubt that methane is venting to Earth's atmosphere from parts of the ESAS seabed in copious quantities as a response - a positive feedback - to warming." What I would like to know is what in this interview or in other things you have read, seen or heard leads you to come to such a firm conclusion that this is already certainly part of a feedback. I think it most likely is, but this seems to be exactly the thing that is being hotly debated, and I have not seen Shakhova come out and say that it the methane releases she has observed are definitely part of a GW feedback--quite the opposite: she has pointed out that they have NOT made such a claim. So if you have some source or data that you are basing this conclusion on, I would definitely like to know what it is. Thanks ahead of time. Oh, and what do you think of the AIRS images posted above. Art they further evidence that something unusual is going on with Arctic methane this year? Should we expect levels to be much higher already?
  28. How do Climate Models Work?
    climateadj how can I tell that next summer will be warmer than now if I can't predict the weather 10 days from now? Short term variability is one thing, climate another.
  29. How do Climate Models Work?
    @climateadj: I suspect that the GCMs were not designed to "mimic seasonal ocean temperature variablilty."
  30. How do Climate Models Work?
    Question: Why should I trust GCM's future projections when they can't even mimic seasonal ocean temperature variability? The CMIP3 ensemble was lacking in this regard, but perhaps CMIP5 will be better.
  31. actually thoughtful at 06:37 AM on 22 January 2012
    2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
    Looking at the first graphic, the 1910-1940 warming looks similar, in slope, to the 1970-2010 warming. Of course one is 30 years, and one is 40. But wouldn't we expect an increase in the slope as CO2 is driving temp up even more than it was in the 1940s? Or am I missing something.
    Response:

    [dana1981] See "It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940"

  32. How do Climate Models Work?
    Icarus @ 25 the graph is taken from The Copenhagen Diagnosis, page 32 of the first edition. They say:
    This dramatic retreat has been much faster than that simulated by any of the climate models assessed in the IPCC AR4 (Figure 13). This is likely due to a combination of several model deficiencies, including: 1) incomplete representation of ice albedo physics, including the treatment of melt ponds (e.g., Pedersen et al. 2009) and the deposition of black carbon (e.g. Flanner et al. 2007; Ramanathan and Carmichael 2008); and 2) incomplete representation of the physics of vertical and horizontal mixing in the ocean (e.g. Arzel et al. 2006).
  33. What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
    In my post above I misplaced the decimal. It should read minimum of 8.0 mm/yr and central estimate of 16.0 mm/yr for the entire globe. 16.0 mm/yr is three times the current rate (at Tuvalu). The expected rate of sea level increase is not linear so averaging the rate as mm/yr over the entire time period is not very meaningful. It does indicate that Tuvalu is in for a world of hurt when the sea really starts to rise.
  34. How do Climate Models Work?
    Fascinating article, many thanks for writing and posting it. I thought it was particularly interesting that the models are run from scratch rather than trying to initialise them with real world data. The fact that they then accurately simulate observations is good evidence that they have 'skill' and aren't just being tweaked by making them adjust to observations, as some would have you believe. Here's something I'm curious about: In the example of Arctic sea ice extent falling substantially faster than projected, is that because the projections got the Arctic climate wrong (perhaps polar amplification is greater than projected), or is it because they got the climate right but the ice has turned out to respond faster than projected? Or is it neither of these things, or both? Cheers...
  35. How do Climate Models Work?
    #21 michael sweet: I am an undergraduate math student just starting to get into climate modelling research. Eventually I want to develop and run experiments on climate models (not necessarily GCMs, I am also interested in lower-resolution, faster EMICs). Last summer I did a project with Steve Easterbrook, a computer science professor at the University of Toronto, to examine the software architecture of climate models: how they are built and organized. I give a summary of our research and findings here. #22 apiratelooksat50: 1) In general, it's really easy to get access to GCM code. I summarize my experiences here: the process ranges from an open download to an automated registration process to an informal email requesting access. Some of the models developed at governmental labs outside the United States require that a more formal license agreement be signed. 2) Not really. Input format depends hugely on the architecture of the model, which changes so drastically between GCMs. 3) Yes, absolutely. You can give the models any combination of forcings, whether natural or anthropogenic, that you want. You can even turn the Sun off and see what happens. What actions I realistically propose - this is straying away from my original post, so I must stress that I am taking off my scientist hat and putting on my public hat. That said, I am a fan of the revenue neutral "fee and dividend" system that James Hansen advocates.
  36. How do Climate Models Work?
    Thanks to Kate for this accessible explanation. The "skeptical" sites tend to trivialize the computer models as if they were an iPad app that "alarmists" whip up in their spare time.
  37. A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
    A typo in the text:
    Tett et al. (2000) used an "optical detection methodology".
    I believe it should say "optimal".
  38. Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
    skeptikal: "In 1970, scientists of the day were saying ... I want to know what makes scientists today right, when the only thing they have is computer models." One thing that gives us greater confidence in what we say today over what may have been said forty years ago is an additional 40 years of observations. Much has changed in those 40 years: satellites, computers, worldwide monitoring of GHGs, etc. So to posit that 'they only have computer models' is nonsense. They have lots more data to work with - and more data allows lower uncertainty. Then there is the undeniable fact that the global warming signal was barely emergent in the 70s, but may well be in full swing now. You should investigate the parable of the frog in a pot of water. While you investigate, be sure to read the SkS posts that explicitly address your need to be 'convinced.'
  39. apiratelooksat50 at 02:53 AM on 22 January 2012
    How do Climate Models Work?
    Kate, I have some experience in using modeling software (CORMIX for water and Beeline for air). As anything else accurate output depends on accurate input. Your article is very interesting and informative. I have a few questions: 1. Is the software available to the general public? 2. Is there a standard database for the input? 3. Are you able to remove/add anthropogenic factors? Also, I'm curious about what "actions" you realistically propose.
  40. Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
    skeptikal, you are wrong that it is hard to get the raw data and that the algorithms are closely guarded secrets. Really, really wrong. Links to all those are here among other places: Tamino's Climate Data Links; look in the comments on that page for even more links. RealClimate's Data Sources page of links.
  41. Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
    skeptikal, see the Skeptical Science argument "Ice age predicted in the 70s."
  42. A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
    Here is a shorter version of above video part, of the Greenhouse Effect: Carbon Dioxide, heat trapping
  43. Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
    skeptikal#18: A quote illustrating a rather premature conclusion based on a statistically insignificant period of time. Your prior comment expressed doubt based on 30 years being too short a time period; you now make a conclusion based on just a few 'recent years'? If one claims to be skeptical, one must not be so selective. But here is Rahmstorf in the same article: "Warming has continued in the last few years," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Note that this was written in 2009. Subsequent events included one of the warmest years on record (2010) and the warmest la Nina year on record (2011): source It would appear that Rahmstorf was correct.
  44. Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
    Is that what you call a "recent article", skeptikal : one from over two years ago ? Do you have anything more recent ? Did you also read some of the other statements in that article from Latif, including these : "We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations" "In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal." Does that make things clearer ?
  45. Eric (skeptic) at 00:43 AM on 22 January 2012
    A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Albatross, and Tom, yes, this discussion is about K&H08, figure 3b. I'd like to ask 1) whether the red squares in 3b in your comment are useful added information for threads such as this one (to wrap up the discussion from Serial Deleter thread), 2) whether the lines of evidence in K&H2008 fig 3b are independent and thus have meaningful agreement (to address Albatross's post 68), and 3) about paleoclimate sensitivity estimates (Tom's robustness claim in 72). I'd also like to discuss Dr. Huber's "heading for the Eocene" claim after reading a journal article or two (I found some links with google scholar and will choose some of those if necessary). On 1, the link to an unrestricted PDF of K&H08 is a good way to provide a lot of context including the added information on the sensitivity estimates in figure 3a that are shown in 3b. I would point out that K&H refer mostly to figure 3 rather than "3a" to point out various aspects of PDFs. But they separately call out fig 3b: "Figure 3b is a partly subjective evaluation of the different lines of evidence for several criteria that need to be considered when combining lines of evidence in an assessment." Thus the threads at SkepSci that "combine lines of evidence in an assessment" should utilize the information from fig 3b in some way, probably in the text. I think the OP in this thread, for example, is combining lines of evidence to some extent. Specifically I think the caption of figure 3 above or elsewhere in the OP should describe some of the red boxes. I think that would match the authors intent for assessments. On 2, the primary issue is the uncertainty of the climate regimes in paleoclimate. The radiative equilibrium is at TOA and that depends on many climate variables including convection in various zones, jet stream position and other factors that affect the effective radiating temperature. Those in turn are affected by ocean circulation patterns and other short term factors. These factors are not radiative forcings and can not be used to calculate sensitivity. There are many medium term factors (e.g. tilt and eccentricity) that are also not simple radiative forcing changes. While some of these can be simplified into a number like an albedo change, mostly these require a GCM. With any climate regimes and nonradiative forcing there is a CO2 amplification. The amplifier uses rising temperature to create more GHG and then more warming. We currently are short circuiting the amplifier by raising CO2 directly. This is not hard to model and can be used to predict the immediate temperature response (e.g. line-by-line applied to the average cloudy and clear day and nights over various zones. The problem comes when the regime changes, atmospheric (clouds and other weather) and oceanic weather (circulation) changes in a warmer world means that a GCM is required. Once a GCM is required to determine the temperature response to a radiative forcing, the evidence for forcing is the same, the GCM, not the data since the GCM is tuned to match the data (applies equally to paleo or present data). So to answer your question Albatross, yes, there is agreement, but it is because the same models are used. On 3, the sensitivity calculation for paleoclimatic data range from "Simple calculations relating the peak cooling to changes in radiative forcing..." to GCMs. Yet, transitions can be forced a number of nonradiative factors that can create metastable states, e.g. http://www.enseignement.polytechnique.fr/profs/mecanique/Thomas.Dubos/MEC580/2008/Binnendijk_Bouteiller_Schmittner02.pdf In another example http://www.skepticalscience.com/LIG2-1906.html the temperature changes come from a number of factors that are difficult to evaluate and measure in paleo data. At this point I do not have enough information to know how to define robustness in such estimates. Can you define that for me and I will try to read more on how such estimates are made. Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to do much today, until later this evening.
  46. Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
    muoncounter@17, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."
  47. What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
    Tealy, Where are you coming up with your sea level rise estimates? The current science based estimates range from 75 cm to 2 meters by 2100. That is a minimum of 80 mm per year over that time frame. A central estimate would be 160 mm/yr, more than three times the current rate. It is absurd for you to claim that sea level rise will decrease when it is expected to dramatically increase. Please provide a reference for your extraordinary claims of a change in sea level projections. Perhaps if you read some of the posts on SkS you will learn about expected sea level rise. I found about 20 posts using the search function in the upper left corner.
  48. How do Climate Models Work?
    Excellent an informing post. For those of us who do not already know, what is Kate's research on? It must be interesting.
  49. How do Climate Models Work?
    barry @19, "liking" the facebook page is not an endorsement of Hayhoes science, let alone he Christianity or her politics. It is an endorsement of the fact that engaging in politics by intimidating opponents with threats of violence to their children, and death threats to them is not acceptable. How can it be inappropriate in any context to make that stand? In fact, of any critics of climate change are reading this, I heartily recommend that you "like" the "We support Katherine Hayhoe" page as a clear endorsement of your opposition to politics by intimidation.
  50. What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
    "Therefore it is not valid to extrapolate the zonal tilting component from sea level rise ad infinitum" True, but that is a strawman argument of your own making. As I have stated repeatedly on this thread, projected future trends are contradictory. You don't appear to be comprehending this rather obvious fact. "Would appear there is no validation to use a figure as high as 5.1mm/yr for the next 100 years. Does anyone know a source for a P50 of the sea level rise around Tuvalu ove the next 100 years." Well no one here, apart from you it seems, expects sea level rise at Tuvalu to only be influenced by the change in wind and ocean circulations. It's sinking too remember? And I don't know what you expect to keep all that ice in the West Antarctic ice sheet from melting, and to a lesser degree, the Greenland ice sheet. That melted ice will contribute significantly to sea level rise, including at Tuvalu. They'll be extraordinarily lucky to just see 5.1mm of sea level rise over the next 100 years. The height of the Eemian interglacial (around 125,000 years ago) saw ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica not too dissimilar in size than today. Yet under the gradual orbital forcing of that period the ice sheets collapsed. This was principally the West Antarctic, even though the solar insolation forcing was focused on the northern hemisphere. Multi-meter sea level rises occurred over century-long timescales, i.e at least four times the current rate of sea level rise at Tuvalu. If that happened from the slight orbital forcing nudge back in the Eemian what prospects from the almighty shove we humans have given the climate? We already have roughly 25 metres of sea level rise to come over the next thousand years or more, just from the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere. And, of course, given current rates of fossil fuel burning all the coral at Tuvalu will be dead in a 100 years time, from a combination of mass bleaching and ocean acidification. There's clearly no point trying to minimize this, the science is very clear - it's bad, very bad.

Prev  1316  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  1324  1325  1326  1327  1328  1329  1330  1331  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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