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  1333  1334  1335  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  1348  Next

Comments 67001 to 67050:

  1. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    No the graph produced is meaningless scientifically. Let me explain what I mean. I can draw a graph about something relevant. Let's say I draw a graph for the UN that shows the population peaking before 2050 and dropping. Now I ran 75 numerical series picking and choosing methods to refine the graph and my margin of error is to the nearest Trillion. (1000 times larger than to the nearest billion). What it represents is meaningful. The way it was produced although mathematically sound was not meaningful. Do you get the scientific difference? Trying to calculate the number of joules retained by the earth is by definition an almost impossible job. The numerical methods to do it might be logically sound but if you understand the math behind it it is similar to multiplying both sides of the equation by zero. Mathematically fine but not meaningful. How do you measure the joules the earth loses every day? How do you measure the incoming energy? What is the error margin on both? Every time you numerically manipulate data from the original source you introduce two problems. Error and bias. I like I think the majority of people on both sides believe the peer review process is inherently broken. Why? Because of the number of papers retracted after the peer review process verified them. So my goal is to look for the *least* processed/manipulated numbers. Not things that show what I want to see but which can't be argued with. Unfortunately that seems to leave very slim pickings.
  2. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    An important qualifier to the effect that ENSO has on global surface temperature is that all ENSO does is move energy around in the Earth climate system (e.g. warming atmospheric & surface temps by cooling ocean temps or vice versa). This is contrasted with the energy imbalance caused by adding IR-trapping gases, which cause the Earth climate system to accumulate more energy in all components.
  3. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    If you are interested in learning more about the scientific views of the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates, you will want to check out: “Gingrich Tops Scientific American's Geek Guide to the 2012 GOP Candidates”, Scientific American, Jan 3, 2012 To access this timely and informative article, click“here.
  4. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    @Stephen Baines. Ok but the global mean temperatures are usually a combination of ocean and air temperatures. If the ocean is releasing heat to the air, why would this increase the mean temperature?
  5. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    Mace @ 20 - wrong. ENSO affects global temperatures because the Pacific Ocean is very large, and the two phases (La Nina/El Nino) distribute heat in the water column in two distinct ways. Thus: La Nina = strengthening trade winds blow warm surface water across to the western Pacific where it 'bunches up" and a substantial proportion ends up below the surface layer. The strengthening winds promote the upwelling (ekman pumping) of deeper colder water along the coast of South/ Central America. The combination of these two processes and the air-sea exchange is sufficient to cool surface temperatures globally. El Nino = the easterly trade winds shut down and heat accumulates in the eastern and central Pacific Ocean. Upwelling along the coast of America shuts off. Net result is a lot of warm water in the surface layer of the ocean. Once again because of the air-sea exchange of heat, global surface temperatures rise as heat is lost from the ocean. This meme is popping up a lot recently in the threads, so I guess I'll have to write up a post/rebuttal.
  6. Stephen Baines at 08:58 AM on 6 January 2012
    A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    mace... Because the ocean is such a large reservoir of heat, any change in how much heat gets into (or comes out of) the oceans has a significant impact on the amount of heat in the atmosphere. El Nino actually releases heat from the ocean to the atmosphere under normal conditions, La Nina does the opposite. So there is more heat in the atmosphere after El Nino and less after La Nina. The heat in the atmsopshere is what we on land experience. Capiche? Even Spencer, Christy and Lindzen would not argue against this.
  7. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    @DB. I keep responding. The posts disappear. Not sure why. Still this seems to me to be a good scientific question to ask, bearing in mind that 2011 being only the 11th warmest year is accounted for by a moderate La Nina event cooling the planet. I'd include links but assume that most people on here are familiar with this information and it just takes too long to keep googling the sites and copying and pasting the urls.
  8. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    @dana1981, but I don't understand that bit. Why would an oscillating ocean current contribute to global mean temperature. El Nino warms America and cools Australia, La Nina does the opposite. i.e. on a regional basis it has an effect but should have no net effect globally.
    Response:

    [DB] A Reminder:  It is insisted that you must first respond to the unsupported assertions you made in this comment before you can then move on to other subjects.

  9. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    JamesWilson - "Scientifically I don't like this post" I'm sure you don't like it, but where's the 'scientific' argument to support your claims? "Changes in total earth heat content are pretty meaningless" Clearly the world's ice sheets, glaciers, sea level, and plants/animals don't share that ill-informed opinion.
  10. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    JamesWilson @14 - if you're referring to Figure 2 (there are 4 figures, and thus saying "the graph" is entirely too vague), then I guarantee you have seen it on a 'skeptic' site. Any graph or claim of 'no warming since 2001' or 1998 [insert date] is illustrated by the segments (with blue lines) in Figure 2. As DB notes, making general disparaging comments without any specifics is not constructive. mace - El Nino and La Nina result in short-term warming and cooling (respectively) of global (and regional) surface temperatures.
  11. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    JamesWilson, the graph rebuts claims that 'it has not warmed since 1998' and the like... which is currently #9 on the list of frequent 'skeptic' claims. If you truly have never heard that then you simply haven't been paying attention. In any case, examples of this false claim can be found in that link and many other pages on this site. The fact that you assume the lack of documentation of false claims in this overview post means that no such documentation exists, rather than that it is an overview / summary and thus not covering all the details, is indicative of interpretative bias on your part. As to your claim that margins of error in heat measurements are greater than anomalies... you provide no basis for this claim and it contradicts numerous scientific studies, including those cited for the graphs. It thus appears to be a false claim which you choose to advance and/or believe rather than dealing with the actual evidence.
  12. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    JamesWilson: You're kidding, right? Right? Try reading the comments on your average WUWT post, or perhaps the comments on almost any news article, blog post, &c where pseudoskeptic tripe & nonsense is allowed free reign. Try reading the comments of the likes of ClimateWatcher, TOP, Fred Staples, RW1, and many others on this site alone. All over the Internet, the airwaves, and newsprint there are pseudoskeptics cherry-picking data to claim that global warming has "flattened" (or there has been "no warming since 1998" or whatever you want). The graph, showing the various decadal periods of cooling, is a satire by reductio ad absurdum. Please also substantiate your claims regarding total Earth heat content with reference to peer-reviewed scientific publications or by appeal to widely-accepted physics. Without such support, they can be safely dismissed as nonsense.
  13. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    How does a La Nina or El Nino event effect the global mean temperature. My understanding is that they cause cooling and warming effects on a regional basis for a short term only.
    Response:

    [DB] It is insisted that you must first respond to the unsupported assertions you made in this comment before you can then move on to other subjects.

  14. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    From Slate.com : Why Are Windmills Always White? "The white paint, which many localities require by ordinance, is also a matter of aesthetics. City planners seem to think white windmills are less of an eyesore. The white also reflects sunlight, which minimizes expansion and cracking of the gel coat that protects the fiberglass composite rotors. Not all windmills are white, though. Some Midwestern turbines are yellow to match the grain. (This doesn't work so well in the spring, when the crops are green.) German windmills are sometimes painted dark green at the bottom to blend into the forest. European rotors usually have a red stripe to make them visible to aircraft. Engineers once tried painting the rotors black to absorb sunlight and prevent icing, but it didn't seem to help much."
  15. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    ubrew12, presumably windmills are usually white so that they can be seen easily. You seem to be suggesting that this is a bad thing, but I don't believe that is the case. While some complain that windmills are 'eye sores', most seem to like the way they look. In any case, being visible is important for aircraft and birds to be able to avoid them. A light on top wouldn't necessarily be sufficient, and would require that those lights be monitored for failure and maintained.
  16. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    Scientifically I don't like this post. Nothing here has enough detail to be refuted. Graphs claim "this is what the skeptics think" without actually sourcing the graph. Since I have never seen this graph on a skeptic site I am guessing no skeptics think that. In which case what is the integrity level of the Global Warming researcher that produced this? (-Snip-) Changes in total earth heat content are pretty meaningless. Let's say our margin of error in measurement is 10 digits of mantissa. Now lets draw error bars on the graph. They are bigger than the entire graph. -> Waste of time graph. Put another way how would you calculate the amount of joules entering and leaving the earth with any degree of accuracy? (-Snip-). That doesn't mean it is wrong. Just a meaningless graphed numerical model like the Mandlebrot set. Pretty but pointless.
    Response:

    [DB] "Scientifically I don't like this post."

    Then give us some scientific specifics.

    "Nothing here has enough detail to be refuted."

    Incorrect.  All of this is considered in individual posts here at SkS and the entire OP contains specific links to the peer-reviewed literature it cites.

    "Since I have never seen this graph on a skeptic site I am guessing no skeptics think that."

    Straw man.  Because you have never seen the Emperor Caesar Augustus then that therefore means he was made up, right?

    "Changes in total earth heat content are pretty meaningless."

    Meaningless?  It is the entire point.  If you cannot understand this fundamental point then you need to comment less and learn more.  QED.

    Claims of falsification snipped.

  17. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    DrTsk@#5 and CBDunkerson@#8: I hope this isn't too far afield of this thread, but why are windmills white (unless as a gift to the fossil-fuels industry)? Why not earth-tones/dark blues and purples (with prominant flashing lights on top that can't be seen from the ground)? Why do people hire landscape architects for homes and buildings and not alt energy projects? Just wondering...
  18. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    From "The Gathering Storm" (May,1935),WS Churchill's first book in his "The Second World" series,page 112,Reprint Society,1951. "There lay in my memory at this time some lines from an unknown writer about a railway accident.I had learned them from a volume of Punch cartoons which I used to pour over when I was eight or nine years old at school at Brighton. Who is in charge of the clattering train? The axles creak and the couplings strain; And the pace is hot,and the points are near, And Sleep has deadened the driver's ear, And the signals flash through the night in vain, For Death is in charge of the clattering train."
  19. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    CW#6: "for the last eleven years, warming trends have decelerated" [DB] reply: "The point is without statistical merit... " Not to mention the fact that the point is also incorrect. See Foster and Rahmstorf: There is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors."
  20. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    Ubrew12, as DrTsk implies, the acceptance of wind power in Iowa is largely driven by economic rather than environmental concerns. Indeed, if promoted as a way to oppose global warming, many Iowans might have opposed it. However, the area is part of a major wind corridor (which also contributes to the prevalence of tornadoes) and thus wind power is more economically viable here than in most other parts of the world. Ironically, I am in Iowa at the moment and 60+ degree (fahrenheit) temperatures in Adair county are setting a new record high for the day... yet, while this has been endlessly discussed, absolutely no one I have talked to thinks it has anything to do with global warming. All that said, I think the fact that even my 'Republican corn-grower' relatives are backing things which do work to reduce global warming is a hugely positive sign. If wind and solar power become inexpensive enough we may be able to beat global warming despite the misinformation campaign. Indeed, once they lose on the economic front most of the deniers will likely move on and it is likely that scientific reality will then be allowed to filter through to most people. Just as all but the lunatic fringe of the 'tobacco smoking does not cause cancer', 'acid rain is fake', and 'fixing the non-existent ozone hole would bankrupt the world economy' deniers have given up the ghost, so too will most of the AGW deniers once the underlying economic battle has been won one way or the other. The wind mills I can see all over the countryside here demonstrate that economic battle can be won independently of the fight against misinformation.
  21. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    The folks you've awarded First and Second places to are really one and the same. I'd have put J Curry up for an award for such BS* gems as 'Wow,' the 'uncertainty monster' and 'there is no scientific basis for saying the trend hasn't paused.'
  22. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    Memo received!
  23. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    Ubrew. No subsidies and money are always welcome...
  24. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    Excellent choices for the awards! I wish we had a public ceremony to give these to their recipients.
  25. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    I was really hoping someone would ask the Republican Presidential candidates during the Iowa caucus the following question: "If there's no such thing as global warming, why does Iowa now generate 20% of its electricity from wind power? Have these largely Republican corn-growers just naively swallowed the AGW propaganda?"
  26. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    By the way an excellent post by Dana.
  27. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    To @ ClimateWatcher. Please compare paleoclimate quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere to average global temperature. Assuming you accept CO2 is the main level of the Greenhouse effect you can then be left in no doubt that a substantial and rapid Earth System warming is inevitable given the relative atmospheric lifetime of CO2 when compared to manmade aerosols. If you do not accept that CO2 is the main lever for the greenhouse effect please consult with the following papers: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=la09300d http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=sc05400j http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha05510d.html When discussing the future of the species or climate and ecosystem health it is not very helpful to focus on decadal variations.
  28. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    I think I'd have put Lord Lawson's 'Global Warming Policy Foundation' -- a charity -- further up the list. I haven't included a link because I don't want to give them the oxygen of publicity. Instead I'll link to one of the many articles rebutting their activities.
    Response:

    [dana1981] Here's the SkS version of that rebuttal.

  29. Models are unreliable
    Tristan -"There seems to be little indication of increased warming" Nonsense. Over 90% of global warming is going into the oceans. Did you miss Dana's recent blog post? Check out the last 40-ish years: I guess a blog post and graphic(s?) is necessary to clear up this confusion because a lot of the fake-skeptics don't seem to grasp this.
  30. 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
    Suggested reading: “Top climate change stories of 2011” by Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang blog, Washington Post, Jan 4, 2011 Although Freedman plows some of the same ground that MarkR does in the above, there are some significant differences in the focus of the two articles. Freedman covers the following: 1. Advances in understanding global warming and extreme weather 2. Surface temperature record holds up to (another) review 3. “Climategate 2” falls flat 4. Congress Nixes National Climate Service
  31. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    Climate Watcher criticizes paleo ice-core records as regional while resting on HadCrut which has its own limitation of eliminating polar regions. Dana's context is valid to the point of extremely conservative: glacial to inter-glacial 8dC over 5k years is a stability crawl compared to a 2dC rise over a century. It isn't 'climate change', it's 'biosphere disruption'. The big picture is that graph showing heat transfer to the deeper layers of the oceans - 3D AGW at a measurable rate in a human-observable period.
  32. The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
    As far as the OP goes, Rush maybe deserved a climate B[ad]S[cience] award (although it would be a close thing between him, Watts, and Spencer/Christy/Braswell) on account of the size of his listenership.
  33. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    Amazingly brazen liars that people like to hear. On a related topic. How does the Skeptic Community see Robert B. Laughlin? He wrote a book titled: Powering The Future. It seems he takes some liberties, but he also seems well reasoned. He is a Nobel Prize winner in Physics. He said that Breeder Nuclear will provide 20,000 years of energy. He also siad that CO2 is not really a big deal. That Carbon is our friend. Is he another myth-sayer or just different outlook?
  34. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    CW @6 - you continue to miss the point. If you're going to argue that the planet isn't "warming rapidly", you need an objective definition of what that phrase means. My solution was to use the paleoclimate record. Your solution is to compare current warming rates to projected future warming rates. Your argument is thus equivalent to "if the planet isn't currently warming as fast as we expect it to warm in the future, then it's not warming rapidly." To be blunt, that argument makes no sense whatsoever. Moreover, you continue to focus on short-term noise while ignoring the long-term trend. I again refer you to the 'Rising Surface Temperature' section of the above post.
  35. Dikran Marsupial at 03:58 AM on 6 January 2012
    Models are unreliable
    Tristan As this thread is about the models being unreliable, do the models suggest that this acceleration should be visible over a 40 year timespan, above the noise we should expect to see in the observations due to sources of internal unforced variability such as ENSO? If so, then please give a reference to a paper or model output demonstrating this is the case. If not, then the reason we have not seen the clear accelleration is because of (i) the physics of climate suggest we shouldn't have seen it yet and/or (ii) there is so much noise in the observations it may be there but is obscured by the noise so we can't reliably/unequivocally detect it.
  36. ClimateWatcher at 03:38 AM on 6 January 2012
    A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    5. John Russel the GISP record is regional not global, but it does indicate a fair number of temperature spikes: "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg"
    Response:

    [DB] Your reference is to local/regional data and is thus off-topic for a global thread such as this one.  Please keep in mind the nature of the OP.

  37. ClimateWatcher at 03:26 AM on 6 January 2012
    A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    1. Dana wrote "comparing current warming rates to future projected warming rates." One cannot use future projections to validate future projections. If temperature trends are to reach the future projected trends, they must accelerate. That could still happen, but instead, for the last eleven years, warming trends have decelerated.
    Response:

    [DB] "for the last eleven years, warming trends have decelerated"

    The point is without statistical merit and amounts to being specious and argumentative.

  38. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    Stephen... Thanks a ton for stopping in to comment. Everyone really likes the video. It's a wonderful tribute to Stephen Schneider and reminds us all of what a great loss his passing was. With respect to the critiques, pretty much everyone here is heavily invested in learning how to effectively communicate climate science. Most of us spend many too many hours on other sites trying to battle people's misinterpretations and misrepresentations of climate science. We are, as Schneider puts it, trying to "take back the airwaves" from those who wish to cause confusion. One of the key points that John Cook discovered was a study showing that sometimes repeating a myth in the course of debunking it can actually reinforce that myth. That's where the concern about the CO2isGreen ad comes in. You're right, the video you created was targeted at a more sophisticated audience who understands the science. For a newbie the video has the potential to actually lodge the myth into a person's mind and make it harder to replace the myth with accurate information. My own interpretation is that the CO2isGreen ad ends up looking like a modern version of the 1960's cigarette ad. And ultimately history will see it exactly that way. In the meantime there are several great take home messages in Schneider's talk that inspire us all. Your video does a great job of capturing that in a compelling and digestible format.
  39. Models are unreliable
    The past 40ish years appears to have a fairly straight 0.016C/yr trend. There seems to be little indication of increased warming. Even when exogenous factors are removed, the signal doesn't seem to show any acceleration. Given that we're expected to hit +2C well before 2087 under BAU conditions: A) Why is it taking so long for the positive feedbacks to reveal themselves in the temperature record. B) How long will it be before the rate of change is 0.020 or 0.025C/yr? Ca) If emissions continue at ~BAU and short-term CS is >2.5C (which would result in a visible increase in warming), doesn't it follow that there is a very high chance that the next decade will contain one or more years that are dramatically hotter than '98/05/10? Cb) Isn't that really ****ing bad?
  40. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    45, Stephen, Thanks for providing the video. Overall I think most people love it (which is why it was posted here). The general complaint only focuses around the fact, I think, that the "CO2 is plant food" advertisement runs for so long that one forgets that it is an example of malicious advertising and not actually part of the case being made. But the video is very well done and gratefully welcomed. By the way, you might choose to click on your name at the left just below the thermometer (where it says "You are logged in as stephenthomson"), click "Update Profile" and add your website. This will let users get to your website by clicking on your name in any comment.
  41. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    actually thoughtful, and if deniers do use that approach (i.e. 'not one shred of evidence linking CO2 to increased heat') the response should be that it is a flat out lie... the equivalent of claiming that just because you put a hot dog on a lit barbecue grill and it has now been cooked on one side with vertical stripes corresponding to the grill frame that does not mean that the grill had anything to do with the hot dog becoming cooked. Some magical unknown force could have been shielding the hot dog from the grill heat while another magical force (cosmic rays in your example) came in and cooked the hot dog in exactly the same way that the grill would have. As you know, there is overwhelming evidence (rather than 'not one shred') that CO2 is responsible for this warming... to the same level as the grill and hot dog example. I've found that people tend to understand how global warming 'fingerprints' tie it back to CO2 better when presented with this sort of 'heating food' analogy. Just as the grill has observable heating patterns on the hot dog so too does CO2 have specific global warming patterns that differ from cosmic rays, solar, and other warming sources. Given that the observed warming matches both the degree and patterns we would expect from CO2 and does NOT match any other known source the efforts of 'skeptics' to claim 'something else' is responsible have drifted into the realm of denying observed reality.
  42. stephenthomson at 01:10 AM on 6 January 2012
    Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    Dear SKS community, I wanted to thank you for posting my video and for your feedback and critique. Some of you may think this video hurts the cause, and i'm a little surprised about that; after all, I don't feel i've obscured Stephen Schneider's message; it was his oratory that originally spoke volumes to inspire me, and which I trust will speak volumes to the general public (whom I do believe, contrary to some of you, are smarter than a bar of clay). I understand that it may not follow the debunking bible to a t, but then it wasn't necessarily made for denialists or for debunking. It was my intention simply to shed more light on an inspiring man for an audience normally unwilling to sit through hour-long lectures (and SS himself knew the importance of multiple formats of conveyance). I also happen to believe that no matter which side or set of information is being used to proselytize, 'force-feeding' sometimes doesn't go over all that well. Schneider's monologue was one of repose and of ominous calm, and it was that tone I attempted to garnish without obstructing; hence, no volley between myth and busting. Time will tell if my attempt here was successful or not in furthering environmentalism and attention to climate policy. I respect this community for taking on the denialists head on, and I hope all our work does some good. cheers stephen
  43. CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
    I believe this quote:
    "considering that 90% of a plant’s water use is actually for cooling of the leaves and nothing more"
    is not correct so I will search for peer reviewed literature to back up my statement. Remember that plants are solar-powered. (Simplified chart: photosynthesis-chloroplast.jpg ) The first stage of photosynthesis involves the photolysis of water which produces three things: a free electron to power chemical reactions via ATP, O2 which is discarded (this is the only place where oxygen is released), and a charged hydrogen atom. People wishing to "quickly" learn more about the details of photosynthesis should start with these videos: http://www.khanacademy.org/video/photosynthesis Now it is true that plants lose water through their stoma, but as temperature rises, the stoma begin to close and photosynthesis is reduced. (most c3 plants are are 100% open at 24.4C and 100% closed at 30C). If the primary purpose of water was cooling, the plants would release it all to save themselves. In fact, they close off their stomas to limit water loss because water will be needed (photolysis) as soon as the temperature drops and the stomas open.
  44. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    Interesting stuff Tom Curtis. I think that changes to land use are often ignored in the popular understanding of global warming, with all the emphasis given to industrial emissions.
  45. A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
    @Climate watcher #1 I think the problem is one of thinking in human time scales. As I understand it, speaking geologically, a temperature rise equivalent to 15degreesC in just 1,000 years is very rapid. According to the IPCC "although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming". (IPCC FAQ 6.2)
  46. Dikran Marsupial at 22:14 PM on 5 January 2012
    Models are unreliable
    mace Please avoid starting up a new discussion without first properly disengaging from another. You made an ill-informed comment here, which several contributors (including myself) took the time to address. It is rather rude to pose questions and the ignore the answers, so please go back to that thread and either acknowledge that you were mistaken or explain why the answers provided are not sufficient. Why should anybody bother respond to your posts if you appear to be ignoring those responses?
  47. Doug Hutcheson at 21:07 PM on 5 January 2012
    Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    Tom@20 "Humans also adapt, and much faster so that a thousand years from now even in the worst case of the reasonably probable scenarios global warming will have little impact on the standard of living." You have a rosier future view than I do. Assuming we continue on our current trajectory, and I see no evidence of a likelihood that we will change soon or much, are we not looking at millennial changes? Melting poles, increased desertification, mass extinctions, population collapse, sea level rise and associated human migrations, with concomitant wars ... need I go on? When our high-tech, greed-fuelled society hits AGW reality, I cannot imagine the results will be business as usual. Standards of living must surely fall and I have little hope that quality of life will be anything like what we enjoy now. So, what is your projection based on? Please tell me why I am being pessimistic - I could do with the reassurance.
  48. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    skept.fr 16, assuming 260 ppmv and a climate sensitivity of 3 per doubling of CO2 for fast feedbacks, adding 30 ppmv would increase temperature by 0.5 degrees C. With slow feedbacks, ie, the release of additional CO2 due to the extra warmth and and reduced ice shelves that would increase to 0.6 degrees C, or possibly a bit more. That means that with constant CO2, the temperature decrease from the Holocene Climactic Optimum would have been 30 to 60% larger.
  49. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    boba10960 @ 15 - I've seen a recent paper abstract that suggests the growth of coral added perhaps as much as 26ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere since the last glacial maximum. I'm going to see if I can get hold of a copy from one of the authors (haven't found a free copy online) - as it relates to a few articles I'm writing.
  50. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    boba10960 @15, thanks, I missed that. You are correct. Michael Sweet @14, thanks also for the link.

Prev  1333  1334  1335  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  1348  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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