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  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  Next

Comments 68101 to 68150:

  1. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    "However, how long are we going to tolerate Homeostasis arguments?? What evidence is there that the phase space of the climate system has 'very' stable points that pertubations out of those points will dissipate and the system will relax to the same point?" Well, I think it obvious that the system must have some moderating feedbacks on geologic timescales to have remained in a fairly narrow range of habitability for the last several hundred million years. Else we wouldn't have come back from things like snowball Earth, major meteorite strikes and volcanic eruptions, a faint young Sun, and so on. On multidecadal to millennial timescales, however, positive feedbacks must dominate for things like the glacial/interglacial cycle, D-O events, and the PETM to occur.
  2. The End of the Hothouse
    Doc Snow @ 1 Yes, a difference between the threshold for glaciation from the threshold for deglaciation would fit the definition of historesis. Differing history and/or internal state can vary the threshold values. I too would be keen to learn more about this.
  3. The End of the Hothouse
    Another important point to take away (and one that leapt out at me): "1000-1200ppm down to 600-700ppm in just three million years" What that says to me is that if we crank up atmospheric concentrations to ~1000ppm, it's going to take millions of years to get back to anything resembling 'normal' levels for all of human history. I.e. if we screw up the climate, it's darn well gonna stay screwed up, probably for longer than humans will exist on the planet...
  4. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    KR @99, an excellent summary.
  5. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I mean, I can even agree the net effect of additional CO2 could be zero or a wash, but not because of any second law violation. This is silly.
  6. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    @Muonocounter-thanks, watched the vid- very informative. I am writing a book 'metaphoring' my experiences with 2 diseases and major surgeries (liver transplant, other organ removals, septic shock, etc...doing well now :)) to the climate change arena. Some of my personal tipping points when organs and other important body systems suddenly 'tipped over' to other states of order and functionality were quite unpredictable in the sense of exactly 'how' and 'when'...it's often hard to believe they are coming until they actually arrive.(and even then it can take a while to grasp) Quite a challenging situation to communicate this phenomenon in the climate change arena in a way that 'gets through'.
  7. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I can't believe this thread now is 1200 posts! There is no violation of the second law with the Greenhouse Effect, because it's not about energy going from cold to warm through a conduction process. Does anyone actually think that a re-emitted photon cannot travel from the colder atmosphere toward the warmer surface? How do the photons from the Sun pass through the colder upper atmosphere and reach the warmer surface?
  8. The End of the Hothouse
    If a drop in CO2 down to 600-700 ppm caused the onset of Antarctic glaciation, that is additional evidence we can use to rebut the skeptic’s argument that the CO2 effect is saturated.
  9. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    DB I believe when someone like "skept fr" is allowed to hi-jack a comment thread, it turns off other readers and inhibits their active particpation in the comment thread.
  10. Climate sensitivity is low
    Richard Arrett, among many other problems, you're ignoring the possibility that more than 100% of the warming since 1950 is due to CO2. Impossible! I hear you cry. But not, actually, as it is quite likely that aerosols are offsetting the non-CO2 warming effects and some of the CO2 warming effects. It will be "interesting" in a Chinese curse sort of a way, when China and India sort out their pollution issues. Another issue is you keep discussing equilibrium sensitivity values when you should be discussing transient sensitivity values, which are closer to 2C per doubling. We don't expect to see equilibrium sensitivity-sized changes instantaneously.
  11. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I genuinely have no idea what any of this has to do with violations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
  12. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1197 Sphaerica I think I just answered part of that in 1198. In the Wood (1909) experiment, there was a small discrepancy in how fast the two boxes heated. The box with the IR transparent cover heated faster. So I jumped to the conclusion that if that was so, and if placing an IR opaque filter in front of the box caused the temperature rise to drop, then the same would be true if the atmosphere were IR opaque (which it isn't, see muon's charts.)
  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1163, 1193 scadenp Well, I thought I did in 1174, but Philippe in 1179 pointed out that I incorrectly used the term energy for "Sunlight". It just all depends on what Blambda means when integrated as in equation 30 on page 22. It could just be power (energy per unit time) integrated over a portion of the spectrum. [I am being a bit imprecise here. You can look up Blambda elsewhere.] That table in G&T is referring to the black body radiation of the sun before it passes through the atmosphere. So of course the gases in the atmosphere are going to take their "cut" of the radiant energy on the way down. Wood demonstrated, however, that a significant and measurable portion of IR does in fact reach the ground. But muon's charts support this finding. Just out of pure curiosity, how does RGHE deal with the warming of CO2 from the sunlight? And why does muon's graph show such a low temperature in the CO2 notch looking down from above if there is so much radiant energy available to heat it? I have a thought on that but I am wondering what your opinion is.
  14. Climate sensitivity is low
    John Russell at 04:50 AM on 16 December, 2011: I certainly did not feel like I was being banned. I am moving to this thread so as to not be off topic. The warming since 1950 has been around 1 degree F or .55 degrees C. But how much of that is due to CO2? I read 75% in one article and 50% in another. Lets say 75% of the warming from 1950 is due to CO2 and the rest is due to land use changes, black carbon on snow, methane, etc. So .75 degrees F seems like a fair estimate of the warming from 1950 caused by CO2. First off - does that seem about right to you? I am not a climate scientist - so what I see from this data is that we seem to be on target for about the amount of warming you would expect from physics - but just the direct warming - no amplification effect. Doesn't that imply about 1.5 degrees F of warming to 2100 (or about .83C) from just CO2. Of course, there would be temperature increase also due to the other 25% non-carbon causes. If you just extend the trend line - doesn't it look like we will get about 1.2 degrees C by 2100? When I look at the data, I see the direct warming from CO2 - but no indirect warming from CO2. That is my main problem with a CS of 3 degrees C - it just doesn't add up for me.
  15. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP, You still have not answered the question "How can an IR-opaque atmosphere possibly lead to global cooling?" I only ask again (for the third time) because I think that this may be at the heart of at least some of your problems. If you believe this, then there is something seriously wrong with your understanding of the physics involved. Please explain yourself.
  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP - we have no problem with idea that greenhouse effect is badly named. Its just not news. This in no way invalidates the fact the atmospheric greenhouse gases warm the planets. That IS the only point of substance for climate. SoD assumed G&T just skipped 100 years of literature; I think it more likely that they were trying to sow seeds of doubt about GHE with that long preamble. Looks like it worked. Are you arguing that IPCC science doesnt understand GHE. (eg as described here). Or that Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 (the basis for current calculations) have got it wrong?
  17. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    John, I respectfully must side with KR on this issue. Shocking, I know (not the agreeing with KR part). Part and parcel of the "engaging the denial to debunk it" is not the actual attempted conversion of the fake-skeptic; the larger victory is the point-by-point takedown of the meme itself for the purposes of educating the many who read SkS, but will never comment in these threads (which they are under no obligation to do). Elucidate, educate and edificate.
  18. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1192 pbjamm It isn't semantics. The good BBC professor purported to demonstrate the "radiative greenhouse effect" by comparing temperatures in a) a bottle filled with air (0.04% CO2) and b) a bottle filled with CO2. The experiment did not demonstrate what was purported even a little. Nor did it invalidate Wood's experiment in 1909. You have read G&T haven't you? They have a big problem with the term "greenhouse effect", if for no other reason than it is not well defined, at least for a mathematical physicist's purposes and it is not an "effect". There are 14 subsections in their paper that find flaws in published definitions of the term in, I would hope, respected literature on AGW. G&T are arguing the "semantics" because without defining terms, what exactly is being discussed? What I say is of little consequence. And just a note of style, if you quote, put it in quotes or indent. As everyone knows, I am easily confused.
  19. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    John Hartz - I will point out that debunking anti-science propaganda is one of the purposes of the SkS site.
  20. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Wow, almost 1200 comments in and we have consensus: It shouldn't be called the greenhouse effect because 'real greenhouses don't work that way.' In what way do these pedantics change the physical science involved - or the outcome? TOP#1187: Very insightful critiques. Now do the same with your 'I measured the temp of the stratosphere with my handheld IR thermometer experiment.'
  21. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    KR: We are engaged in a propoganda war with a well-financed and sophisticated, international Climate Denial Machine. In my opinion, SkS is not obligated to provide deniers with a forum for posting anti-science propoganda.
  22. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    dagold: Watch this video from the recent AGU conference: Hansen, Rohling and Caldeira on the Paleo Climate record. Very informative on the evidence showing a record that dovetails with calculated/modeled sensitivities. Very sobering stuff on rapid changes, especially in terms of sea level.
  23. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP - as has been said before, great hunks of G&T are telling us what everyone knows full well but possibly they and definitely you, seem to think contradicts how we understand atmospheric physics to work. The skeptic point to take down in their paper was their idea that 2nd law is being violated. It is not. Muon has pointed you at the spectral observations from both top and looking up. Both agree with model calculations which could not be valid if G&T were right. There is no observational evidence to contradict the GHE and a very great deal to validate it. Now, have you figured out what was wrong with the G&T statement I quoted earlier?
  24. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP@1191: I do have a problem with calling it proof of the "radiative greenhouse effect" as applied to real greenhouses when real greenhouses don't typically have a 90% CO2 atmosphere ======= Is this a purely semantic argument that 'greenhouse effect' is an inaccurate description? At this point I am not clear what you are arguing for or against.
  25. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1189 pbjamm Read my response. I don't have a problem with the science. CO2 does absorb IR. Look at muon's graphs and many others posted here. Those are actual measurements taken with expensive instruments. I do have a problem with calling it proof of the "radiative greenhouse effect" as applied to real greenhouses when real greenhouses don't typically have a 90% CO2 atmosphere. Perhaps that experiment should be called the "absorptive greenhouse effect". Mr. Wizard did a much better job of controlling his 6th grade experiments in the '60s.
  26. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    SirNubwub, you can get a clearer picture of what is really going on if you remove known sources of natural variation from the temperature as was done in this paper. Corrected graphs look like Not much sign of "global warming" stopping there is there? What do you figure will happen to temperature records in the next El Nino? Now perhaps you think that El Nino event will suddenly stop, but then perhaps you note that 2011 was hottest ever year with a La Nina event.
  27. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1185 John Hartz This is a discussion about G&T. Their paper is long and I saw little specific discussion of the points that they made that could be traced to specific parts of that paper. So I quote it. Frankly I don't think that a lot of the discussion on this whole thread has attempted to address G&T. And even when quoting G&T the discussion seemed to diverge from the topic of the post rather rapidly. I will say that I haven't found much of anything in the respondents to my comments here that convince me of the error of G&T's ways. I learn a lot but I see a lot of regurgitation of information found in other papers and books. Most of it just comes down on me for word choice or "rhetoric". Guess I'll have to take remedial English or writing. But then this is a blog and I would expect to be cut some slack on form and style like I cut slack for others. And if banning me is the only way to win the argument that speaks loads for the argument. G&T have made some headway. In 1184 KR uses the term "radiative greenhouse effect" which to me is acceptable in place of the "convective greenhouse effect" which is what happens in real greenhouses. And I will note that G&T wanted to use the term "atmosphere effect" in place of "greenhouse effect" when talking about warming the atmosphere by radiation.
  28. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP@1187 "There was no control, no Design of Experiment and no statistically relevant reduction of data. This was just a snake oil presentation." Are you serious? This was not a graduate thesis, this was a 6th grade level science demonstration. If you really want to *prove* that it is fabricated nonsense perform the experiment yourself. It should not take more than an hour start to finish and you probably have everything you need in our kitchen. Please post a youtube link when you are done. I eagerly await your results.
  29. Climate sensitivity is low
    jmorpuss, none of those links give any hint of any way by which the phenomena discussed could have any material effect on climate - by orders of magnitude. As such I cannot see how you can link this in any way to the idea that climate sensitivity is low.
  30. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    question...many of the news stories re: Hansen's recent statement that 2 C warming is, in fact, much more problematic than previously thought- have this quote-.."Hansen found that global mean temperatures during the Eemian period, which began about 130,000 years ago and lasted about 15,000 years, were less than 1 degree Celsius warmer than today. If temperatures were to rise 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, global mean temperature would far exceed that of the Eemian" My question: if the Eemian was about about (a bit less) 1 C warmer than 'today', wouldn't "2 C rise over pre-industrial times" bring our mean temp more or less EQUAL (maybe .2-.4 higher taking 0.8 C as present rise since pre-industrial) with Eemian and NOT "far exceeding Eemian"?? I am writing a book (very much accepting the consensus of climate scientists) on Climate Ch. from a layperson's perspective and I want to be as accurate as possible. Thanks!
  31. Newcomers, Start Here
    scaddenp - part 2 is dead on what I was looking for. For now I will use the wikipedia source for 4,000 ppm average for water vapor. It also appears by rough estimate that over 90 of the water vapor is in the part of the troposphere containing 50% of the CO2.
  32. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Re: SirNubWub What exactly do you mean by the phrase "global warming has stopped"? More specifically, what exactly do you mean by "global warming"? There are many measures of the temperature of the planet: - near-surface air temperatures over land (i.e., typical weather station data) - tropospheric temperatures from satellites or radiosondes - sea surface temperatures - deeper ocean temperatures At any time, one or more of these can decrease for a period, even if overall heat content is still rising. Examples would be the redistribution of heat related to ENSO. At any time, there may be temporary decreases in one or more of these, due to such factors as volcanic eruptions, anthropogenic aerosols, solar output, etc. The effect of the top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance caused by increased atmospheric CO2 leads to increased energy retention somewhere in the earth-atmosphere system, but it doesn't mean that every temperature, everywhere is constantly increasing. The implication of most "global warming has stopped" statements from deniers is to claim "global heating due to CO2 has stopped", in an attempt to discredit the strong science that tells us the effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This implication is unjustified, misleading, deceptive, disingenuous, illogical, specious, unfounded, unscientific [insert favourite synonym here]. To make an analogy, the "global warming has stopped" claims are pretty much equivalent to claiming that the furnace in my house has stopped heating because I opened a window on a cold winter day and one room's temperature has dropped. The furnace is still pumping just as much heat into the system, and temporary, localized effects that show cooling don't change what the furnace is doing. You don't conclude the furnace is broken, when you know that the temporary/local cooling is caused by the open window. The effects of a volcanic eruption can be seen in a short-term temperature record. The effects of ENSO can be seen in a short-term temperature record. The effects of a short-term change in solar output can be seen in a short-term temperature record. The effects of a slow, steady imbalance due to rising atmospheric CO2 cannot be seen in a short-term temperature record, and that means that short-term records also cannot show that the effect isn't there. It is an obfuscation by deniers to pretend that short-term variations in an global temperature record disprove greenhouse gas theory. To detect that slow, steady signal in the noise, you need longer records. Long enough to be statistically significant.
  33. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1186 Tom Curtis Thank you Tom. I am trying real hard to make a reasoned point in a tough forum.
  34. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1171 Moderator I viewed the BBC experiment. Thanks for the notes. Among other problems: 1. Lights repositioned between 1:14 and 1:18 so that the CO2 light is more direct. 2. No control over the positioning of the lights. 3. The left bottle had .04% by volume CO2 while the right bottle probably had 90% by volume CO2 proving that CO2 absorbs more IR than air if the experiment actually represented equal impingement of IR on the bottles. All this would prove is that CO2 absorbs IR which nobody is disputing or perhaps that it takes an almost pure CO2 atmosphere to raise the temperature a few degrees. 4. The right bottle had an object behind it that may have reflected energy back into the bottle. 5. There was no control, no Design of Experiment and no statistically relevant reduction of data. This was just a snake oil presentation. This experiment simply proves, if anything, that CO2 absorbs IR, it has nothing to do with explaining why greenhouses warm in the sun. (-snip-).
    Response:

    [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.

  35. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    #96 Sphaerica : "You continually present a false dichotomy. You require a choice of either "abandon fossil fuels 100% immediately" or "stay on fossil fuels until the entire world is safe from poverty." Wrong. I observe how humanity behave (in energy-climate question) and try to understand why. If you consider the nearly 10 PgC/y emission in 2010 as a problem, you cannot just treat this problem by its future consequences, but you're obliged to discuss its present causes. I don't understand why such a simple idea is problematic here. At least, I understand it is a bit OT, but your reactions are not on this ground. Sea after, answers to Tom are relevant for your point. #97 Tom Curtis : The question is, then, will you withdraw your objection to the 2 degree C guard rail as a reasonable basis of discussion? Or will you instead show by your intransigence that when the science is against you, you just ignore it? Of course 2 K is a reasonable basis of discussion! And even the 350ppm Hansen target is to be discussed. But a) a basis of discussion is not a dogma in policy affairs ; b) as you say, science advises policymakers but does not replace them (happily, unless you dream of kind of 'expert government' where the diversity of human values, beliefs, convictions and consequently policy goals is ignored) ; c) if a basis of discusion is not sustainable, it will be abandoned after having losen a precious time in the wrong direction, and you gave me zero argument for suggesting this basis is sustainable (whereas I put at several moment some orders of magnitude for local (eg Indian) or global energy needs, potentially non compatible with the basis of discussion) ; d) you have totally ignore my major points, notably my 8-points response about my supposed "caveats" in #91 and after my different questions in #95. Such avoidance is sad for me, I've done the best to answer your own arguments against my case ; e) I consider (without any amenity) neither you nor Sphaerica offered convincing argument when you're questioned about the dilemmas between present problems / future problems solutions. I suggest you must have a reflexion on that because it is an argumentative weakness when advocating climate mitigation strategy, and will be more and more in the coming years. #98 John Hartz : Don't know, if there are rules for the number of posts in a discussion, please indicate them to me and I'll respect this number. Anyway I suggest to stop here this endless debate, I'm really tired of it. (-snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Argumentative snipped.  Let's all rein in all points not specifically germane to the topic of the OP of this thread.  This has descended to the point of "Yes it is" and "No it's not" and detracts from the dialogue on this thread.

  36. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    SirNubwub... You have to pause a moment and think about it though. What are the chances that we're going to see any kind of cooling trend? The radiative properties of CO2 are very clear. It's basic physics. Increased levels of CO2 are going to warm the planet. If that's somehow not happening, then there's about 150 years of well established science to rework (i.e., that's not a very likely scenario). The chances that "global warming has stopped" is extremely unlikely. Where real science is operating right now is a matter of how much warming we're going to see from the expected increases in atmospheric CO2. Is the IPCC central estimate of 3.0C for 2XCO2 correct? Is it slightly lower? 2.5C? Or is it actually higher? ~4.0C? The difference between climate sensitivity of 2.5C and 4.5C has major implications for what human society needs to do to address the situation.
  37. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    John Hartz - Personally, I'm a fan of less moderation, not more. While skept.fr has put quite a lot of volume on this thread (and others), with an unfortunate tendency to use several hundred words where a few would suffice, I still consider this discussion worth having, and quite revealing/educational. * Skept.ft's objections have been shown to be a False Dichotomy between shutting down the world economy - and unchanged business as usual (BAU), claiming that any action leads directly to crushing the developing world. (S)he has simply ignored the middle ground, of replacing current power generation with renewables as quickly as possible. Even a 1 for 1 replacement of aging power plants would lead to a significant (if not, perhaps as speedy as we might hope) cut-back in CO2. But skept.fr appears reluctant to even consider the middle range. * Skept.fr has also neglected the very real costs of continuing climate change, insisting that any limits on power generation are hugely more detrimental than mitigating climate change - again, a false dichotomy, and a strawman argument as well (as every plan I have seen includes ongoing increases in total power generation). This despite multiple studies indicating that mitigation will be far more cost effective than adaptation! * Finally, the ongoing focus on and criticism of any targets appears to be simple avoidance - 'No target is reasonable, so we shouldn't have any targets - take it easy, don't emphasis the risks, or you sound crazy', to paraphrase. This is simply a call for inaction. False dichotomies, strawmen, ignoring information on climate change impacts (It's not bad) - I see these as frequent 'skeptic' approaches that all should be familiar with.
  38. Climate sensitivity is low
    I love Kathryn Schulz! Her talks aren't as good as her book though.
  39. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    #58 dana: Soden & Held, 2006 found, if I understand it correctly, that the size of the 'hot spot' makes no difference to final warming in models. It can be undetectable, or it can be huge. It doesn't matter. The reason being that the 'hot spot' comes from more water condensing in the upper atmosphere, the latent heat causes the warming. This cools the surface (the latent heat comes from surface evaporation). The bigger the hot spot, the bigger the surface cooling. But the bigger the hot spot, the more water vapour stays in the upper atmosphere too so the more greenhouse effect you have. Iirc, Soden & Held found that models always found that the greenhouse effect of the extra water vapour always outweighed the latent heat cooling (the 'lapse rate feedback' or 'Earth cooling by sweating'), and always by about the same amount. This leaves Douglass' speculation with no evidence that I'm aware of, but I do plan to research this in more detail in the future.
  40. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    Why on earth does SkS allow someone like "skept fr" to completely hijack a comment thread like this one and turn it into his/her personal blog site?
  41. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    133, SirNubwup, No. To have some confidence (one can never "know") that warming has stopped you would need to see 17 consecutive years in which you see no trend (mind you, that's not 17 years of no warming each year, but instead no trend in that span of 17 years) in both the atmosphere and the oceans. One would hope that in that same period you would also see an halt in the melting of glaciers and arctic ice and other indicators of a warming world.
  42. Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
    Rob, I don't think I'd write off the oyster industry. Instumentation has improved to the point where aragonite saturation can be monitored real time at the water intakes for the hatcheries . This allows much improved success in culture of spat because the hatcheries can adapt to pH changes and to some degree modify seawater TA when necessary. Adult oysters are doing fine in current conditions in the Pacific Northwest. I am a commercial fisherman for 40 years and in no way would I dismiss the threat of O/A . I just think we need to acknowledge the successes we have along the way in what is going to be a very long battle. The Oyster industry has really pulled together and made some real progress so rather than writing them off you should go eat some oysters tonite. Thanks for the blog thanks for the hard work and thanks for taking on O/A. Bruce
  43. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    130 Sphaerica So, if I understand correctly, for global warming to be seen to be stopped, we would have to see steady temperatures in both the atmosphere and the oceans. Just one of these is not sufficient. Is this correct?
  44. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    @Richard Arrett If you're trying to suggest that you've in effect been banned, then you're wrong. Make any comment you like (within the rules) on the relevant threads and they will be answered. For instance for questions and comments about CO2 and its relation to current warming, put the relevant words into the search box (top left) and it will show you all the suitable threads. Don't worry, everybody will know you've posted there because the regulars monitor the 'comments' link directly at the top of this column. Happy browsing.
  45. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    Thank you for your patience. I will not respond to the later comments directed to me, as it appears my responses would be considered off topic.
  46. The End of the Hothouse
    "The fall in CO2 concentration was from 1000-1200 ppm down to 600-700ppm, at which point it was cool enough to allow glaciers to start to form." If this result holds up to scrutiny, this could easily be a landmark paper, calling for a re-evaluation of the 'CO2 lags temperature' myth. This comment from lead author Pagani is especially relevant: "The onset of Antarctic ice is the mother of all climate 'tipping points,'" he said. "Recognizing the primary role carbon dioxide change played in altering global climate is a fundamentally important observation." An important prior work by the second author is Huber et al 2004: Considering that (1) Antarctica was not kept warm by subtropical currents, (2) evidence of above-freezing Eocene continental interior winter temperatures occurs in high latitudes of both hemispheres, and (3) substantial carbon cycle changes coincide with the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, the most parsimonious explanation of the enigmatic global warmth of Eocene climate was that it was caused by atmospheric mechanisms, such as greenhouse gas radiative forcing ... and potential feedbacks ... . The implication is that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and subsequent feedbacks were primarily responsible for climatic deterioration into the Oligocene.
  47. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    ahaynes - this is basically an update to Oreskes' original paper which examined the AGW consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. If a paper puts forth an alternative explanation which might explain a large chunk of the recent warming, I believe it's counted on the 'skeptic' list. However, such papers are rare, as this survey found.
  48. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    For those arguing that Douglass et al. should be included in the rejecting papers, this is simply not correct. The tropical troposphere 'hot spot' is not an anthropogenic fingerprint, as we have discussed on SkS several times. Thus this paper cannot bring the human-caused global warming theory into question. The authors of the paper suggest that their results might mean less future warming than is currently expected. Whether or not that conclusion is supported by their research (which I think is questionable), again, it does not bring human-caused global warming into question, but rather the magnitude of futhre human-caused warming. Thus it does not belong on the 'reject' list.
  49. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Eric, Here's another version of a similar graphic: -- source It's difficult to tell if Be10 is that much lower now then in the past; at these scales, the short-term noise is larger than most of the long term variation. I found this Beer slide presentation; the 14th page after the title has another Be10 graph. The lowest points are roughly 48ka, 30ka, 22ka and 2ka. He cites a paper by Muscheler et al in EPSL 219, which I haven't gone after, as the source of that data. I don't see how this line of inquiry, without a mechanism for a climate connection to cosmogenic radioisotopes, helps one way or the other.
  50. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    (A lot of comments above, some of which might have addressed my Q) This series examines whether there's "a substantial case against human-caused global warming" but I think that's too broadly worded and doesn't get at the major objection now - some people these days will admit humans make some (unspecified but nonzero) contribution but raise the prospect that natural factors are more or equally important; would this constitute making "a case against human-caused GW"?. Also it's not clear whether "human-caused" would include other human actions whose effects don't include increased GHGs. I'd like to see a clarification of what's being looked at. (perhaps this has been addressed & I've overlooked it.)

Prev  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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