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  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  1371  Next

Comments 68151 to 68200:

  1. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    Sphaerica, #7: Part of Roger's point is that Jim's database doesn't include a bunch of papers by "skeptics," including that one. That Douglass paper clearly suggests that the climate isn't warming because the analysis erroneously concludes that there's no evidence for tropical tropospheric warming, so why wasn't it included in the analysis? It's a fair question, and one I have as well, even though I tend to agree with the analysis' conclusions. If Jim's methodology failed to catch this paper, then there's some fair questions that need to be asked about why, and whether the methodology might be inadvertently biasing the results of the study.
  2. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    3, Richard Arrett, We know definitively that climate is not changing due to natural variability. We have narrowed climate sensitivity down to a small enough range, with enough redundant confirmation, that we are fairly confident in what it is going to mean going forward. At this point, the strength of the science is so overwhelmingly strong that the burden does fall on the "skeptics" (a laughable moniker) to provide some evidence that somehow, somewhere, there is something solidly wrong with current theory. This entire series of posts shows that despite how desperately some people would like to do that, how many of them there are, how well funded they are, and how much time they have put into the effort, none of them have come remotely close to even denting the mainstream science, let alone damaging it. Doesn't that tell you something?
  3. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    1, Roger Gram, How does the paper you supplied in any way affect the content of this post? Which bullet point in part 2 does it contradict? In particular, however, this particular paper attempt to make a case (one not broadly accepted) for one narrow area of inconsistency in the models, but then leaps to the grand conclusion that because of this supposed inconsistency, the models are entirely suspect and therefore the entire theory of AGW is suspect. You can't see the fallacy in this?
  4. Newcomers, Start Here
    imthedragn. If you really want to go into all the gory detail, then can I suggest you work through CO2 series at Science of Doom. You will find all that detail in that extended series.
  5. We're heading into an ice age
    'good chance that the arctic melting will stop the Atlantic conveyer by dumpling lots of fresh (therefore lighter) water into the North Atlantic.' I dont believe there is any science supporting this, but please feel free to cite some. There is a postulate (and evidence) that the massive dump of fresh water from ice sheet melting caused a slow down and thus the YD event. However, this was an extremely rapid dump of a lot of water. Summer melt of seaice over many years is in a different order. Even if the Milankovich cycles were strong enough to cause another glacial with CO2 levels this high, the onset is extremely slow - 2 orders of magnitude less than current rate of change. It not a question of whether we would prefer warm or cold - its the rate of change that is dangerous.
  6. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    scaddenp, GCR was always a dead issue to me for explaining current warming. Now it is less clear to me over the long run also. I am however still interested in GCR due to its potential modulation of water vapor feedback. What I would like to see is a study examining uncertainties in climate sensitivity due to uncertainties in GCR.
  7. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    Richard Arrett: "Therefore, your conclusion is premature (in my opinion)." Which part of the stated conclusion do you find premature?
  8. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    Hi - It would be useful to get the following simple numbers: 59 skeptic papers are listed... since when? And 59 of how many climate change papers (ie, what was the pool of candidates?) How many authors are uniquely identified in the 59 papers? How many authors are uniquely identified in the pool of candidates? This data would give some sense of consensus DrYew
  9. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Lucky for me, Dr. Laken took part of his evening to explain the TSI-GCR link. Over the long run an active sun means more TSI and an active sun means less GCR (due to more solar wind). The measurements of solar activity are smoothed and somewhat qualitative sunspot counts and TSI and GCR are running averages or proxies. Everything works the way I thought. But on a timescale of days the TSI relationship to GCR is complex due to positioning of the sunspots and other features and the movement of those features. So TSI and GCR (and solar UV) have more complex relationships including time delays. The wording in the abstract refers to those short term relationships (because that is what the paper is about).
  10. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    @Richard Arrett #3 "This warming which has occurred from 1850 to the present, could still just be a coincidence..." Could it? I think then you need to explain how the a massive increase in CO2 hasn't caused the planet to warm. You're denying the accepted physics of the greenhouse effect -- so you need to provide a convincing alternative explanation.
  11. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    KR: Having followed the multiple, lengthy exchanges between TOP and you and other SkS authors, I am firmly convinced that TOP's sole purpose is to litter this comment thread with excerpts from the G&T paper. In my opinion, this behavior ought to be against SkS Comment Policy. If it were my call, I would ban TOP from posting on SkS and delete all of his comments.
  12. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    Doesn't your conclusion depend on which side has the burden of proof? I thought that AGW was a hypothesis. I thought that the data was consistent with the hypothesis. However, I also thought that the data was also consistent with other hypotheses, and that we did not have enough data to rule out one or the other yet. We don't even know with any certainty yet was the climate sensitivity number is. Therefore, I thought that we did not yet have enough data to definitely say that AGW was correct. So your conclusion is only correct if skeptics have the burden of disproving the AGW hypothesis. My understanding is that skeptics do not bear the burden of proof. I thought the null hypothesis was natural variability, not AGW. The scientists who advocate human-caused global warming bear the burden of proof (I think). This warming which has occurred from 1850 to the present, could still just be a coincidence and correlated with the increased CO2 emissions, but not necessarily caused by them. Therefore, your conclusion is premature (in my opinion).
    Response:

    [dana1981] Incorrect.  AGW is a robust scientific theory which has withstood decades of scientific scrutiny, not a hypothesis.

  13. CO2 was higher in the past
    CBDunkerson - thanks for your input. Makes good sense. Rob Honeycutt - thanks for the article link!
  14. actually thoughtful at 06:35 AM on 15 December 2011
    Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    Your third bullet is much to weak. Skeptics MUST both explain the observed warming AND explain why CO2 from human caused emissions is NOT causing the warming - as science says it must, overwhelmingly. Not only has no skeptic satisfied your weak bullet point, but none have touched either half of the complete rebuttal to climate science. And, of course, they never will.
  15. CO2 was higher in the past
    adesbarats... Atmospheric CO2 levels are also part of a long term process called the "CO2 Rock Weathering Thermostat." Here is a good article about it. I'm not clear on how much volcanic activity has changed over the past 500 million years but what's really fascinating is you can see in the geologic record almost exactly where the Indian continent started bumping up against the Asian continent to start forming the Himalayas and started a long process where CO2 was pulled out of the atmosphere through rock weathering. And along with that you see the global temperature start a long slow decline from the days where you had crocodiles in the Arctic to modern glacial cycles in the Arctic. All of it a function of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This all fits well with deep glaciation events (Snowball Earth) where the almost complete ice cover of the planet would prevent any rock weathering and thus cause CO2 to build up to very high levels before raising the temperature enough to melt the ice.
  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP - I would like to point out that every 'objection' you have raised has been discussed ad nauseum, and shown incorrect, in the previous thousand comments. G&T is a horrible paper, incredibly flawed, and the various "2nd Law of Thermodyamics" objections to the radiative greenhouse effect are simply not valid. At this point I consider the very fact that someone raises such objections to be a clear indicator that the proponent (a) lacks a sufficient education in physics, and (b) will grab onto anything that might even plausibly provide an objection to the science, regardless of validity. It's not (IMO) a promising sign. Please - read the Opening Post (OP), read through the thread a bit, go look at examinations of this topic such as the excellent work at Science of Doom (who has multiple threads on this topic). I think you might find a deeper understanding of this topic worthwhile.
  17. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    So Eric, in light of this discussion can we assume that you now agree that GCR remain a dead duck? And short of new evidence (as opposed to speculation) that provides a better model than current thinking, policy should be informed by conventional understanding of climate?
  18. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    skept.fr - Odd, I don't see a /sarcasm marking in your last post... Climate change is a slow-motion train in progress. Over the next 100-150 years with business as usual (BAU) we're looking at any number of consequences: * No summer ice in the Arctic - loss of albedo increasing heating rates, killing off polar bears, etc. * Loss of most of the Western US pine forests due to migrating pests (in my personal view a terrible shame). * Considerable reduction in crop productivity over much of the worlds currently developed agricultural lands (est. >50% loss in California Central Valley, source of 8% of US produce). * Ongoing conversion of the Amazon into savannah. * Ongoing rises in extreme heat events, droughts, floods. * Sea level rise - perhaps 1-2 meters, perhaps much more. * Loss (by submergence and erosion) of the majority of Pacific atoll islands. * Catastrophic loss of coral reefs (acidification, temperature rise) leading to major extinctions. * Probable collapse of ocean food productivity - see the various ocean acidification threads - as the base of the ocean food pyramid collapses. And these consequences hold whether warming rates are at the high or low end of current climate sensitivity estimates - only slight changes in how fast they hit. And yet - you seem to repeatedly call for "go slow" approaches, to minimize economic shifts or disruption, to 'tone down' the urgency. This despite the (acknowledged) lead time required to shift energy production from fossil fuels. When a train is approaching, it's perhaps wise to get off the tracks!
  19. Philippe Chantreau at 05:28 AM on 15 December 2011
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I'll add to what TC and Muon just said and make one bold statement: the measurements you obtain, considering how your instrument works, are entirely consistent with everything known of atmospheric radiative physics. They do not contradict the GH effect at all. In fact, knowing all the applicable local conditions at the time of measurement, they could be predicted from the physics. I'll leave it to you figure out why and how. You write here with the pretention to demonstrate that current understanding of atmospheric radiative physics is deeply flawed, there is then no doubt that you have the abilities to do that work. Then, you can explain exactly where the flaws are in the process used for the prediction.
  20. CO2 was higher in the past
    adesbarats, dust and other particulates from volcanic eruptions definitely have a cooling effect, but since these are solid matter (however small) they tend to settle out of the atmosphere within a few years. Indeed, this effect can be seen in climate records where one or two year temperature drops follow major volcanic eruptions. Thus, I don't think they make a good candidate for the cause of longer term 'low' temperatures alongside 'high' CO2 levels. The usual explanation for such past incidents is that the radiation output of the Sun is increasing as time goes by... 400 MYA the Sun was much 'cooler' than it is now. There are many other factors, but solar output, atmospheric CO2 levels, and surface ice albedo seem to be some of the most significant variables.
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    So we're supposed to be willing to overthrow a well-known scientific principle on the basis of one hotly-disputed paper and a backyard experiment. If valid, from such discoveries come Nobel Prizes. The details of that experiment: - A measuring device costing less than $82 (current amazon.com price for a Fluke 62). - "Is it accurate at that temperature? I don't know, never sent it out." - "it is very likely that a simple instrument like this sees a fairly narrow radiation band avoiding the CO2 and H2O absorption bands" -- my IR thermometer has a quoted spectral response of 6.5 to 18 microns, which the figure below shows is not 'narrow band.' - the quoted range of such sensors is 6 feet or less -- works fine for checking AC/heating duct air temp. But if this is a credible experiment, tickets to Stockholm are in order. However, I wonder why NASA goes to all this trouble and expense designing and calibrating real narrow band (centered around 10.8 and 12 microns) IR sensors for satellites. Why not just put up a few hundred dollars worth of retail models? Oh, I forgot, they just do all this to boost their funding. Right.
  22. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    For sure, let’s oblige China, India, Pakistan, Russia and neighbors to leave / not exploit rapidly their coal, oil and gas so as to save climate by lowering emissions at 50% of their current level in one generation, because we (responsible citizens without nonsensical and dangerous ideas) are pretty sure this decision will necessarily reinforce peace, security and welfare for these nearly 3,5 billion citizens in 2050. It is well known climate is the only source of war, suffering and death in all human history, as it is well known energy and its correlates in society are just trivial details.
  23. CO2 was higher in the past
    This is really great discussion. A question I'd like to pose. As we know, our planet's core is cooling. So presumably, 400 MYA there would have been a lot more volcanic activity then there is today. This volcanic activity, of course, is what likely led to the high atmospheric CO2 levels in the past but my question is this - volcanoes spew alot more then just greenhouse gases. They will also spew dust and other such particles that would have a cooling effect on the earth. As such, could that also explain the reason for high CO2 levels during a period of glaciation?
  24. Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
    There are many skeptical, peer-reviewed papers that you have left out. An example is: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer Int. J. Climatol. (2007) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651. DOI: 10.1260/095830509787689277. This paper led to a dramatic (and entertaining) clash with RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ and a published reply by Santer, et al: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1756/abstract If you look at all of Douglass's 20 or so publications on climate, you will see the theme of skepticism toward human-caused global warming. If you want to list all the skeptic's papers, you need to look more carefully.
    Response:

    [dana1981] You misunderstand the purpose of the search, which is to identify papers which reject man-made global warming.  Papers which dispute some relatively minor aspect, like the rate of warming of the tropical troposphere in your first example, do not make a case for rejecting man-made warming.

  25. Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
    Rob, thanks for #6. I'm guessing that #7 has something to do with replaceability -- when aragonite won't do, then they switch to calcite. I read somewhere that different parts of sea urchins use different CaCO3 minerals (tips versus bases of spines?), so it shouldn't surprise us that some animals can switch. Looking forward to more, as usual.
  26. Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
    Also, kudos on your bullet point summary of the article under the heading, "Acid Test." Summaries like yours should be standard fare for all SkS articles. Also, thanks for including the "Related Reading" tab. This simple device makes it much easier for readers to navigate their way through the thick forest of SkS posts.
  27. We're heading into an ice age
    Randy, setting aside the fact that we have absolutely NO idea what technology will be like in 50,000 years... the CO2 we have already released into the atmosphere is sufficient to prevent the next glaciation cycle. Basically, instead of the next Milankovitch swing taking us into a global glaciation it is now more likely to see a return to the sort of climate we had two hundred years ago. If we continue increasing atmospheric CO2 levels we may actually skip the next several glaciation events. However, again, we are talking about time-frames so large that circumstances could change completely due to things we cannot predict.
  28. We're heading into an ice age
    Randy, You do not need to worry. The entire next glaciation cycle has already been averted so we are good for 100,000 years. If they needed to keep off the glaciers a single, small flourocarbon plant can manufacture enough greenhouse gas to prevent an ice age. We need to worry about problems for the next 50 years, not 500,000 years in the future.
  29. We're heading into an ice age
    Randy Subers#248: "by the time we hit 50K years from now we will be set up for a very nasty ice age" Don't you think there are more immediate problems on the table than what may or may not happen in 50000 years? Like what will most likely be happening in 50 years? That shutdown idea has kicked around for several years; there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it yet (that was in March 2010).
  30. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    Glenn T#73: Exactly why skept.fr's assertion and subsequent euphemisms of 'winners and losers' is not just total nonsense - it is very dangerous nonsense.
  31. Newcomers, Start Here
    would like to pour over what I have to make sense of it all. I am presently stuck in the mindset that CO2 and w.v. act as one greenhouse gas with the highest concentration of about 20-30k ppm in the thick lower atmosphere diminishing to near 500 ppm in the thin upper atmosphere. CO2 alone stays at a nearly constant concentration around 380 ppm thoughout. I do not know what the avaerage ppm of w.v. is in the lower atmosphere and how quickly that concentration drops with altitude.
  32. Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
    Rob Painting: Kudos on an excellent article. It could be made even better if you were to add an introductory paragraph that captures the essence of this article and explicitly let's the reader know that it is Part I of a three part series. While your initial paragraph covers this ground, it does so in a rather oblique manner.
  33. We're heading into an ice age
    Is seems to me that there is a good chance that the arctic melting will stop the Atlantic conveyer by dumpling lots of fresh (therefore lighter) water into the North Atlantic. While studies I have seen indicate that this will be swamped by global warming and thus not have a huge short term effect, it seems to me that if we adopt a policy of minimizing coal use(for which there are certainly lots of good arguments from a pollution standpoint as well as C02 emissions) that by the time we hit 50K years from now we will be set up for a very nasty ice age as the Milankovitch cycle kicks in. This would mean the people at that time (assuming we do not destroy civilization first) will have to do some serious efforts to prevent it or live through it. Or am I missing something somewhere? This is not an argument for the current C02 emissions since the current threat is warming, but might be one for large amounts 50K years from now.
  34. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Riccardo, please understand I was not misquoting or intentionally "badly" quoting. All I did was quote the full summary of the 2011 from his web site. There is nothing more and nothing less on that paper than what I quoted.
  35. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Erik you really badly quoted from Ben Laken site, hope it's unintentional. Dr. Laken whas reviewing the litterature and found that FD events "not necessarily isolate the effects of GCR variations effectively". Their new paper address exactly this and found that "However, the analysis presented in this work shows that following careful isolation of TSI and GCR variations, neither is found to be significantly associated with changes in cloud cover." Hopefully next time you'll carefully read before questioning the understanding (no less!) of reputable scientists.
  36. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:51 AM on 15 December 2011
    (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    As for communication. Both Republicans and Democrats are more and more believe the theory of AGW - as reported by this report. We skeptics are (not only in the U.S.) "in retreat". I am skeptic, "a specific". I think that 9? % of the planned action - "fight" with AGW - are useful for us and the Earth. Why then the world has not accepted the "road map" postulated by the IPCC? Just lack of money. Extreme events. It is precisely analyze the latest IPCC document: part Climate extremes and impacts: “Global-scale trends in a specific extreme may be either more reliable (e.g., for temperature extremes) or less reliable (e.g., for droughts) than some regional-scale trends, depending on the geographical uniformity of the trends in the specific extreme.” “There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter e.g., in central North America and northwestern Australia.” Amazonia. In former times warm - indeed savanna occupied much of the current tropical forests. Savannah in their biomass and soil contain only (on average) half of the carbon contained in tropical forests. It is, however still many more than analogy to deserts. In former times in the Holocene warm, savannah occupied areas of tropical and subtropical deserts the current in Africa and Asia. Savannah moved - as a result of climate change - hundreds of miles to the north and south of the equator. We do not need to use only models here. More and more is a paleo-studies and the results of scientific experiments. Eg. Françoise Gasse Sr. , CNRS-France, writes: “All data indicate an intensification of the monsoon and a northward migration of 500-600 km of the tropical rainfall belt.” „Between ca. 11.5-11 and 6-5 ka BP (early-mid Holocene), the Sahara was wet and green, with numerous lakes and rivers.” “Many records document, however, a short-term but marked arid event around 8.5-8 ka BP possibly linked to a minor cooling recorded in Greenland ice cores.” When we reach 451 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere? Unfortunately, we do not know - I recommend the text with extensive analysis of Nature: „Many lines of evidence show that the variations in the CO2 growth rate are mainly caused by terrestrial effects, in particular the impacts of heat and drought on the vegetation of western Amazonia and southeastern Asia, leading to ecosystem carbon losses through decreased vegetation productivity and/or increased respiration.” “On the other hand, the biological processes underlying respiration are assumed to respond to temperature in an exponential way but are not affected by the CO2 concentration ...” “The fundamental simplifying assumption behind this reasoning is that above-ground assimilatory processes (plant photosynthesis) and below-ground heterotrophic respiratory processes (for example, decomposition by fungi and respiration by animal and bacterial life in the soil) can be conceptually isolated and analysed separately. Although this conceptual model has provided valuable guidance for experimental and model design, evidence has accumulated in recent years that above- and below-ground processes are intimately linked, constituting a complex and dynamic system with non-negligible interactions. Hence, the situation is much more complicated than previously thought and might result in unexpected dynamics through interactions between physical, chemical and biological processes within the ecosystem — particularly in the soil.” “Unfortunately, empirical evidence for global carbon-cycle–climate interactions on the timescale pertinent to current global climate change, that is, decades to centuries, is much scarcer.”( dedicates this sentence critics M. Salby) “As long as there is no fundamental understanding of the processes involved, simulations of coupled carbon-cycle–climate models can only illustrate the importance of, but do not show, a conclusive picture of the multitude of possible carbon-cycle–climate system feedbacks.” - and < a href =http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/fig_tab/nature06591_F2.html> this figure of the cited analysis. Uncertainty range is huge - about the same. As for methane. At present also its content in the atmosphere has risen before CO2. To explain the increase of methane in the atmosphere are not needed (since at least 55 million years) clathrates. I recommend this paper : “The methane isotope change accompanying the jump in concentration confirmed that the emission was not from clathrates, but from ecological sources such as wetlands.” Stocks of C in permafrost according to current estimates (up to 4-5 times higher than estimated for the 2009) completely enough ( 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5 ).
  37. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    91, Eric, I'm not sure what the purpose of that Mecurio "cite" is. The author is presenting a simple overview of modern climate in that section, and basically says "there's this thing called PDO" and "these people all proposed different mechanisms for its cause" (one of them being Mecurio). As such, it makes no actual use of content of the paper, and puts no weight whatsoever on the conclusion. I suspect that if I'd written an e-mail to the author saying that Eurasian Leprechaun Farts cause the PDO, he might have cited my e-mail as well. He was just looking for a list of different proposed causes to demonstrate that no one actually knows. It's a "throwaway" cite with no bearing on climate change and giving no veracity to an un-peer reviewed, un-published and otherwise ignored paper. You can't discuss that Mecurio paper and claim to be discussing science. It's like discussing any number of self-published crackpot theories out there. They aren't worth anyone's time. Stick to meaningful and robust (or at least published!) papers. Don't assume that because a paper has a published format and some letters after the author's name that that means it's (a) good science and (b) true.
  38. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Reading through benlaken.com, there's a bit more about the paper: "In Laken et al. (2011) the use of FD events as a basis for testing is evaluated, and it is found that this method does not necessarily isolate the effects of GCR variations effectively, as associated changes in total solar irradiance (TSI) emissions and an often protracted difference between the onset of FD events and the date of maximum reduction can potentially hamper analysis." Dr. Laken obviously knows his field and I should not imply otherwise.
  39. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    So don't presume they do not understand, assume that much more likely it's you.
  40. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    the paper is password protected.
  41. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Do you really think that professionals publishing in GRL do not know what they do at this very trivial level? Read the paper and try harder.
  42. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Riccardo, from their abstract "...focusing on the largest TSI increases and decreases (the latter occurring in both the presence and absence of appreciable GCR reductions)..."

    Do the authors understand that TSI decreases coincide with GCR increases (not reductions)?

  43. Arctic sea ice has recovered
    Actually, if you want a simple explanation your best bet is the last graph at the bottom of the first link in my note above. This shows a comparison of the PIOMAS model volume estimates to a regression analysis of US Navy submarine readings of Arctic sea ice and the ICESat satellite's Arctic ice volume readings. The solid black line shows the PIOMAS model results and the dashed black line the resulting trend. The red line with '+' signs is the submarine regression analysis... basically, this means that they took spotty submarine records of ice thickness/area and used mathematical analysis to fit them together into a trend. The large pink shaded area above and below this line shows the uncertainty range around these values. The red line with triangles on it shows readings from the short-lived ICESat satellite, which measured the surface area of sea ice and calculated thickness based on the measured height of the ice above the water line (which, due to the relative densities of sea water and ice, represents about 20% of the total ice thickness). The red dashed line shows the trend of the submarine and satellite results. Note how closely the ICESat "actual measurements" agree with the PIOMAS 'estimates'. Likewise, note the similarity of the two trend lines. In both cases, they actually show MORE ice loss than the PIOMAS model. PIOMAS itself is also based on direct measurements BTW... they take satellite ice area measurements and estimate the ice thickness based on drilled sample readings, temperatures, past thickness data, et cetera. We thus have three different methods of calculating Arctic ice volume estimates... all of which show close agreement with each other. The detailed paper in the second link covers these issues in more detail and also determines uncertainty ranges by comparing PIOMAS ice thickness calculations to actual measurements of ice thickness in the same areas. Their analysis shows (again) that PIOMAS is actually under-estimating the rate of ice loss. They also found that the volume decline in 2010 was so great that it represented a new record minimum to a degree of certainty outside the uncertainty bounds... that is, even if we assume the prior record minimum year was the lowest possible value in the uncertainty range and 2010 the highest possible value, 2010 would still be a record low. Since then the September 2011 value actually came in lower than 2010, but not outside the uncertainty range.
  44. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    #72 Spaherica : apologies accepted… but in fact probably undue, as you mention, my English is confusing and so was probably the expression of my priorities for carbon mitigation. I agree that a sustainable future is still to be invented, for carbon cycle, water cycle, nitrogen cycle and more broadly the ecosystem services that we’re disrupting too fastly and too profoundly. The same is true for inequality between the North and the South, or the 10% and the 90%, but it would be OT to continue on that matter. #73 Glenn Tamblyn : there are many motives of conflict between nuclear armed countries. And don’t forget that in the worst recent genocide (Rwanda 1994), sophisticated weapons were not required, the ‘primitive’ machete killed hundred of thousands. Your point is true for climate (example of risks associated with monsoon and glaciers melting in overcrowded countries) but notice it is also true for all abrupt changes in human societies : that’s why the precautionary principle must not be adressed to one problem in particular (climate), but to all known problems simultaneously. Food and water disruptions have probably always been the main threat for human societies (with disease), and this will remain true for the predictable future. Climate change will make the problem more difficult. See Godfray 2010 and Foley 2011 for recent analysis of the ‘9 billion feeding problem’ in a sustainable view. The good new is that solutions exist, the bad that they will be tough to implement. On that question, see also the interesting paper of Hsiang et al 2011 on ENSO-related civil conflict casualties (another example of climate change externality).
  45. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    ranyl @75, interesting about Hansen and Sato. With regard to albedo, yes we currently have a stronger albedo related feedback than periods with no polar glaciation. But we have significantly weaker albedo feedback than during glacials. That is both because a melt back of 1 degree latitude removes far less area of ice now than it did during a glacial, and because the ice, being at a lower latitude, reflected more sunlight in the glacial.
  46. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Paper in press in GRL titled "Solar irradiance, cosmic rays and cloudiness over daily timescales". From the conclusions: "we found no widespread detectable changes in cloud cover at any tropospheric level within a 20 day period of the solar forcing clearly associated with solar activity changes." For solar activity they mean TSI, F10.7 flux and GCR.
    Moderator Response: [muon] Fixed link. Noted that paper here.
  47. It's not bad
    Article on China's program to modify weather http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-12/09/content_14236576.htm

    "As extreme weather events such as drought and flooding become more common, protecting the nation's main wheat producing areas grows in urgency - thus the first regional program chose the northeastern parts of the country,..."

  48. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Scaddenp, here is that single cite of Mercurio http://earthscience.ucr.edu/docs/chapter2.pdf This author explains that there are various possible explanations for PDO: small variations in TSI influencing SST and winds, cloud cover and GCR. But the author appears to favor an internal mechanism: 'spin rate of the gyre". I don't know how such an influence on PDO would translate into a tendency towards interglacial states.
  49. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    Stevo John Howard has never been someone who grasps science. Or anything else but basic legal matters and a relatively narrow political perspective on reality. Sad really. An extremely capable man who has such a narrow lens on the world. Plimer is speaking his idealogical language so he backs him. And unlike Paul Keating, Howard has never been able to articulate his views with passion and erudition. Rather he is a master of passion without erudition. How to put forward a strong story by appealing to the unspoken rather than the spoken. Never an orator, Howard was/is a master of finding the back-door, fumbling way into many peoples deepest senses of things. Not the great uneducated. Rather the great inarticulate. Which is not the same thing at all. And one of his great protege's is Tony Abbott. Lacking Howards rapier skill with the craft, rather a blunt instrument. Howards strength was appealing to the huge number of people who aren't stupid or uneducated, but for whom clarity of language expression is an alien world. Where everything is expressed through vague sub-text and what they seek is a sense of others who share the accepted sub-texts. For whom erudition is not just something they distrust. It is an alien mode of thinking. Never underestimate how many people can go through 12 years of education, learn their 3R's but still walk away from that with a sense that that was just 'book' learning, useful for some limited subset of life but not really relevent to 'what is important'. In fact seen as antithetical to 'what is important'. Many people, even some quite educated people, simply don't trust learning. Its not 'real' knowledge.
  50. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    skywatcher sorry I mixed up the two charts together in #38. The top chart is Mercurio and the bottom is Shaviv. I agree the Shaviv chart (500 million years) is probably flawed. It is about the spiral arms of the galaxy and there are subsequent papers demonstrating that Shaviv had the wrong timing (I linked to one in #40). I am only using Mercuirio for my conjecturing. The biggest weakness of the correlation in Mercuirio is that low GCR coincides with higher TSI.

Prev  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  1371  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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