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  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  Next

Comments 68501 to 68550:

  1. Wakening the Kraken
    There is some news on this front, as Semiletov has reported his results on AGU last week: Arctic methane: Russian researchers report
  2. Global carbon emissions reach record 10 billion tonnes - threatening two degree target
    #2, 3 John : about Indian policy, this comment on Durban , from NR Krishnan (former ministry of environment) : India, now, has the unenviable task of reworking its entire energy strategy. In December 2005, the Planning Commission had released an expert committee report on India's Integrated Energy Policy (the finalised report was released in 2006). The report came out with projections of the country's energy requirements up to the year 2031-32 along with likely scenarios of energy generation from various fossil fuels, nuclear power stations (present and future ones) and renewable sources with GDP growth pegged at 8 per cent annually. It came out that by 2031-32, primary energy supply would need to grow by “3 to 4 times and electricity supply by 5 to 7 times of today's consumption.” In all the scenarios of possible sources and their contributions towards satisfying this energy demand, coal predominates to the extent of over 40 per cent with oil hovering at 28-30 per cent. Gas, as fuel, would remain with a contribution of 7-12 per cent. Clean energy sources would account for about 16 per cent only. All these projections would now need to be revisited and that won't be an easy exercise. According to studies commissioned by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, by 2031-32, India's annual emissions of GHGs are expected to go up from an estimated 1.5 to 2 billion tonnes in 2010 to 4-7 billion tonnes in 2031. The economic and social readjustments called for by any new agreement to limit emissions are difficult to imagine. It would certainly be a good thing to enforce social rules for Coal India workers. But climate rules for coal in India will have to deal with the basic needs of the most populous country of the world. When you have to feed, light, heat, educate, transport, treat 1,2 billion of persons, and expected 1,6 billion in 2050, you must produce by a way or another huge amounts of primary energy. As an order of magnitude, for a modest 70 GJ/c/y (twice to fourth less than European countries, and less than the optimal correlation with HDI at 110GJ/c/y), India would need to produce 84 EJ each year now, 112 EJ/y in 2050. The current value is approx 25 EJ/y. To forbid the use of coal (first energetic resource of the country) or to impose CCS will have an economic and social cost for Indian population. Adn that's true of course for all emerging countries which have fossil reserves in their ground. So one problem of COP negotiations is: what is exactly this cost and who must pay for that?
  3. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    KR, Bill : I'm not sure that there's a real basis for your dissent. Of course climate models, even AOGCMs of AR4 and the future Earth System Models of AR5, are "approximations" because many phenomenons on small scale are semi-empirically parametrized. And many others are poorly known or unknown (eg all details of the biogeochemical cycles, for example future behavior of CH4 sources). Gavin Schmidt once precised this fact in an introduction to the physics of climate modeling (my emphasis): Current climate models yield stable and nonchaotic climates, which implies that questions regarding the sensitivity of climate to, say, an increase in greenhouse gases are well posed and can be justifiably asked of the models. Conceivably, though, as more components — complicated biological systems and fully dynamic ice-sheets, for example — are incorporated, the range of possible feedbacks will increase, and chaotic climates might ensue. So, the fact that climate is non-chaotic does not appear so much as a robust and intrinsic physical property of climate, but rather just as a provisional conclusion from the current physics of models. Jsquared : ah, on finira bien par s'entendre :D
  4. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Hi again Eric @71 It is generally understood that the inner and outer Van Allen belts result from different processes. The inner belt, consisting mainly of energetic protons, is the product of the decay of so-called "albedo" neutrons which are themselves the result of cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere. The outer belt consists mainly of electrons. They are injected from the geomagnetic tail following geomagnetic storms, and are subsequently energized though wave-particle interactions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt I don't know whether you have looked at this process If not it may help.
  5. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    skywatcher the GCR's my top plot in 38 show upward spikes (inverted show depicted as downwards) without much response during glacial periods. Although scaddenp points out above that the Be10 proxy may not be not well understood. The necessary conditions for an interglacial appear to be consistently low GCRs for some period of time. I don't think any of the temperature spikes in #29 during the Laschamp event show fall into the interglacial category. I don't know why high cosmic rays precluded any warming at all during that event. In general I don't think there are any control knobs that are that exact, CO2 and TSI included. For one thing all but TSI have a saturation effect. The CO2 also tracks because it is an amplifier (as well as a control knob in relatively cold conditions). The other exogenous control knobs cannot also be amplifiers by definition. The biggest unresolved question IMO is how the electric field and other cosmic ray effects shown to act on the order of minutes on clouds by Lockwood, Harrison and others could have anything to do with a causal effect over 1000's of years. That is particularly problematic when the effects vary by latitude, there is no worldwide effect. A possible mechanism is the low GCR environment with "fewer low clouds" (very crude I realize) allows more solar ocean heating which warms over longer time periods.
  6. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    Any chance of tackling Plimer's new book here at SkS? Soon? The fact that it's aimed directly at schoolchildren really concerns me (one suspects the caning H&E received at the hands of grown-up scientists may have had something to do with this!)
    Moderator Response: [Rob P] Things are underway.
  7. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    5. Agnostic, added to the point above, you can see the diagram in the post shows a smaller red up arrow from the high cloud, which tallies with what I was saying. It's suggesting a higher optical albedo for low clouds, which I'd have to check. My speculation is that droplets in clouds tend to be Mie scatterers, so larger particles mean more scattering. If you check here, it suggests smaller optical radii and lower density of droplets for stratus (higher) clouds versus cumulus (lower) ones - I expect that higher droplet density and bigger droplets would encourage more scattering and ultimately higher albedo. I normally leave the atmospheric work to someone else, so perhaps I will be corrected!
  8. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    5. Agnostic, the difference between high and low clouds is mainly dominated by the infrared effect, iirc. Clouds near the surface are warmer, and the cloud-tops radiate upwards at near the surface temperature - their 'greenhouse effect' is very small. Clouds high up are a lot cooler. So they block outgoing heat, but they don't radiate as much of it upwards, so they have a large effective greenhouse effect. Both of them reflect sunlight, which cools us. You might wonder how upper clouds could be a net cooling when sunlight is pretty intense, but remember that the greenhouse effect works day AND night! This rough model is what's quoted in PhysicsWorld here.
  9. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    Stevo@31 I too wonder why Plimer and Howard think it is acceptable to exploit children, let alone for such a transparently political one. I hope they get the parental backlash they surely deserve. Tom Curtis@30 Precisely - it's gob-smacking coming from someone like Plimer, who shouted so loud and long against Creationism being given "equal time" in science classes about evolution.
  10. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    BillEverett - My previous post is/was strongly worded, perhaps too much so. But I would have to note that your "hypothetical paleoclimate model" with bears little resemblance to what you are criticizing. Hence your statements are really a strawman argument, a logical fallacy.
  11. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    BillEverett - "Without examining a climate model in detail, I can nevertheless say that many of the couplings in the model are phenomenological approximations, i.e., they are not equations derived from fundamental physical laws..." I believe the proper term here is "talking through your hat". I would suggest actual study of global circulation climate models before making such unsupported statements. The whole point of global climate modelling is to take physical laws, compute fine detailed effects (as fine as the computing time and memory allows), and see what happens. Your statement is quite simply unsupportable, reflecting a lack of knowledge (and a surfeit of opinion) on your part.
  12. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    There again it is easier than making your case against erudite and qualified professionals in the climate science community.
  13. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    And I'm surprised that John Howard should surface out of retirement to support this rubbish. Regardless of his ideolocal background and political posturings I rather stupidly thought he had a better grasp of science than he is now demonstrating by helping Plimer launch this garbage. Interesting that they use the excuse of combatting the ideological indoctrination of children by themselves ideologically indoctrinating children.
  14. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    Ian Forrester@62: The reason for my skepticism about the ability of my hypothetical "perfect" paleoclimate model to predict our future correctly, in general, has to do with the simplicity of models. More specifically, I see no reason for my hypothetical paleoclimate model, for example, to include arctic permafrost as a source of CH4. "Applicability domain" of a model is a standard concept in theoretical physics. In our current situation, I see several reasons for thinking that we are or soon might be outside the applicability domain of the "perfect" paleoclimate model. This has nothing to do with the universal validity of fundamental physical laws. Without examining a climate model in detail, I can nevertheless say that many of the couplings in the model are phenomenological approximations, i.e., they are not equations derived from fundamental physical laws. It is very often the case that an increase in the order of a coupling approximation is necessary for increasing the applicability domain of a model.
  15. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Skywatcher, I owe you an answer...
  16. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    #67, muoncounter, I believe they are talking about the local climate.
  17. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP - if the article doesnt convince of the nonsense in this paper, try the more exhaustive treatment at science of doom. Quoting G&T is crank-alert material. Like any science, if your theoretical prediction is at odds with reality, then you need to fix the theory.
  18. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP, G&T is the subject of this post, as far back as comment #2, which establishes the basis: They are wrong. You could also note that its the first paper listed under 'References,' with the comment by Halpern et al a close second. Try reading the posts.
  19. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    Ah but previous warming and current warming is due to natural factors. And nature is very tolerant and happy with natural efforts to change the climate and turns a blind iris to such changes. But as soon as man dares be arrogant enough to think that he can beat nature in the climate control game, the iris is whipped out to stare down man into submission and show us who is really boss of the climate. And of course the Iris will not only stabilise planety temperature for us through changes in the amount of clouds, these changes to clouds will occur without any possible changes to rainfall and drought patterns on the planet.
  20. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I wonder if anybody in this blog actually tried to read Gerlich and Tscheuschner? I haven't seen any comment on this statement:
    Authors trace back their origins to the works of Fourier [37,38] (1824), Tyndall [39–43] (1861) and Arrhenius [44–46] (1896). A careful analysis of the original papers shows that Fourier’s and Tyndall’s works did not really include the concept of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, whereas Arrhenius’s work fundamentally differs from the versions of today. With exception of Ref. [46], the traditional works precede the seminal papers of modern physics, such as Planck’s work on the radiation of a black body [33, 34]. Although the arguments of Arrhenius were falsified by his contemporaries.... Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics,version 4.0, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009, p13
    or perhaps this:
    There seems to exist no source where an atmospheric greenhouse effect is introduced from fundamental university physics alone.Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics,version 4.0, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009, p15
    Of course the authors go on to attempt to do this or not do it as the case may be.
  21. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Eric, you don't have to convince me that LGM conditions tend to be drier. What you have to convince me of is a connection between cosmic rays and climate, of which there is no observational or experimental evidence! To justify your statement in #60 about when GCRs could and could not affect climate, you'd have to have a mechanism by which they affect climate. Otherwise you're playing word games and wasting time with wild speculation. What is the mechanism (as I asked in #46 with reference to the article on SkS showing what is required by the GCR speculations)? Also worth noting that the Laschamp anomaly (graph in #29) covers both colder and warmer conditions according to delta-18O, so discussions about dustiness of the atmosphere are pretty spurious.
  22. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    BillEverett #52:
    Suppose we have developed a perfect paleoclimate simulation model that with the proper initial data exactly reproduces all the available relevant time series data for the time period 799000 BC to 1000 AD. Will this model be able to correctly predict our future climate? I tend to doubt it. If we had such a model, then I think we would know more than we do now about some of the complex interactions we should take into acouunt. Nevertheless, we may be in an entirely new ball game with a new set of rules.
    Wrong, the Laws of Physics, which determine climate, were exactly the same 800,000 years ago as they are today. They have not changed. Increasing forcings by increasing CO2 will have the same effect on temperature as a similar forcing due to orbital variation. Temperature will go up and feed backs will come into play.
  23. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    You're welcome; glad to help.
  24. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Thanks, DB.
  25. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Eric#66: "the air is drier during glacial periods" And yet it must have rained: Lake Bonneville was a large, ancient lake that existed from about 32 to 14 thousand years ago. ... At its largest, Lake Bonneville was about 325 miles long, 135 miles wide, and had a maximum depth of over 1,000 feet. ... Its relatively fresh water was derived from direct precipitation, rivers, streams, and water from melting glaciers. During the time of Lake Bonneville, the climate was somewhat wetter and colder than now. -- source
  26. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    We've been warming at close to the estimated rate, and the climate warmed during past epochs. The Iris Effect would have to have taken the equivalent of a "union 10" for current warming and been AWOL for past warming. Nature isn't an in and out runner. It runs to form every time.
  27. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    skywatcher, if what I say is purely speculation I will try to caveat appropriately it (e.g. "I don't have evidence in front of me, but I think...") Irregardless I should have supported #60 a little more. Dust is an important feedback in glacial periods although not well understood and quantified (e.g. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379111002861 and (for Muoncounter) the air is drier during glacial periods http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~wb98/papers/Boos2011_LGMthermoscaling_090711.pdf although with latitudinal variation. Ice sheet build up does not require more precip, just precip over the ice sheet. The dust is the result of the predominately drier climate. The dust makes cosmic rays somewhat moot. Skywatcher, yes, my solar flare idea is somewhat spurious, only supported by the increased probability due to lack of a protective magnetic field. But it is not a valid reason as to why the explain the Laschamp anomaly did not produce a climate change, I should not have brought it up. The lack of climate change rests sufficiently on the fact that the glacial climate is dry. How would more clouds form in a dry atmosphere (and stable tropical atmosphere, see Boos paper)?
  28. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    I find it very sad that Plimer, who made his public name with a stinging rebutal of creationism now is using creationist tactics as a play book. His strategy is, you don't need to convince the scientists if you can convince the public. And now, apparently, you don't need to convince adults if you can convince children. The less educated, the less well informed people are on the topic, the more Plimer wants to talk to them. The obvious reason is, the well educated and truly well informed will not be taken in by his brand of snake oil.
  29. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    @28 I've tracked down the contents of Plimer's latest contribution to education: Table of Contents FOREWORD PREAMBLE FOR PUPILS, PARENTS AND PUNTERS INTRODUCTION 1. HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE: WHY I AM SCEPTICAL A short history of planet Earth What warming? Follow the money Corruption, fraud and porky pies Snow, ice, floods and cyclones Fellow travellers 2. SCIENCE The process of science Evolution of scientific ideas Models, predictions and adaptation Anti science 3. CARBON DIOXIDE, WATER AND ICE Planetary degassing and carbon dioxide An innocent trace gas Another innocent trace gas Water and ice Sea level 4. TEMPERATURE How do we measure global temperature? Urban effect Adjusting of measurements Hottest year on record 5. HOW TO GET EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL Background Is climate change normal? One hundred and one questions. A guide for teachers, parents and punters REFERENCE I bet we could write this book by picking the relevant sections from the climate myths on this site and inserting them. I hope that the educators in Australia take umbrage at both Plimer's and John Howard's insulting excursions into the creationist's model of teaching science. Needless to say Jo Nova is giving P.limer's book a plug (Maybe SkS needs a section on the rogues gallery on Plimer called say "The Plimer Primer")
  30. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Another stake in the heart of the GCR-climate connection: Love et al 2011 Are secular correlations between sunspots, geomagnetic activity, and global temperature significant? We examine the statistical significance of cross-correlations between sunspot number, geomagnetic activity, and global surface temperature for the years 1868–2008, solar cycles 11–23. ... Treated data show an expected statistically-significant correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, ... , but correlations between global temperature and sunspot number (geomagnetic activity) are not significant. In other words, straightforward analysis does not support widely-cited suggestions that these data record a prominent role for solar-terrestrial interaction in global climate change. That statistical significance thing is a bother, no?
  31. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    Sphaerica, I also hope we do not see 450ppm in 2042. And I agree with your critique of my analysis of emissions surpassing 2ppm a year on average in years to come. I would be nice if they stayed at 2ppm, but that seems unlikely considering the amount of carbon being dumped in the atmosphere. I agree also that by the late 2020's our climate will have deteriorated so much with increasing violent events, droughts, fires and increasing human suffering- that these nations will be forced into doing something to reverse the hellish path we are on. I hope C02 will peak at 650ppm, and begin a slow decline- but even that figure is going to cause our society to change dramatically. The biggest question mark is at what level C02 does all that permafrost begin to release methane.
  32. Global carbon emissions reach record 10 billion tonnes - threatening two degree target
    Hasn't the Durban agreement at COP 17 not only gone past the 2 degree target but at best will mean 3 degrees or above? http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/12/life-after-durban.html
  33. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    I see the good prof is writing books for kiddies now: ABC: Howard launches 'anti-warmist manual' for kids Anyone working on a collection of answers to his 101 questions?
  34. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    Re #24, 25, 26. Thanks Ross and Philippe, on re-reading the passage, you're both correct and I retract my accusation. It looks like I've been doing some cherry picking myself!
  35. The Monckton Maneuver
    SirNubwub @ 32... You should probably double check with Peter Hadfield if you believe Monckton has been unfairly taken out of context. Hadfield is a very highly regarded science journalist with 25 years experience. I'm sure he would take such a statement extremely seriously and would be able to explain to you (and likely fully document) the claims in his video.
  36. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    skept - no warming in the tropics would assume that the iris effect offsets all of the local warming. It would depend on the magnitude of the effect; it might only dampen the tropical warming, for example. Agnostic - I don't know much about clouds, but I believe the type which tend to reside at higher altitudes tend to have more of a warming effect. In other words, it's not that they're at high altitudes that makes them less reflective, but merely that the type of clouds which exist at high altitudes also happen to be less reflective. The figure is just a simplification illustrating that general correlation. But maybe somebody who knows about clouds can speak more intelligently about this.
  37. The Monckton Maneuver
    SirNubWub @32: The offending passage from the original reads (my underlining):
    "He says there has been no correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years – YES, THERE IS. There has indeed been a remarkable correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years – but repeated reanalyses of the data have shown that it was temperatures that changed first and CO2 concentration change that followed. Though it is possible that the additional CO2 concentration reinforced the original warming in each of the past four interglacial warm periods (all of which were warmer than the present), it plainly did not trigger the warming, because the warming occurred first."
    About this, three points should be noted: 1) The claim that Monckton is rebutting is the claim that he said there was no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 500 million years. And indeed, he has made that claim as can be seen by watching further into the video. So if Monckton intended to refer only to the last 500,000 years he is shifting the ground of the discussion from an are in which he has been clearly refuted. That is typical of Monckton, and also typical of Monckton, once before a new audience in which he is not being challenged, he shifts back to the original claim. Alternatively, Monckton really does think the record of the last few glacials (500,000 years) is the record of the entire phanerozoic (500,000,000 years). But in that case he is plainly delusional. 2) Peter Hadfield at no point in discussing this point in discussing this issue mentions anything except correlation. He asserted that Monckton denied a correlation between CO2 and temperature (which is true), and that now he asserts there is a correlation (which is also true). He did not assert anything about the causes of that correlation, and in particular, he did not assert anything about Monckton's claimed reasons for the correlation in this section of the video. So, in this situation, Hadfield has not taken Monckton out of context. Rather, it is you who have taken claims out of context by implying that Hadfield has made a claim about Monckton's explanation of the correlation. 3) Further, you yourself have truncated the response. Monckton, as indicated above goes on to say that CO2 may well have a warming effect. The only thing he is not prepared to admit is that CO2 triggered the warming, which no climate scientist asserts.
  38. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    Good article. Dana #3, that is one question I would really like to hear an answer to from so-called skeptics, and one that should be raised every single time skeptics claim that climate sensitivity is low.
  39. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    The illustrated example of difference in low and high cloud feedback is interesting but unexplained. Why should higher cloud have lower albedo and higher radiative forcing than lower cloud? Is there evidence that this is so? As SST rises would the presence of low cloud be expected to increase over time and increase more rapidly than high cloud? Does low cloud reflect more sunlight or is this perceived to be the case because on average low cloud is more abundant than high cloud?
  40. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    Very interesting. One point is unclear in my understanding: the hypothetical "Iris" feedback seems to be nearly instantaneous as it is derived from clouds (relaxation time of the atmosphere is fast, nucleation's change follows change in water vapour concentration) and so, it should be observed at each warming phase (forced or by natural oscillation) in the tropical oceanic basins. No reason to wait for years or decades before the Iris "opens" and "closes". But if it is the case, there would no warming signal at all in the Tropics, just short term variations around a zero trend, with negative feedbacks compensating near immediately the warming. Should we consider the very basic fact that there is a multidecadal warming trend in the Tropics (and elsewhere of course) as a contradiction of Iris hypothesis?
  41. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    " The problem is not to say ‘it is not bad’ – just to observe that the ‘it could be worse than all you imagine’ strategy is pragmatically unfruitful for the last 10 years .... Again, the best is the enemy of the good and I tend to think the more radical postures are just the expression of impotence. " Not quite. This is the expression of an unsuccessful communicator bewailing the failure of earlier communications. The correct communication strategy is unfortunately not well-suited to the sound-bite era. The right message is 'We can get ourselves out of trouble so long as we get started on it right away.' Unfortunately, apart from this message being a bit hard to get across, it's being shouted down by other messages. Think of getting a lazy teenager to clean up their room. Yes, you will get smells and mould, and moths, and cockroaches, and mice, maybe even rats into this house if you don't clean up your food waste and your dirty clothes. See! Your favourite sneakers are ruined by mould and moisture! And as you get more and more frustrated, the teenager in question doesn't even notice because of the headphones blaring and blocking any message you might want to get across.
  42. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    Jeff Masters posted this colorful image in his 12 December blog: -- source The fraction of the country covered by extremely wet conditions (top 10% historically) was 32% during the period January through November, ranking as the 2nd highest such coverage in the past 100 years. ... The fraction of the country covered by extremely dry conditions (top 10% historically) was 22% during the period January through November, ranking as the 8th highest in the past 100 years. The combined fraction of the country experiencing either severe drought or extremely wet conditions was 56% averaged over the January - November period--the highest in a century of record keeping. The wet get wetter, the dry get drier - all at the same time.
  43. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    We've often remarked that arguments for low climate sensitivity (and climate stability in general) seem to conflict with the planet's many large climate shifts in the past (i.e. see our discussion with Pielke here and here). We have yet to receive any sort of explanation as to how these two arguments gel. Frankly, paleoclimatology is a bit of a thorn in the side of the low sensitivity crowd, which they seem to prefer to ignore.
  44. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    En francais, "sourd" = "deaf". (Sorry about the circumflex). I do have the sense that you two are on the same wavelength, but not hearing what the other guy is saying. On a besoin d'un appareil auditif? This is a really good discussion. Keep it up, both of you.
  45. The Monckton Maneuver
    Everyone: Thank you for your replies. Sorry to make the thread go in a direction away from the topic at hand. I will address the issue of trustworthiness in another thread at another time.
  46. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    DrTsk "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?" I'd say that the short answer is "none". On the contrary, we may anticipate that the system has instabilities, only we don't know where.
  47. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Eric#6: "there would be much drier air for less cloud formation;" Glacial stages cannot be dry - accumulated precipitation (albeit frozen) is a requirement for firn/glacial ice advance. In addition, much of the globe wasn't ice-covered. I don't think your 'we won't see GCR evidence during glacial stages' idea has much support.
  48. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    Sphaerica : As an aside, if a doctor told you that you had terminal cancer but couldn't tell you the exact time and date of your demise, would you than ignore his diagnosis? This question shows that you miss my point, as I'm supposed to have missed yours! We would call here that a dialogue de sourds. The correct metaphor would be in my mind: if a doctor diagnose a cancer, I don't want him to give me a broad description of the disease and the agony, but a realist prediction of the symptom I'll suffer, a precise assessment of my chance of remission at diverse conditions, the treatments I can access, their costs, their side-effects, etc. And I think it is the usual way we deal with adverse condition. Of course we're "playing with matches". That could be a succinct and symbolic definition of Anthropocene, beginning with the agricultural Neolithic according to Ruddiman, with the industrial Watt's engine commercialization according to Crutzen. (Sooner for me, with the first megafauna extinction of Paleolithic—notably due to fire use, for staying on the metaphor). I take the Anthropocene hypothesis seriously. We affect the whole Earth system, and we know that, so time is to fix the rules of the game. That does not mean to forbid the game. And we won't discuss these rules from the nature's point of view, but from humans' point of view. That's why the consequences of our act on ecosystem services must be precisely adressed, so as to allow their acceptation or rejection.
  49. (Fahrenheit) 451 ppm
    Sphaerica: Kudos on a very well written article. Having said that, perhaps you should add a paragraph or two about the impact that the ever increasing levels of CO2 released into the atmopshere by the activites of mankind is having, and will have, on the the pH of the world's ocean system.
  50. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    Great science. Thanks for the information dana1981. 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? e.g. warming will cause the Iris to open and the system will return to its previous stable state? Given the vast time that the system has existed, such stable points would have been "explored" by the system and the climate would have settled to a stable state. In the same sentence they claim chaotic dynamic systems that we have no prayer in understanding and Homeostasis. Am I missing something?

Prev  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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