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. It's waste heat
    jmorpuss @116, "primary energy consumption" is defined as:
    "Primary energy consumption refers to the direct use at the source, or supply to users without transformation, of crude energy, that is, energy that has not been subjected to any conversion or transformation process."
    That is, it is the energy capacity of all oil, gas, coal, uranium and what have you that is extracted by any means, including all energy lost as waste heat, and including even the energy of fuels lost due to spillage. Ergo, it includes all energy used by military and governments, as well as that used in the private sector.
  2. It's waste heat
    Wikipedia has a good, somewhat relevant reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28power%29
  3. It's waste heat
    Riccardo @117, exactly, the less the energy absorbed the greater the warming. Hence the homeopathy theory of climate. We'll be in real trouble when jmorpuss realized that extreme low frequency radio waves are used to communicate with subs. They carry virtually no energy at all, and very little of what they carry is absorbed by water. Therefore by the homeopathic theory of climate change, they must cause massive warming. It turns out that its the ELFs that are doing it.
  4. It's waste heat
    118 - Riccardo Maybe it's Shhh ;-] ;-]
  5. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    Plimer contradicting Plimer is not an isolated incident. One of his pet arguments is that carbon dioxide has been much higher in the past, without the Earth going into meltdown. He concludes that carbon dioxide can't have much of a warming effect. There's a major flaw in this line of thinking. The further back in time you go, the cooler the sun gets. If it wasn't for the warming effect of carbon dioxide, the Earth would've been a frozen iceball throughout much of its history.
    Curiously, Joanne Codling reproduces a screed by Gina Rinehart saying the same thing. I was gobsmacked to see that Codling reproduced Rinehart's points 1 and 2 in immediate succession, without apparently even blinking at the inherent internal contradiction of Rinehart's propaganda. Well, perhaps not gobsmacked. Codling long ago proved that she has no demonstrable grasp of science, for all her vaunted involvement with scientific education of children.
  6. It's waste heat
    jmorpuss are you saying that telecom and broadcast companies are off grid?
  7. It's waste heat
    muoncounter sorry mate but you critic to the microwave theory is wrong. Maybe you do not know that microwaves heat more because they are NOT absorbed. Read: "If you put ice in the sun rays, the ice will melt eventually at very slow rate. If you subject ice to a microwave frequency, it will melt at much more rapid rate. This is because the suns wave frequency absorb into water and ice, whereas, the microwave frequency will pass through the ice and water." The less power is absorbed, the more heating you get; a nice way to create energy. Or maybe heat is not energy ... I'm a bit confused here.
  8. It's waste heat
    Tom @112 Your link to 2011 world energy outlook states in the second line that it's about the energy market, so I prosume it only takes into account metered power or power that is taken from the grid. How I see it is all that gets taken into account is the poor old public sector and the military and goverments com's and detecting are not taken into account Things like these are of grid and use enormous amounts of power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater I could give you many more links to antena arrays that are of grid but I've been told not to link dump so I'ii hold back.
  9. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    Its is a fundamental problem with the whole 'sceptic' position, it is just a morass of contradictory and often vague assertions.
  10. The Monckton Maneuver
    It may have escaped peoples attention, but Monckton now has a countermove in the Monckton maneuver. He has been clearly shown to misquote and misrepresent data from scientists and scientific papers by both Abraham and Hadfield. So in his latest post on WUWT, he as avoided the difficulty by not citing sources. Now the pontificating peer establishes himself as the sole necessary authority for any fact he cares to assert. Or at least he tried to. Unfortunately for his maneuver, the "... answer – again straight out of the usual suspects’ playbook" turned out to be so arcane that he had to relent and provide a source:
    "The value 100 Watts per square meter for the radiative forcing arising from the presence as opposed to the absence of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is within the interval 86-125 Watts per square meter for the top five greenhouse gases given in table 3 of Kiehl & Trenberth (1997)."
    Problem is, the 125 W/m^2 is the clear sky value, while the 86 W/m^2 is the cloudy sky value. (The overlap with clouds reduces the effect of other components.) The cloud Long Wave forcing is given by Kiehl and Trenberth as 30 W/m^2, and the total forcing (the figure Monckton needed) is given as 155 W/m^2. This brilliant man (at least in his own estimation) it turns out cannot even read the caption of a graph, nor yet the paper from which he cites. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/monckton-on-sensitivity-training-at-durban/#comment-820375 Of course, that is not Monckton's worst error in that post. That would be employing the all sky total greenhouse effect to calculate the sensitivity of doubling CO2. To do that correctly, ie, to include forcings but not feedbacks in the calculation, he should employ only the forcings from well mixed greenhouse gases. These are given as 50 W/m^2 for clear sky, and 35 W/m^2 for all sky in Kiehl and Trenberth (Monckton's chosen authority). From them we also learn that there is a total cloud cover of 62%, so that the total well mixed ghg forcing is (0.62 x 35) + (0.38 x 50) ~= 41 W/m^2. Therefore the correct result for Monckton's calculation of sensitivity, given his chosen source of data is 3.7 x 33/41 = 2.98 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2. Somebody ought to phone the IPCC and advise them of their massive error of 0.02 W/m^2 in their central estimate. Of course, there are many caveats to such an estimate of climate sensitivity that Monckton ignores but would promptly find if the he ever used the real formula. Back on topic, Monckton does not just use the invisible source for his figures. He also invents unnamed scientists who, "When [he] pointed out this simple but powerful [desperately flawed] result to scientists recently at the Santa Fe climate conference organized by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of them said, “Ah, yes, but what evidence do you have that today’s climate exhibits the same sensitivity as the total system sensitivity?”" Well, yes, I'm sure unnamed scientists whose response cannot be independently checked would make so weak a response. Actual named climate scientists, however, would know a thing or two about climate science and point out the glaring flaw in the calculation from the get go.
  11. Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
    Open University chip in with a similar rebuttal as Dana's: http://www8.open.ac.uk/platform/news-and-features/the-science-behind-climate-change-explained They don't mention Lawson though.
  12. It's waste heat
    I dunno. I'm still romantically involved with Hapgood's Crustal Displacement "Theory"; an affair that is unrequited due to the extreme paucity of evidence in favor of it and that damning thing called reality... Not that the paucity of evidence ever gets in the way of a good romance; the id-eology wants what the id-eology wants.
  13. It's waste heat
    Muoncounter @113, LOL. Your last idea is obviously too far fetched. It has none of the clean elegance of the Homeopathy for climate that is the microwave theory of global warming.
  14. It's waste heat
    There's another tiny point relevant to cell phone signals: If atmospheric gasses absorbed those wavelengths, they wouldn't be much use for communication. And isn't that what these devices are designed to do? But in the internet era, every idea, no matter how devoid of substance, gets its own website. A close cousin are the folks who think that microwaves are the culprit. All that effort in support of an 'idea,' despite readily available science to the contrary. Now that's what I call waste heat! Hey, here's an idea which could use a website: Energy from the sun warms the earth's surface, which in turn radiates long wave IR back towards space. Something in the atmosphere absorbs that IR and ...
  15. Plimer vs Plimer: a one man contradiction
    It's a Monkton Maneuver Moment
  16. It's waste heat
    Flanner 2009 says:
    "Utilizing the second law of thermodynamics, it is assumed that all non-renewable primary energy consumption is dissipated thermally in Earth’s atmosphere. Country specific data of energy consumption from non-renewable sources (coal, petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear) were obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea) for year 2005."
    Presumably human energy consumption has increased since then. However, the US EIA 2011 World Energy Outlook put human primary energy consumption in 2008 at 13.56 Terrawatts including renewables, which is approx 0.027 W/m^2. NOAA places 2008 greenhouse forcings at 2.74 W/m^2. Clearly the numbers are not precisely known, but are known well enough to be certain that the enhanced greenhouse effect contributes approximately 100 times the effect of waste heat per annum to warming the Earth's surface.
  17. Eric (skeptic) at 22:34 PM on 9 December 2011
    It's waste heat
    According to wikipedia, worldwide energy use was about 15 TW in 2008 which equates to 0.03 W/m2
  18. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    Or SirNubWub could just be a bit of not particularly creative trolling.
    Response:

    [DB] Let us first presume genuineness.  This forum witnesses real trolling all the time and what SirNubWub has stated does not rise to that level.

  19. It's waste heat
    jmorpuss you really need to put numbers in your theory, if not I may say that to have a pleasant swim this winter you can just drop a cup of tea in the swimming pool. 4 million 100 W towers plus 4.5 bilion 2 W subscribers sum up to 9.4 GW. That's a lot, sure, but the earth is huge; it's surface area is about 500 million Km2. Dividing the two you get about 2e-5 W/m2. Compare this number to, say, 4 W/m2 of CO2 forcing; it is 200 thousand times smaller. Do we really need to take it into account? The amount of waste heat is known, it's there but it's small.
  20. It's waste heat
    Tom @107 thanks for clearing up my mistake about linear thing.My theory is based around the greenhouse effect and how man has observed and replicated nature I mean of a night the only thing that ratiates into the atmosphere is blackbody radiation from the surface the moon and stars But man needs to communicate and detect 24/7 so the planet dosen't get time to rest. So the atmosphere is allready warmer then would be when the sun comes up Just one example is our mobile phone network with about 4 million towers and 4.5 billion subscribers. What sort of accumulative effect does this calculate to. The towers put out about a 100 watts and the phone about 2 watts and I haven't even looked at TV and radio, If you start to look at this you can see that there are many many things that add to this night time forcing process that would not be happening if you take man out of the equation. So the effect this has of a night is a thousands times more energy being released then the sun creates of a night.
    Response:

    [DB] "My theory is based around the greenhouse effect and how man has observed and replicated nature"

    First of all, what you are doing is trying to formulate a hypothesis.  Things that are theories are robust, supported by observational evidence and are testable, having survived countless experimentations by scientists who have documented their work through thousands of research papers in reputable journals.

    One such theory is the radiative physics of greenhouse gases.  Another is AGW.  Centuries of research document and quantify their effects and they are well-supported.  Since you have not even properly quantified the effects of what you propose (like the next two comments already have), let alone support it with research of your own or citations to pre-existing research in the field, what you propose fails to rise to the level of hypothesis yet.

    Read the post at the top.  Learn.  Read the comments on this thread.  Learn more.  Work out the maths.  Read through the links in the OP and in the comments.  Learn more.  If you gain support for what you propose, write it up as a plausible hypothesis complete with maths and citations to other established work which you can then use to support your position.  Then bring the completed homework back here.

    Until then you waste everyone's time here.  And that is putting it nicely (Mr. Curtis has the paitence of a saint, and when he runs out of patience it is due to the intractability of the individual he is trying to help).

  21. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    John H@13 "Tell me again why the world’s leading climate scientists should not be present en masse in Durban." Because Durban's civic organisation couldn't handle the waste disposal problems of all those melted, fractured, exploded irony meters? But really, there are already >10,000 people there. Their job is to use the science to inform policy. Unfortunately, the policies in question excite all kinds of nationalistic, economic, short-sighted, selfish, ham-handed, ... any wrong headed notion or feeling you can name. And the negotiations move on, haltingly, from there. Not very far and not very fast. But we have to remember. Negotiations of this sort always take a long time and a lot of argy-bargy. The reason this is all so frustrating is that we didn't roll up our sleeves and get anything useful done before Rio, after Rio. We could have got moving then instead of accepting pious hopes as plans for action.
  22. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    Tom Curtis - I don’t know what reforms you are contemplating but I'm sorry for the bad news but the events over the course of the last 50 years and where we find ourselves today, socially, economically and in environmental terms, show us that the experiment in social democracy has failed. It is dead. (-snip-) We need a system that will allow everyone to operate according to something like C-M-C, where money is not hoarded by economic actors but is used to transact between producers. x
    Response:

    [DB] Please take note of the Comments Policy.  Specifically the parts about politics, ideology & one-world governments.  The snipped portion of your comment above strays too far from the topic of this thread.  You are welcome to reformulate your comment such that it better complies with both the Comments Policy and the OP of this thread.  Leeway is given on threads like this except when the discussion gets sidetracked.

  23. It's waste heat
    jmorpuss @107: 1) You have the molecular configurations exactly backwards. CO2 is linear, with the oxygen atoms aligned 180 degrees from each other relative to the carbon atom. In contrast, in water the hydrogen atoms form a 120 degree angle relative to the oxygen atom. 2) Nearly absorption of energy from radiation by molecules is by alteration of the vibrational pattern or rotation of the molecule. In particular the absorption of microwaves by H2O is due to changes in the rotational state. A summary of this information can be found here. Information on the vibrational absorption patterns (IR absorption) can be found here. Also of interest are the following: General discussion CO2 H2O 3) Even if less energy was absorbed in microwaves, the consequence would be less heating. If that where not the case your theory would violate the conservation of energy. 4) You still fail to adress the very low energies involved in transmitted microwaves relative to incoming solar radiation, and outgoing IR radiation. To repeat, the total energy use of humans represents less than 100th of the additional warming due to CO2 as a result of the greenhouse effect. Total energy transmitted as microwaves is a very small fraction of that total human energy use. Therefore the total energy involved in your theory would be indistinguishable from noise (probably even indistinguishable as noise) relative to the enhanced greenhouse effect. 5) Finally, you have not as requested provided a clear statement of your theory, as per my point 2 in post 105. I therefore suggest to the moderators that we no longer entertain your nonsense.
  24. It's waste heat
    Tom @105 would you say that this thread is more about Blackbody radiation that follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics The way radiated heat is gobbled up and dispersed by a cooler atmosphere. What I'm trying to bring to the table doesn't fall into this thread, it's more about greybody radiation that is capable of on going heating as it passes through the air because most of the energy is not absorbed rather it vibrates the molecule and causes heat through friction. Also does the CO2 molecule have 3 sharp points (none linear)and has no real rest state unlike H2O which is linear and can spin like a top as well as tumbelling end on end. DSL @106 I'll try and engage but as you can see writing doesn't come easy to me and I'm a slow reader so try and be patient. Remember ladies and gents life is like a mirror you will always get back what you put out so be nice.
  25. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    John H: Doesn't that fact that there is such pitifully poor media coverage of climate change issues suggest that the 'tool box' has no actual tools? Perhaps your question is better addressed directly to the AGU's public affairs contacts.
  26. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    I am a high school teacher who is trying to figure out this climate change issue.
    Possibly you should have figured it out before telling your students things that aren't true?
  27. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    Muoncounter: Most of the media that cover climate change were in Durban, not San Francisco this year. News confernces are only one tool in the tool box.
  28. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    The link to the presentation, GWPPT6, is now available in the ADDENDUM section at the bottom of the OP.
  29. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    SirNubWub…. I would highly suggest watching the full presentation given by Dr Alley from which this video is taken. It can be found in the comments on Peter Sinclair's YouTube channel. I would also highly recommend watching Dr Alley's AGU lecture titled "The Biggest Control Knob." It's great you are here looking for accurate information. The best place to find it is in the actual published literature. Every article you find on this site will have full citations to the supporting literature.
  30. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    SirNubWub @20: 1) I have not seen "An Inconvenient Truth" but I have read the book. Consequently I can state very confidently that your claim that the " hockey stick" was half of Gore's evidence is false. 2) I suspect Dr Alley, like I, does not consider a popular presentation of the evidence to be the evidence. Rather, he relies on the scientific papers from a small sample of which Al Gore gleaned his evidence. In the last 20 years there have been 2,350 scientific papers contributing evidence towards the hypothesis of AGW (1990 to present). I am disinclined to ignore all that evidence because a popular presentation fails to capture it all. 3) You can now present to your classes that the 1998 Hockey Stick paper (Mann, Bradley and Hughes, 1998) is now out of date, and that some flaws in the first attempt at a new method of discovering the history of Earth's climate have since been corrected by later papers. You can also tell them that those later papers show a very similar, hockey stick pattern, even though they do not suffer from the flaws of MBH 98, differing mostly in that they show a colder Little Ice Age, but equivalent temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period. 4) Finally, you should tell them, as you should already, that science is a collaborative project because no single person is wise enough to avoid all, or even most possible mistakes. By mutual criticism, however, mistakes get weeded out. However, scientists are human and will often stick with comfortable theories long after their refutation. Science, as it was once said, advances one funeral at a time. Therefore the fact that one or two PhDs can be found who take exception to something Gore said has very little relevance. The question that you should put to your students is, does Gore accurately present the contents of the IPCC AR4, ie, the consensus of climate scientists.
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed broken html

  31. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    SirNubwub - "Can I now present to my classes that the hockey stick argument has been discarded by the AGW proponents?" No, you cannot. There are multiple "hockey sticks", whether speaking of Arctic ice decline, CO2 increase, temperature records, etc., and even in the limited arena of temperature reconstruction over the last 1500-2000 years - multiple hockey sticks. That's the data. That's the facts. Telling your students that this is _not_ the case is doing them no good, giving them mis-information. We're changing the climate - at a rate >10x that of the PETM, one of the fastest natural changes on record. Likely results are massive changes in cropland distribution, increased extrema weather (hurricanes, heat waves, etc.), greatly changed precipitation (floods and droughts), and so on. A century or so down the line the sea level rises will be undeniable, heading to what might become perhaps 50-100 meters rise given "Business as Usual". Nothing broken about the "hockey stick". Multiple reconstructions of temperature show it, multiple analyses of sea level rise show it - all as a result of our actions over the last 150 years, changing aspects of the climate 10x faster (or more) than nature has ever shifted matters. Please, please don't mislead your students by telling them there is nothing to worry about.
  32. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    SirNubWub: "Can I now present to my classes that the hockey stick argument has been discarded by the AGW proponents?" No, but you can present to your classes the fact that there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating the reality of AGW. The very fact that you have arrived at SkS means that you can access a wide range of that science. Better still, pose some questions to your classes and have them use SkS as a research library, as others have already done. FWIW, no one is a 'proponent' of AGW. Read. Learn.
  33. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    SirNubwub, Alley is not tossing aside the hockey stick. The connection between CO2 and temperature is not based on model. It's based on the radiative properties of CO2. I suggest moving your questions over to the main hockey stick thread.
  34. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    I am a high school teacher who is trying to figure out this climate change issue. I have shown An Inconvenient Truth to my class and tried to show where qualified PhD's think the movie gets things wrong. The hockey stick is one of the many things that have been shown to be controversial. I am confused why this video downplays the hockey stick (and never refutes that the stick is "broken") when it is one of only 2 scientific evidences that Al Gore used in An Inconvenient Truth to try to tie temperature with CO2. (the other was the ice-core data from the last 650,000 yrs) The entire rest of the movie was about the effects of warming and the actions we need to take. If the hockey stick is taken out, the most well-known presentation of AGW loses half of its evidence. Here is my question: Can I now present to my classes that the hockey stick argument has been discarded by the AGW proponents?
  35. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    36, Dan, Wow. Scary pictures. Mordor never looked so good.
  36. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    While we are on the China Train, take the time to peruse this link from Shaping Tomorrow's World for some photographic documentation of the cleanliness of China's power plants and air that it's workers, citizens and children must breath.
  37. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    30, peacetracker, Regardless of cleanliness of their coal plants, what about sheer number of plants (and therefore the largest single factor in emissions)? From Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants from National Energy Technology Laboratory, Office of Strategic Energy Analysis & Planning:
  38. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    peacetracker @30, in the mid to late 1990's China began to rapidly expand its use of coal without enforcing any clean air regulations. Since then it has begun enforcing such regulations, but not consistently. The result is that China emits much more S04 than does the US or Europe. This issue is discussed in detail at this page. It shows this image of aerosol optical depth from Jan 2000 to Dec 2006, which gives a fair comparison: Here also is an equivalent image for Jan 2005 to Jan 2010 for a more recent comparison: As is clear from these images, the person on WUWT simply made up the facts that best suited their argument, or at best greatly exaggerated the situation. (Some Chinese power plants are as clean as anything in the West, but most are not.)
  39. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    Peacetracker - We've posted a couple of recent-ish articles on aerosols (man-made pollution particles) See SkS posts: Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter? and Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols First up, East Asia and specifically China, saw a massive increase in coal burning in the last decade due to their similarly massive expansion in industrialization (coal-burning electricity plants to power manufacturing). Almost every developed country has shifted manufacturing of some shape or form to China because it is cheaper. Secondly, the Clean Air acts of the 1970's saw a dramatic reduction in sulfate pollution (the main light reflecting particles in aerosols) in both Europe and North America (sulfates not only reflect light, but cause acid rain and smog). The rapid industrialization after World War 2, is thought to have increased sulfate pollution to such an extent that it cooled global temperatures mid-century. This is known as Global Dimming. After the polluters were made to reduce sulfate pollution, global temperatures began climbing again (Global Brightening). See SkS post: Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century? There is much legitimate debate on the "hiatus" or slowdown in warming over the last decade. In fact, some don't consider that there has been a slowdown at all (Foster & Rahmstorf [2011]). We'll just have to see how that plays out in the scientific literature, but it doesn't affect the rapidly expanding mountain of scientific evidence that indicates global warming is real, 'we dunnit,' and it's a potentially devastating problem that grows steadily worse the longer humanity ignores it.
  40. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    peacetracker: I have posted a link to your comment regarding fingerprints @31 on this thread and suggest any follow up go there where it is topical. I've just been called to dinner so I can't say more now, though I should like to once I have the opportunity tonight.
  41. 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
    Suggested thread for peacetracker's comment on anthropogenic/greenhouse warming fingerprints & subsequent responses.
  42. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    Hi, back again, but with just an observation this time and I think it is relevant as "fingerprints" are mentioned in the above article. Being someone who is not necessarily stupid but not that scientifically literate either, the "fingerprints" are the most convincing I have heard to persuade me that AGW is caused by CO2/human activity. Yet I am only familiar with these "fingerprints" as a result of looking at sites such as skeptical science. Why isn't it something that is regularly discussed and presented by scientists through the media and explained again and again. When I watch coverage of climate issues on the news here in the UK, I here about polar bears, arctic melt, freak weather, but to my mind the various fingerprints that point to CO2 as the main cause of climate change seems fundamental; yet it is to a large degree ignored and rarely discussed (at least in my experience). I am sure that if more exposure is given to the issue it could go a long way to convincing the many people who are uncertain or skeptical of the science due to ignorance and lack of this basic knowledge. Just a thought.
  43. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    I know this isn't entirely relevant to this thread and I apologise for this, but it was the best I could find for an answer to my question . Over at WUWT there is a thread in which someone has made the following comment: "....don’t go on about aerosols in China having a cooling effect, their coal plants are as clean as our and we’ve cleaned up more smog problems in North America and Europe inthe last 50 years than China can possibly compensate for….so….where’s the warming?" To my (probably not that well educated) mind the guy made a valid point that I had not thought of before. If China's current pollution is a major contributor to the dampening of the rise in global temperatures over the past few years, then why did pollution from the West not have the same effect. As far as I am aware, it is only in very recent times that North America and Europe have reduced their levels of pollution. I'm thinking of LA in particular here, as I know that it was not too long ago that the place was always covered in smog and that is no longer the case - but I am aware that this is just one example in one location and not necessarily entirely representative of all North America and Europe. Can anyone give me some facts or good links that address this point. Many thanks.
  44. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    Another hockey-stick : A climate model based on the "global energy balance" has provided new evidence for human-induced climate change, according to its creators. Using this simple model, researchers in Switzerland conclude that it is extremely likely (>95% probability) that at least 74% of the observed warming since 1950 has been caused by human activity.
  45. La Niña reappears: still weak, but expected to slightly strengthen
    @mspelto , thanks for the weekly detail. I've been reading this blog for a few weeks, but just signed up. I follow the courses, destruction, and other data of La Nina, and other storms, particularly since 2008. I've collected data, that may be of use to you guys. I don't mind you sharing with with your community. My particular interest is climate patterns, deviations, etc. Anyhow, this is a great site, and I'm not a skeptic, just have an extremely open mind. :) Data talks, opinions walk. Which is why I love this place.
  46. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    John H: "an organization like the AGU should have developed mechanisms to get its members' findings into the hands of the national and world press." Agreed. But go to the AGU media webpage: A dozen or so 'press conferences;' do you expect there was much in the way of attendance beyond a few science writers? It would be nice to hear from an attendee if the press conferences actually attracted much attention. With the exception of NASA, big science in the US is not good at capturing media attention - until there is a disaster and everybody wants an instant analysis.
  47. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Pagani, Lunt and Seki results suggest a 100year (60% of equilibrium as per Hansen 2006 but Hansen now says 80% so would be higher again) in a range of 3oC to 7.9oC most likely 5.25oC for the Pliocene when CO2 levels were between 330-400ppm (IPCC too high for Ealry Pliocene) (13-15).The Schneiders when summarising all the recent Pliocene findings shows that a SCS of 1.5-4.5oC is very likely to be too low to account for the temperatures seen (16). The Pliocene is an appropriate past analogy for the future, the CO2 were the same as now at ~330-400ppm and the general pattern of the earth’s continents were very similar to today however the global temperatures were ~3-5oC hotter than pre-industrial times, the North Pole was ~10-14C hotter, the Greenland, WAIS and marine based EAIS ice sheets weren’t present and sea levels were ~20-25m higher (13-17). Therefore at the present as CO2 levels are 390ppm, it seems reasonable to suggest that the earth will eventually heat up by at least 3C and that sea levels will rise somewhere between 20-25m. Although the full sea level rise will take some time, 1-2m by 2100 is likely by 2100 and 5m in a century has occurred (ref (10) in 9). 13. Lunt D.J. et al, “Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data”, Nature Geoscience, VOL 3 , JANUARY 2010 14. Pagani M et al, “High Earth-system climate sensitivity determined from Pliocene carbon dioxide concentrations” Nature Geoscience VOL 3 , JANUARY 2010 15. Seki O. et al, “Alkenone and boron-based Pliocene pCO2 records” Earth Planet Sci Lett (2010) 16. Schneider B. “Global warmth with little extra CO2”, Nature Geoscience, VOL 3, pg. 6-7, 2010
  48. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    muoncounter: If climate change is the biggest challenge to ever face mankind, an organization like the AGU should have developed mechanisms to get its members' findings into the hands of the national and world press. The only way that governments will agree to take meaningful and timely action on climate change is if their citizens demand it. Citizens will not demand action until and unless they are convinced there is a clear and present danger. If the scientists, who are the experts on what's happening now and what's likely to happen in the future, do not communicate their knowledge base to the general public, who will?
  49. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    “The latest research shows that climate talks must lead to more aggressive action to avoid the catastrophic effects of global warming.” Source: “Climate Negotiations Fail to Keep Pace with Science” by David Biello, Scientific American, Dec 7, 2011 To access this timely article, click here. PS – Tell me again why the world’s leading climate scientists should not be present en masse in Durban.
  50. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    John H: Articles in national media about a geophysical conference? Not gonna happen. See this piece from an SF TV station, which is about the extent of 'coverage.'

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