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  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  Next

Comments 69801 to 69850:

  1. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." Winston Churchill
  2. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Sphaerica @ 03:17
    I have always contended that the term "conventional wisdom" is an oxymoron.
    This little gem embodies all the offensively elitist attitudes that are so offputting to so many people. You, the great unwashed are dumb. We, the elites, are the only ones who can "save the earth." You will do as we say and we have ways of making you do it. Shades of 1930s Russia, the modern day European Union and everything Orwellian.
    Response:

    [DB] You have yet to post even one comment here that has added to the dialogue in any way.  It is tiresome and unoriginal.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  3. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    @Minglewood at 12 You can respond to such a "skeptic" by rejoining that the AGW community is well aware of the small number of peer-reviewed papers that are in opposition to mainline AGW. You can then point him to the two articles on this in SkepticalScience- Here: Powell Project 1 and Here: Powell Project 2 Then you can ask your new friend if he knows how many papers there are supporting the mainline view, and ask how he can flippantly dismiss those thousands of papers. Then you can start getting mean. You can ask him which of the papers he's read, and why he agrees with them. The odds are 1) he hasn't read any of them, and is running a bluff with numbers. 2) that there is an established debunking of the paper. Look- it's isn't Congress' job to squelch myths...and it wouldn't be a free country if it was. It's our job. Keep up the good fight! Remember that the goal isn't to convert him, but to make clear to bystanders that our side can stand up for itself in any forum.
  4. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    John Hartz - typo fixed, thanks.
  5. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    @Rob Painting: Second sentence of initial paragraph: "(IPCC))" should be "(IPCC)"
  6. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    oxymoron fight!
  7. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    “Maybe if the rest of the world understood a bit more about our experience authoring this report, they’d stop blaming us for trying to give warning to a warming world. Maybe then, they’d join in educating themselves about their own risks and prevent the worst.” Source: “Managing the Extreme Impacts of Climate Change” by Sabrina McCormick*, Culture of Science, Nov 18, 2011 *Sabrina McCormick is a lead author on the IPCC report, “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX).” McCormick, PhD is Assistant Research Professor at George Washington University and Senior Fellow at the Wharton Risk Center. She is also President of Evidence Based Media.
  8. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    16, Phila
    ...promoting common-sense solutions...
    A useful definition...
    Common Sense (n.): 1) Not well thought out. Based on over-simplified logic and a dearth of facts. 2) A thought process representative of the mistakes made over and over by people who don't take the time to learn and understand things just a little better. 3) A term used to make the ignorant and inadequate feel as or more powerful than those who put serious effort combined with substantial intellect into solving problems properly.
    As a side note, I have always contended that the term "conventional wisdom" is an oxymoron.
  9. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    Although the study of paleoclimate is interesting, we can derive so little of use from these studies, apart from saying that conditions were different. Disregarding the orbital characteristics can we even know what the TSI was in the past. It seems that nothing is coincident to todays conditions and therefore any predictions on future climate based on the past must be considered as speculation. We need to study the behaviour of the oceans more with regard to the present position of the land masses if we wish to gain any predictive skill. Nonetheless It is still very interesting for me to learn more about the paleoclimate.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "Although the study of paleoclimate is interesting, we can derive so little of use from these studies, apart from saying that conditions were different."

    Actually, climate science derives a great deal of understanding of the present climate through its studies of the past, in particular the paleoclimate.

    "Disregarding the orbital characteristics can we even know what the TSI was in the past."

    Umm. no.  Essentially you are goalpost-shifting here.  This new tangent more properly belongs on the A detailed look at climate sensitivity thread.

    "It seems that nothing is coincident to todays conditions and therefore any predictions on future climate based on the past must be considered as speculation."

    Shorter version: 'Because I haven't read enough of the literature everything I don;t know is speculation.'  I.e., handwaving dismissal.

    "We need to study the behaviour of the oceans more with regard to the present position of the land masses if we wish to gain any predictive skill."

    Climate scientists are doing this very thing, in great detail.  But very much off-topic for this thread.

    Essentially, your entire comment amounts to 'It's not Bad'.  So as you were advised before, please take your concerns to the It’s not bad thread.

  10. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    The Republican justification for missing this briefing was that they are focusing “on creating jobs and promoting common-sense solutions that protect both the environment and the economy.” It'd take another blog the size of this one to present the multiple lines of evidence demonstrating that the exact opposite is true.
  11. Lone Star State of Drought
    Bernard J, Here is Figure 5 from Hu and Fu, the changes in OLR for the Southern Hemisphere. Note Australia's precarious position between about 15˚S and 35˚S, and the Hadley cell's large role in creating and maintaining the vast deserts in Australia's interior... and hence the serious implications for Australia of an expansion of the Hadley cell.
  12. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    For the casual reader attempting to follow Fred's misunderstandings, here is Trenberth's energy budget diagram: And here is the simplified version, presented by Petty and based 100% on Trenberth's diagram (simply converting W/m2 to percentages, and removing most of the atmospheric layer interaction which complicates the image -- to simplify it for the reader in the very introduction of his book):
  13. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    DB#13: The question is not whether pizza is a vegetable, it is the tomato sauce that is the vegetable. This is time-honored policy, dating to the days of the patron saint of today's Republicans.
  14. Lone Star State of Drought
    32, muon, Thanks for the reference, but in this case I'm actually looking specifically for attribution of precipitation changes to changes in Hadley cell poleward expansion, not climate change in general. I don't expect to find any, because the changes are so small and hard to detect (heavily influenced by short term weather variations), and attribution is so difficult, even though a mere 2.5˚ change in latitude could, in fact, be greatly affecting conditions in Texas because of it's location so near to the edge of the Hadley cell and the associated arid area. I think in about 5-15 years we may well see just such a study, demonstrating that this drought and future precipitation changes in Texas are among the first directly detectable impacts of the expansion of the Hadley cell as a result of climate change. But for now... I think finding actual scientific detection and attribution of the proposed effect is probably not possible.
  15. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman#67: So its 'blocking' time again. This seems to be a very complex meteorological phenomenon, but let's see what we can learn from a few minutes with the google machine. Here's another snippet from the same NASA article: Blocking events occur when one of the jet streams ... pinches off large masses of air from the normal wind flow for an extended period. These kinks in the jet stream typically last at least five days but can persist for weeks. They can cause weather patterns to stall over one area and fuel floods, droughts, and other extreme weather events. Agreed, then, that 'a blocking event' causes stalled weather patterns; but this is apparently a short-term phenomenom. Do you associate a year-long mega-drought with events that last days to weeks? From Mendes et al 2008, Table 2 shows that Atlantic blocking events are most frequent in May and Sept (at a whopping 6% or 2 days per month); blocking in the Pacific southwest peaks in July/Aug at 27% (8 days per month) and Oceania peaks in July (25% or 8 days per month). From Barriopedro et al 2004: The long-term analysis in blocking frequencies has shown a downward (upward) trend in blocking days over ATL and EUR (WPA) sectors. ... These results suggest that those observational trends could be partially explained by simultaneous changes in the forcing factors responsible for blocking formation (ATL and WPA) and maintenance (EUR), respectively. ... regional modes have shown to modulate blocking occurrence through the anomalous TCP-associated temperature distributions. Thus, recent trends in surface temperature could be partially responsible for the observed trends in blocking occurrence. --emphasis added This paper also discussed blocking duration, producing a graph (their Fig 10) with the most commonly observed duration on the order of 7 days. If blocking frequency and duration are modulated by surface temperatures, it would be incorrect to conclude on the basis of superficial evidence that 'blocking causes warming.' If blocking formation responds to 'forcing factors,' then it is those forcings that must be investigated. Croci-Maspoli and Davies 2009, studying the European winter of 2005/6: ... the occurrence of the blocks was sensitive to, and significantly influenced by, the warm surface temperature anomalies upstream over the western Atlantic Ocean and North America. So the question appears to be: What's causing warm surface temperature anomalies?
  16. Lone Star State of Drought
    Sphaerica#17: "I'm questioning whether or not these effects are already being felt and working" Kysely 2010 is very revealing on that question: Analysis of the long-term temperature series at Prague-Klementinum reveals that the July 2006 heat wave, covering 33 consecutive days, was the longest and most severe individual heat wave since 1775. ... Owing to an increase in mean summer temperatures, probabilities of very long heat waves have already risen by an order of magnitude over the recent 25 years, and are likely to increase by another order of magnitude by around 2040 under the summer warming rate assumed by the mid-scenario. Even the lower bound scenario yields a considerable decline of return periods associated with intense heat waves. Nevertheless, the most severe recent heat waves appear to be typical rather of a late 21st century than a mid-21st century climate. -- emphasis added The future is upon us.
  17. Lone Star State of Drought
    Bernard J, Not that I would push anyone into the lion's den, but I wish you'd express such clear and vivid fears to Jo Nova on her site. She seems to feel that she is a lone, valiant, heroic defender of truth, freedom and The Australian Way, and that in her golden heart of hearts and courageous will to speak out against (in her mind) climate change fraud she has the best interests of all of Australia as her goal, but primarily those of the poor, downtrodden farmer under the thumb of the greedy, irresponsible politicians. It would be interesting to see how she responds to her imagined defense of the poor Australian farmer when she learns that at least some of you recognize that her attitudes are hurting, not helping, your futures.
  18. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    “Once again, people want something for nothing. “According to a poll by The Economist, 79% of respondents say that they who would support political reforms combating climate change if those changes had no effect on their real income. But the number completely collapses when you ask if they have to take a 5% reduction in income through higher taxation in order to achieve that. When some sort of carbon tax is introduced to reduce carbon emissions, support for climate change policies goes from the vast majority saying yes, to the vast majority saying no. Only 26% say they would support reform if it led to a decline in their real income of more than 5%. “The online poll was taken by participants at The Economist’s online Global Energy Conversation conference. The virtual event took place in London, Washington and São Paulo on Friday.” Source: “Climate Change Policies OK, So Long As It's Tax Free, Poll Says” Forbes, Nov 18, 2011 To access the entire article, click here
  19. Lone Star State of Drought
    Bernard J. @29, I take it your part of Australia is Victoria?
  20. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Bernard J. #13, not sure that this will work, but here goes:
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Width/height adjusted to fit in 450 (640, 360 changed to 450, 253).
  21. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    "It is not anti-science to reach a different conclusion, but it is anti-science to close your mind to the idea that you might be wrong."
    The issue faced by the world today is the abandonment of reason and logic by the fake skeptics in their prosecution of their predetermined narrative, a narrative achievable only by ignoring multiple lines of consilient evidence inconvenient to their ideology. Indeed, the horror faced by those who would have us debate the existence of gravity (or if pizza is a vegetable) is not the risks derived from AGW/CAGW/(insert your climate pejorative du jour here) but the danger of keeping one's mind so open that one's brain falls out.
  22. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    It seems apposite to recall how pre-emptive was the film Erik the Viking, with respect to Republican (and Australian Federal Coalition) attitudes to climate science.
  23. Lone Star State of Drought
    Tom Curtis:
    The east coast of Australia, for example shows little change in Precipitation - Evaporation...
    In my corner of Australia it's a rather more grim picture, with a rather dark shade of black plastered over the map. Given the tinderbox conditions that we already experience here in summer, the future is a worrying one indeed. Only today I was surveying the lower acres of my land, contemplating the changes I'll need to make in preparation for the inevitable conflagration that will come. There's already a peculiar interaction between (current lack of) summer humidity and poor soil moisture retention here, that can result in drought-equivalent conditions within days after a whole season of flooding rains. In recent years, the hot nor'westers have ensured that even the usually wet creeklines have been withering in a way that some old orchardists here say is particularly ususual. I suspect that given a full allotment of three score and ten, I will live to see my deep forested valley completely razed - something that even the 67 fires did not totally manage. After the fires in Melbourne two and a half years ago, most locals here say that they are simply going to run when the time comes, although I fret that the topography might be unforgiving should an arsonist torch the bush in just the wrong place. Whatever the future brings, my kids will definitely live in a different landscape to the one that was here when I was a lad.
  24. Lone Star State of Drought
    chriskoz, I agree we need the distribution of rainfall to decide. It is pretty clear from current events that the distribution will change by season and be heavily affected by natural patterns particularly meridional versus zonal flow here in the USA. In the case of Texas the deciding factors are the strength of the Aleutian low and the upper troughs that drop down the west coast and move east. As they weaken, Texas gets less rain chances.
  25. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Climate skeptics are alive and well on the web. Against my better judgment, I posted a rebuttal to a fella who insists that there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles against AGW. His response was: "Here is a list of references","What exactly disqualifies them as 'climate science'", and "How could I so flippantly attempt to dismiss 30 plus scientific articles many of which are peer-reviewed". The link he provided, https://docs.google.com/viewer. Cannot believe that even after the BEST results, that Congress cannot get its act together to help squelsh the myths that keep getting repeated daily on the web.
  26. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Tom, I agree with most of your points except the following precisions. ‘Simply discovering a connection between energy use and human well being (which undoubtedly exists) is not sufficient to justify your policy paralysis’ No paralysis in my mind, energy transition is necessary for diverse reasons. I mainly discuss its reasonable pace and better instruments. There are many places where wind turbine, thermal solar, concentration solar, geothermia are of interest. Nuclear is of course a mature technology. Same is true for more drastic norms on energy efficiency in transport, building, and so on. Furthermore, a carbon tax (or any attribution of a cost to carbon) is basically needed... for pragmatic and ethical reason (polluter pays principle)! All that is of interest now, not in a vague future. ‘Your consequentialist arithmetic leaves something to be desired. Let's assume a transition to purely renewable energy sources is made, using the central estimate from the WG3 SRREN 2011 report. ON that basis, by 2050, world energy production will be 248 *10^18 Joules per annum, or 27.56*10^9 Joules per capita per annum for a population of 9 billion, or 7,650 kwh per capita per annum. For comparison, if you consult the chart in my 16 you will see that that is above the mode of per capita energy usage for OECD nations, coming somewhere between the usage by Japan and Australia.’ Your arithmetic is correct… but your figure in #16 in uncorrect. If you prefer kWh to joules, mean kWh/capita consumption in the World was 21,871 in 2008. Your number of 7,650 kWh/hab/y is in the order of magnitude of Africa consumption (7,094 kWh/hab/y) but very far from EU (40,240) and of course USA (89,021). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption The source of your #16 figure is a Stephen Benka 2002 paper, adapted from Pasternak 2000 (links therafter). It deals with electricity consumption and real numbers for total energy consumption per capita are far higher. Pasternak 2000 doesn't stop his analysis with electricity consumption as you can read in his chapter ‘Implications for Total Primary Energy Consumption: The Ratio of Total Primary Energy to Electric Energy’. His scenario for human development concludes for a 2020 need of ‘976 to 1,089 exajoules’ for global primary use, very far from the 248 exajoules RE supply in 2050 from median SRREN scenario. http://www.fisica.unipg.it/homes/sacchetti/matematica/energia-1.pdf http://www.terrawatts.com/HDI.pdf ‘minimizing loss of agricultural productivity, and preventing the otherwise highly probable complete collapse of global fisheries’ Hem, do you have any source fort this ‘highly probable’ and highly frightening total collapse of global fisheries ? I read in IPCC AR4 WG2 SPM : 'Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1-3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease.' Of course, if you overestimate costs of AGW and understimate costs of low-energy scenario (or probability of risk in each case), your consequentialist choice will differ from mine! But that's a real problem for me, CB analysis are poor in the IPCC report, and divergent elsewhere.
  27. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    IMHO American colleagues should take this issue very seriously not just regarding climate policy, but for the broader 'anti-science'/pro-lobby way Washington has evolved into operating. Read this article, which at first is amusing and then horrifying...
    ...we live in America, where people, who have been elected to public office, do not believe in climate science, but do believe pizza is a vegetable.
    I can't see the Dems, Reps or Teas chaining that....
  28. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Would that situation in the House change after 2012 elections? How likely are DEM to regain the control? Given econo troubles in US, voters are very unlikely to consider AGW as their top priority. So current situation is very likely to continue for at least few years unless some strong international pressure forces REP to change their stance or another extreme event like Katrina will have them re-evaluate priorities.
  29. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    skept.fr @40, while I agree with Ayres and Warr that improved exergy is an essential ingredient in improved human well being, it is not the only such factor. Even more important is the improvement in agricultural productivity. Other important technological revolutions that have improved human well being include the medical revolution, the revolution in trade and commerce including (like it or loathe it) globalization, the manufacturing revolution lead by Henry Ford, the materials revolution that has given us plastics and semi-conductors, and certainly not least the ongoing communications revolution that is bringing us this debate. All of these are interrelated in various ways, and energy production is amongst the most important of them - probably the third or fourth most important (behind agriculture, medicine, and possibly education). What is more, the early stages of the energy and agricultural revolutions where essentially coupled. But any analysis that focuses on just one of these various areas will be seriously distorted. More importantly for this discussion, the importance of a factor for human well being is not the relevant consideration from a pragmatic view point. Air, for example, is fundamental to human well being, but excluding a few niche markets (medical oxygen, scuba gear, faddish cafes) is essentially cost free. The cost of supply of a product depends not only on how much it contributes to well being but also on its availability, and specifically how many resources need to be dedicated to obtaining a particular level of it. Consequently, even if energy availability was the sole determinant of human well being, the effect of transitioning from one energy source to another is fully integrated by the change in expenditure as a percentage of GDP in doing so. That is the cost in other resources for the transition, and hence the only relevant cost from a pragmatic policy perspective.
  30. Lone Star State of Drought
    Eric @25, I'm very sceptical about your elaboration that "light blue is OK". If that precipitation, in order to to make up for a previous long drought, falls as 100mm/h downpour for a few weeks causing widespread floods and soil erosion (as it did in QLD in January), then the total can look like your light blue. But it's definitely not "OK". IMO all of those graphs are hardly relevant to real problems: we don't know the changes in precipitation rate. It would be nice to have such "average rate-anomaly" if somebody ever tried to predict it. If such anomally was minus-zero it would not be bad even for slightly brown regions but I gues it'd be all plus-zero along with temps.
  31. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    skept.fr @38: 1) Let me congratulate you on your command of English. Although you claim not be be fluent, your literary prose is indistinguishable from a native speakers, and considerably better than many native speakers who have graced this site. Further, your command of technical language shows you to be extremely well read in English as well. 2) With regard to the purely pragmatic issues of biofuels, as a solution to stationary energy supply they are abysmally inefficient. However, they are potentially an important interim step in reducing CO2 emissions from transport (through ethanol blends), and potentially crucial to reducing CO2 emissions from rapid air travel. 3) The current cost of energy includes capitalization of the entire energy infrastructure over an approximately 30 year time frame. That being the case, substituting low emissions energy sources for high emissions sources can be done for little more capital investment than is currently involved in maintaining present infrastructure and replacing obsolete power stations. This is in fact one of the major reasons why an immediate response to climate change is the best option. Assuming we need to reach zero emissions by 2050, and begin replacing existing power stations as they near obsolescence with low emission sources. over the next 38 years, nearly all power plants will be replaced in this way at an effective cost of the difference between the new low emissions power plants minus the cost of a replacement plant using a high emissions technology. That cost is not an additional cost because we would needed to have paid for it in any event. There will be some additional costs in switching to a smart grid, etc, but there are additional economic benefits from that, and it represents a small portion of the total capital cost. In contrast, if we wait until 2030 before taking action, we need to replace power stations as an effective cost of the cost of the new low emissions power plant minus half of the cost of an equivalent substitute high emissions plant. The reason for the higher cost is because we are replacing plants which are a long time from obsolescence, and consequently losing the capital invested in those plants. This fact, by the way, is reinforced by Vaclav Smill's research. If energy infrastructure transitions take decades, and we need such a change of infrastructure, then only by beginning early do we have time for such a transition. (As a side note, Smill's conclusion says little about how quickly such a transition can be made as a result of a deliberate program, rather than just leaving things to the market.) 4) Your consequentialist arithmetic leaves something to be desired. Let's assume a transition to purely renewable energy sources is made, using the central estimate from the WG3 SRREN 2011 report. ON that basis, by 2050, world energy production will be 248 *10^18 Joules per annum, or 27.56*10^9 Joules per capita per annum for a population of 9 billion, or 7,650 kwh per capita per annum. For comparison, if you consult the chart in my 16 you will see that that is above the mode of per capita energy usage for OECD nations, coming somewhere between the usage by Japan and Australia. Given that any additional anergy above 4000 kwh per capita makes minimal difference to HDI, a conclusion that nearly double that represents a major risk to human well being is hardly justified. Even worse is your consequentialist dilemma. Given a choice of stabilizing climate change with a 2 degrees C (thus minimizing loss of agricultural productivity, and preventing the otherwise highly probable complete collapse of global fisheries, or allowing global energy consumption to exceed 450*10^18 Joules per annum (=13,900 kwh per capita, or significantly more than US per capita energy consumption in 2000) you would choose the collapse of food production. Simply discovering a connection between energy use and human well being (which undoubtedly exists) is not sufficient to justify your policy paralysis.
  32. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 20:40 PM on 19 November 2011
    The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    Hi Steve, I am away from a computer and have to resort to my phone... I was a bit surprised to see your comment that paleoclimate studies show that the insolation of the Eemian was sufficient to explain the higher warmth of the Eemian, when in the previous articles that was the comment I was making and you were saying that plants in the northern latitudes were respnsible. Clearly I agree that the greater 65N summer insolation was sufficient to explain the warmer NH climate during the Eemian. The ENSO discussion isn't usefull because comparing a 40 year period of variability to a 10,000 year period is folly. What I am more curious about is what is not discussed. I agree that the Eemian is the crystal ball for the future, but I reach a different conclusion. The 65N insolation anomaly went negative during the Eemian ~120,000 YBP. Using the EPICA ice core data, the rate of cooling in the 11,000 year period after that was -0.67C per 1,000 years. That is a very low rate of cooling, but there was a standard deviation of 0.59C over that same 11,000 year period. Meaning that any temperature within +/- 1.18C of the negative linear trend was statistically normal. The +/- 0.4C that the Earth has experienced in the past 200 years is well within a single standard deviation of the comparable insolation from ~119,000 years ago. Also not mentioned is that the Earth cooled for almost 10,000 years while CO2 levels remained at the 270ppm level. That temperature drop was 5C globally based on the Raymo 2005 benthic reconstruction. So the Earth cooled from a warm climate for thousands of years while CO2 stayed elevated at interglacial levels. In no way did the high CO2 levels appear to keep the Earth warm as the Eemian ended into the last glacial period. I applaud the effort you put into this series of articles. It is one of the best series this website has ever had. It does miss some important information, but I suspect that there were some challenges to the orthodoxy that you had to spend some time working through. I devote a few chapters to the Eemian in my book. If you ever get a chance to read it, you should as I think you would find it interesting. My biggest gripe with warmists is not their conclusions, but the derision they heep on anyone that reaches a different conclusion from the warming belief. It is not anti-science to reach a different conclusion, but it is anti-science to close your mind to the idea that you might be wrong. I remain open to that possibility, but I suspect that few readers of this website have an open mind to the idea that they might be wrong.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Incorrect. Many readers have emphatically stated they would love to be wrong about the changes we've wrought upon the environment. The evidence, however, has yet to appear that suggests substantive error. By contrast, the denial side of the argument seems to be proved wrong with regularity. As for 'derision,' you've got to be kidding. The derision shoe is on the other foot.
  33. Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
    Cardinal Pell asserts that the individual should examine the primary data and make up there own mind as to the veracity of claims of anthropogenic global warming - this coming from a man who manifestly can not read or understand a peer reviewed scientific paper. If he is going to practice what he preaches, surely he should advocate the same principles being applied to the religious beliefs he espouses? Martin Luther did!
  34. Lone Star State of Drought
    25, Eric, I got that much. I just wasn't sure if you were honestly or sarcastically suggesting that a small or even large region of increased rainfall somehow offset vast areas of precipitation deficit.
  35. The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
    Many years ago I learnt that people may listen to a lecture, but their trust in its veracity can be greatly undermined by one question from the audience that creates the smallest element of doubt. Similarly, I understand the tactics of the "merchants of doubt". I also believe that one shouldn't argue with idiots. Consequently, when confronted with a climate myth, I try to ignore the myth, and endeavour to employ the tactics of the merchants of doubt. A typical response of mine might be "do you know of any national acadamy of science that agrees with you on this issue" Seems to work well and not backfire !
  36. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    apirate - most Congressional Democrats don't deny basic climate science, so there's not as much need for them to attend these sorts of briefings/hearings. Though I would certainly prefer if they would attend as well.
  37. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    muoncounter @ 63 Here is a quote from the NASA link: "A series of connected changes begin because clusters of blocking events can divert the normal track of the storms crossing the Atlantic, which in turn can alter the twisting motion that the wind has on ocean waters, or wind curl. Depending on how wind curl works, it can speed up or slow down the large, circulating currents in the ocean known as gyres. When a blocking event reverses the rotation of the wind curl, the winds push against the direction of the whirlpool-like North Atlantic subpolar gyre, slowing its rotation. A slower, weaker gyre allows subtropical waters that would normally be trapped in the whirlpool-like flow to escape and move northward. "These warmer and more saline waters then invade the subpolar ocean and cause a series of impacts," said Peter Rhines, an oceanographer at the University of Washington, Seattle, and co-author of the new study. "They erode the base of glaciers, contributing to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. And the change in temperature and freshness of the waters can alter subpolar ecosystems, too." The blocking pattern allows for warmer tropical water to move up north. The warmer water does not cause the blocking pattern. Your point: "It's not clear from that whether blocking causes warming or warming causes blocking." From my reading it seems it is farily clear that the blocking causes the warming. The enhanced warming may intensify the blocking but I can't find articles which make the case that warming is the cause of the blocking. Articles on blocking make the claim that a high or low pressure gets stalled by jet stream pattern. A high pressure system that stalls in an area will prevent clouds and rain from entering an area. Sunshine will dominate, the ground will dry and the temperature will rise above the normal. Do you have any links or articles that would support the possible idea that a heat wave causes a blocking pattern and not visa versa?
  38. apiratelooksat50 at 15:08 PM on 19 November 2011
    Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    AT @ 7 I am not sure what your point is. This article is clearly political in nature. If Republicans are ridiculed for not attending, then the Democrats should be as well. "Maybe Congressional Republicans will find some time to listen to climate scientists when they're finished classifying pizza as a vegetable."
    Response:

    [DB] "If Republicans are ridiculed for not attending, then the Democrats should be as well."

    You conveniently ignore the reasons for the briefing in the first place:

    • Since gaining control, Congressional Republicans have held one climate hearing, and mostly invited climate fake-skeptics to testify
    • The Republicans have since refused all Democrat requests for further climate hearings
    • the Republican-controlled House has voted 21 times to block actions to address climate change, including a vote to deny that "climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for public health and welfare."

    If your position is that these statements of facts are 'holding Republicans up for ridicule' then you quite plainly will be considered to be leaving the realm of "debate" and joining them in their war on climate science.

    I'm a Republican and I approved this response.

  39. actually thoughtful at 14:56 PM on 19 November 2011
    Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Apirate - when you are teaching a unit on ocean ecosystems to your class, and the brightest kids are away at a debate camp, and the least motivated kids are out "sick" - who do you think will most likely makeup the work and achieve the learning goals you had for that lesson?
  40. actually thoughtful at 14:49 PM on 19 November 2011
    Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    "No Republican attended the briefing" - predictable but very telling. It is hard to maintain your position that it isn't happening when well respected members of the scientific community are telling you it is.
  41. Lone Star State of Drought
    Sorry, that comment was mainly for muoncounter. He said skeptics would take comfort in (only) the "no change" zones in his image shown in #13 (similar to yours in #17). I countered that light blue is ok. I should probably have elaborated: "light blue is relatively ok due to slight precipitation excesses being a lot less problematic than major precipitation deficiencies".
  42. David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
    oneiota - Thanks for the feedback re: the JoNova thread. I find the posters there generally sincere, if often mistaken, with a smaller percentage than Watt's site being actively nasty. And at times they appear to listen... I dropped that thread when it got down to about three posters with, ahem, "unique" perspectives on climate change, unwilling to consider other points of view. While a bit exhausting, I suspect that presenting the consensus view, as supported by the data, is at least potentially informing those on the fence. I've received the occasional compliment there on being willing to discuss matters, for presenting links to peer-reviewed papers and also reading what others link to, and I treasure a particular moderator comment to a ranting poster along the lines of "Please shut it - while I disagree with KR, you are making him look reasonable..." :)
  43. apiratelooksat50 at 14:14 PM on 19 November 2011
    Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    The Natural Resources Committee website states: "The Natural Resources Committee consists of 48 Members, 27 Republicans and 21 Democrats." From the above article: "Unfortunately, the Republican anti-climate science trend continued, as no Republican congressmen attended this briefing." As far as I can tell, other than Markey, none of the Democratic members attended either. Waxman is not a member of the committee. Apparently there is political disinterest amongst both parties.
  44. Lone Star State of Drought
    23, Eric, Sorry, I didn't get the point of your comment. Could you be more clear?
  45. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    The Nth verification that even with the uncertainties it's an issue "worth addressing". As aggravating as Muller's positioning is, the result is probably useful. AFAIK political momentum on carbon policy has been stagnant in the US, so while Muller's skepticism made little difference on that front, the well-publicised BEST results, and Muller's own take on policy have probably tipped the scales towards action.
  46. Lone Star State of Drought
    Our resident 'skeptics' will no doubt take comfort in pointing to those areas and saying 'nothing different here.' I would point out that light blue is ok too.
  47. Lone Star State of Drought
    Manwich#19: "our local soil moisture content is to DECREASE over the next 100 years" Can you reference any of those presentations, or at least the presenters so readers here can look them up? The relatively new concept of 'flash drought' seems relevant here. Drought is usually thought of as a slow-onset disaster, but much like flash floods, drought can develop very quickly. During summer, if evapotranspirtation (ET) – loss of water from the soil and plants to the atmosphere – is high, soil moisture can be depleted rapidly producing drought conditions even when precipitation departures are not all that extreme. In addition to soil moisture status, ET is affected by temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation (sunlight) and wind. Any one of these can contribute to higher-than-normal ET rates, but when several combine the results can be disastrous. These conditions existed in Oklahoma in 2000 and of course Texas/New Mexico 2011. The Oklahoma Climatological Survey makes a key point: It is interesting to note that for the year as a whole, the summer months (June - August), and the fall months (September - November), the seasonal statistics do not necessarily indicate that the state experienced a severe drought because heavy rains preceded and followed this dry spell. In the US Drought Monitor archives, one can see how quickly the 2000 Oklahoma flash drought came up.
  48. Lone Star State of Drought
    Manwichstick @19, that is a genuine concern. The east coast of Australia, for example shows little change in Precipitation - Evaporation, but that is because increased flooding during La Nina events is expected to compensate for more frequent, and more intense drought during El Nino events. The compensation, of course, is entirely in the long term average, not in the farmer's paddock where there is a loss of productivity under both conditions.
  49. Lone Star State of Drought
    Sphaerica @18, I find brown band over the Iberian peninsular, France, Italy and the Balkans more concerning, if only because of the much higher population density of those regions. Also concerning is the drying over much of southern Africa, where the inhabitants do not have the economic resources for effective adaption.
  50. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Thanks, DB. I appreciate it.
    Moderator Response: [DB] You're welcome; glad to help.

Prev  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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