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  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  Next

Comments 70301 to 70350:

  1. Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
    Suggested reading: “Carbon Trading May Be Ready for Its Next Act,” New York Times, Nov 14, 2011 To access this timely article, click here.
  2. Dikran Marsupial at 01:01 AM on 15 November 2011
    The BEST Summary
    pauls That is very much the point, while there are bound to be sequences that look like step changes, that doesn't mean that there has been a step change. This is why a statistical test should be used to determine if there is sufficient evidence for a step change before claiming that there has actually been one. For the 1995-2000 step change, it is pretty easy to see that the illusion is caused by the 1998 El-Nino spike, delete that bit of the plot and it looks like a linear trend model fits the data pretty well, without any suggestion of a step-change. At the end of the day, the key is self-skepticism, if someone wants to argue for a more complex model, without a good basis in physics (e.g. exponential increase in CO2 + logarithmic radiative forcing = linear warming), then you need to demonstrate that the data argue unequivocally for a more complex model.
  3. The BEST Summary
    @GreenCooling #9 I've been teaching counselling since 1984 and your point of - "how can I get through to people who refuse?" is a common question. Listening and thinking are the keys. Basically you can work with anyone who does not bother you. Once your bothered you can't be successful. The bother needs to be dealt with first. While a statement can easily be blocked, a question that gets the answer into the mind of the listener is better at getting past a block. You can question their assumptions. Once they are questioning their assumptions there is an opening to information about science or data. It can be a small opening that gets lost easily and back to questioning assumptions instead of giving information. In person it will work better if you like them and you listen well. It can take quite a while and is easier done with friends or people who you care about.
  4. The BEST Summary
    Dikran, I think it would be very unusual for a near-linear upward trending signal in noisy data not to contain occasional sequences which look like step functions. Then there are known variances associated with the '11-year' solar cycle, which increase the probability of seeing step functions as we go from minimum to maximum over a ~six year period - an oscillation within the upward trend. 1995-96 occurred during a solar minimum, 2001-2002 at a maximum: the exact period in which a step function has been posited. There's also a "step function" from about 1975 to 1980. Again, 1980 occurs at a solar maximum.
  5. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Tom C#33: "draw cold air further south (or north) than was previously the case," Petoukhov and Semenov 2010 illustrates this point: Our simulations ... demonstrate that lower-troposphere heating over the B-K seas in the Eastern Arctic caused by the sea ice reduction may result in strong anticyclonic anomaly over the Polar Ocean and anomalous easterly advection over northern continents. This causes a continental-scale winter cooling reaching −1.5°C, with more than 3 times increased probability of cold winter extremes over large areas including Europe. Perhaps this December 2010 illustration of a distended NS jet stream is also case in point. Prior discussion: Does cold weather disprove global warming?
  6. SkS Weekly Digest #24
    I bet there's nothing about this on WUWT or any of the other so-called skeptical websites which strangely seem to concentrate only on cold and snow :

    UK on course for mildest November in 300 years

    I also bet that the first snow and cold temperature will be broadcast far and wide. But they never doubted the world was warming, honest...
  7. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Kevin C @32, as Hansen says:
    "Figure 5 confirms that the actual occurrence of summers in the "hot" category (seasonal mean temperature anomaly exceeding +0.43 σ) has approximately reached the level of 67% required to make four sides of the dice red. The odds of a "cold" season or an "average" season now each correspond to one side of the six-sided dice, to a good approximation. However, note that the odds of an unusually cool Jun-Jul-Aug (by the standards of 1951-1980) have fallen more than the odds of having an unusually cold Dec-Jan-Feb. Comparable loading of the dice has occurred in winter, where "hot", i.e., mild, winters now occur almost two-thirds of the time. Figures 4 and 5 show that the "loading of the dice" is less in winter than in summer, despite the fact that warming has been larger in winter. Larger winter warming is more than offset by the fact that interannual variability is much larger in winter than in summer, as shown in Figure 2. Thus climate warming may not be as obvious to the public in winter as in summer, especially because snowfall amounts increase with global warming (in regions remaining cold enough for snow) and there is a tendency to equate heavy snowfall with harsh winter conditions, even if temperatures are not extremely low."
    (My emphasis) Regarding Figure 2 he writes:
    "Interannual variability of surface temperature is larger in the winter hemisphere than in the summer and larger over land than over ocean (Figure 2). The basic reason for the large winter variability is the huge difference in temperature between low latitudes and high latitudes in winter. This allows the temperature at a given place to vary by tens of degrees depending on whether the wind is from the south or north. The latitudinal temperature gradient in summer is much smaller, thus providing less drive for exchange of air masses between middle latitudes and polar regions -- and when exchange occurs the effect on temperature is less than that caused by a winter 'polar express' of Arctic (or Antarctic) air delivered to middle latitudes."
    To that I would add that there is a possibility that increased warmth leads to larger weather cells. That being the case they would draw cold air further south (or north) than was previously the case, further compensating for the increased warmth in winter. That is, air from 20 degrees North drawn down over the midwest may be warmer, but because of larger weather cells, air my now be drawing down from 15 degrees North. Of course, this last observation is just that, an observation I have made about Australian weather patterns. I do not know if any scientific research has been done on this. Consequently my observations are no more trustworthy than any other anecdote.
  8. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Dr Milne's lecture is now posted and being abused on the denialist Bishop Hill blog. They are also openly attacking SKS on the comments below. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/14/richard-milne-on-the-divergence-problem.html Strangely they focus only on two small aspects of the lecture (tree rings, and the admission that Dr Milne is also an environmentalist). Yet they have the cheek to accuse SKS of cherry-picking!
  9. Dikran Marsupial at 23:25 PM on 14 November 2011
    The BEST Summary
    BTW, there is also no real evidence that there was a step change 1995-2001 either, and I don't recall having seen an analysis that showed a statistically significant difference in the evidience for a step-change model over a linear trend model (which can be done).
  10. Dikran Marsupial at 23:22 PM on 14 November 2011
    The BEST Summary
    Fred Staples The difference is statistical significance. The human eye is so good at detecting signals in noise that it all to often detects a signal that isn't actually there, but is just an artifact of the noise. Hence scientists use tests of statistical significance as an objective test of their claims. I have yet to see the details of a statistical test that shows there is statistically significant support for the hypothesis of a pause.
  11. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Tom: That's very interesting because it is counterintuitive. A better insulated atmosphere leads to a reduced diurnal range and even more importantly reduced seasonal range - both of which are observed. My first reaction was to assume from this that extreme cold events should be disappearing faster than warm ones should be appearing. The fact that this reasoning fails presumably arises from changes in weather patterns?
  12. The BEST Summary
    Fred Staples, this article doesn't claim that there is a "continuing upward trend on the step change from 1995 to 2001". The linear trend, as shown in Figure 1, is negative for this period, but we all know (or should know (Source)) that these short linear trends aren't statistically significant. Claiming cooling/pause/halt/suspension/etc. or extreme warming using such short linear trends is, as you say, absurd indeed. This point is made clear by showing the positive linear trend over the entire period 1973-2010, which is statistically significant.
  13. The BEST Summary
    mandas, thanks for the additional info :-) 0.05 percent. Wow, no wonder "they" promote the immensely huge 30k number as significant...
  14. The BEST Summary
    Bearing in mind that, from 1800 to 1940-ish we were emerging from the Little Ice Age, why is it wrong to argue for a pause in global (land-based ) temperatures from 2000 onwards, but right to claim a continuing upward trend on the step change from about 1995 to 2001. Both are equally absurd.
    Response:

    [DB] "Bearing in mind that, from 1800 to 1940-ish we were emerging from the Little Ice Age"

    Incorrect.  You fail to take into account the climatic dampening from the volcanic effects of the eruptions early in the 19th Century as well as changes in solar output over that time.  You perpetuate a skeptic canard without looking into the literature.

    "why is it wrong to argue for a pause in global (land-based ) temperatures from 2000 onwards"

    PRATT.

    "but right to claim a continuing upward trend on the step change from about 1995 to 2001"

    Strawman.  No one, other than fake-skeptics, are maintaining any fiction over unsupported "step changes".  Such is considered by science to be "Climastrology".  See also Dikran's subsequent comments re: significance testing.

    "Both are equally absurd."

    Unsupported conclusions based on no evidence are usually ignored.  Given the obvious lack of investigation you put into this your comment here borders on derisive.  Please ameliorate your tone.

  15. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    jmorpuss, I suggest you read what NASA has to say, instead of what you might have read on some conspiracy-type website about "micro burn holes" :

    what the astronauts are experiencing is space radiation zipping through their eyes like subatomic bullets. When a "bullet" strikes the retina, it triggers a false signal that the brain interprets as a flash of light.

    Now, do you have anything to say about the subject of this post ? Any further diversions are off-topic.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Indeed, please no more discussion of cosmic rays, unless it is clearly relevant to a discussion of clouds and climate.
  16. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    JMurphy point taken on the may or may not part I agree that more info is reqired I was just trying to point out what science is playing with while most are distracted by global warming I provided a link @6 that may clear things up on climate change I'm a 1958 model and remember when man first went into space and one thing that stood out to me was the astronaughts saying how they kept seeing flashes of light and it seemed to be coming from inside their heads and when they investigated more they found micro burn holes in their visors that at the time they only put them down to some sort of partical that had travelled through the ship and through their brains you think they could have been neutrinos ?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please restrict the disucssion to issues that are on-topic and clearly related to climate.
  17. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    I'd suggest to simply ignore jmorpuss comments. They are offtopic, add nothing to the discussion and above all he apparently takes tiny bit of physics at random and forces them into the climate discourse.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is good advice; if someone makes a post that has no relevance to the discussion, the best thing to do is to simply ignore it and not allow the discussion to be diverted. The moderators will deal with posts that contravene the comments policy, but please be patient and allow time for this to happen.
  18. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    jmorpuss : "We have already seen that spiral in Norway and CERN has just past neutrinos through the earth and they traved faster then the speed of light." They may have travelled faster than the speed of light but, then again, they may not have. Do you accept something so easily, without any back-up evidence ? That would be irrational. But, anyway, what has that even got to do with Global Warming ?
  19. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    DSL @28 To create globale warming might be a bit hard to prove but climate change why not a bit of heat from a ionispheric heater in the right place and away you go weather modification We have already seen that spiral in Norway and CERN has just past neutrinos through the earth and they traved faster then the speed of light Anyway here is a link that [inflamatory snipped] http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Ielect.html It's about electrons ions and plasma Also here is a link to a video that shows what microwaves can do to CO2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrUqR0LO7k8&NR=1 It mite be at the extream end but you can still cook a chook on low pulse rate You can denie this process is not taking place by voising your opinion and thats your right [more inflamatory snipped]
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Comments likely to irritate or annoy others participating in the discussion are not welcome, and are incontravention of the comments policy. Next time I will simply delete your post, rather than editing it.
  20. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    muon - splorf! What a website. Just as well as I wasnt handling cats or coffee. Truly stunning what stories you tell when unfettered by measurements or physics. I won't waste my time on this one.
  21. The BEST Summary
    cynicus It's actually worse than that. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, 41,289,000 people had a Bachelor’s Degree as their highest educational qualification, 15,357,000 had a Masters Degree, and 2,793,000 held a Doctoral Degree. In the UK, the figure is around 20% of the population, or around 12 million. The figures are similar in most western countries. However, in places like India, the percentages are much less, but with the much higher population numbers, the total number of people with university degrees is staggering – around 100 million. Source (US data): http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2010/tables.html So, what does this mean? Well, if we look at US figures alone, if everyone who signed the Oregon Petition held a legitimate university degree (but we know they don’t), then we can do a simple sum. The total number of university graduates is around 60 million. There were 31,000 signatories to the petition. This represents a staggering 0.05% of the population. But of course, the ‘Oregon Petition’ was open to anyone who wished to sign – you didn’t have to be in the US. So the figures are obviously much lower than 0.05% . You can make your own estimate if you like.
  22. 1998 DIY Statistics
    Came across this old thread in my wanderings, and the post from nofreewind showing us a graph with a declining trend from 1998. Here's what it looks like: It's more than a year later, so we can add another year's data to that 1998 trend line. The result: Emphasising the point that short term data demonstrates the variability, not the trend.
  23. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    jmorpuss . . . what are you trying to say? That microwaves are causing global warming? Problem one: the stratosphere is cooling. Explain it. Btw, muon, that may be the silliest alt-theory website I've ever seen--not because the theory itself is not even wrong, and not because there's not a shred of evidence to support it, but because it's so well-crafted, so sincere, and so naive. It's like listening to a five-year old's patient, ten-minute explanation of how babies come into the world because women eat pebbles. The author should be placed in a steel cage match with Doug Cotton. I might pay to see that, if it was made available in a podcast. Sweet, oneiota. That one was featured in last month's trade pub New Trends in Snake Oil.
  24. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Best video on Global Warming I've ever seen. Nemesis, Punisher of Hubris. Νέμεσι πτερόεσσα βίου ροπά, κυανώπι θεά, θύγατερ Δίκας, α κούφα φρυάγματα θνατών επέχεις αδάμαντι χαλινώι, έχθουσα δ’ ύβριν ολοάν βροτών μέλανα φθόνον εκτός ελαύνεις. υπό σον τροχόν άστατον αστιβή χαροπά μερόπων στρέφεται τύχα, λήθουσα δε παρ πόδα βαίνεις, γαυρούμενον αυχένα κλίνεις. υπό πήχυν αεί βίοτον μετρείς, νεύεις δ’ υπό κόλπον όφρυν αεί ζυγόν μετά χείρα κρατούσα. ίλαθι μάκαιρα δικασπόλε Νέμεσι πτερόεσσα βίου ροπά. Νέμεσιν θεόν άδομεν αφθίταν, Νίκην τανυσίπτερον ομβρίμαν νημερτέα και πάρεδρον Δίκας, α ταν μεγαλανορίαν βροτών νεμεσώσα φέρεις κατά Tαρτάρου. In English translation: Nemesis, winged balancer of life, dark-faced goddess, daughter of Justice, who, with your unbending bridle, dominate the vain arrogance of men and, loathing man’s fatal vanity, obliterate black envy; beneath your wheel unstable and leaving no imprint, the fate of men is tossed; you who come unnoticed, in an instant, to subdue the insolent head. You measure life with your hand, and with frowning brows, hold the yoke. We glorify you, Nemesis, immortal goddess, Victory of the unfurled wings, powerful, infallible, who shares the altar of justice and, furious at human pride, casts Man into the abyss of Tartarus!
  25. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Sorry way OT but following on from 24 & 25 above Climastrology button required for this one as well....don't waste too much time there.
  26. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    "Sometimes you have to put the peaces together" Ahh, global warming is caused by microwaves and the fact that the cold war didn't turn into hot war, i.e. the peaces prevailed...
  27. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    You don't have to be a climate scientist to acknowledge the validity of anthropogenic global warming anymore than you have to be a biologist to acknowledge the validity of evolution.
  28. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    10, Pirate, Is there a point to your question?
  29. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Climastrology button required here.
  30. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Does a geochemist qualify as a climate scientist?
  31. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    scaddenp, You are being wayyyy too rational about this. The basis of the "Microwave" theory is that microwave radio frequency communications are directly linked to global climate change and can be historically traced to the use of radio waves at a global level.
  32. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    scaddenp @ 22 As you move into the microwave frequencies used by satalite and long distent coms as well as some radars you can create hot spots and as you know heat differences drive the weather Here is a link to http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/IONO/Dynasonde/SpEatHeating.htm Sporadic E and charged particals
  33. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    jmorpuss - noone disputes radio waves are EM. Just that this has nothing to do with climate or weather. If you want to connect radio (kHz to 1GHz range EM) to climate, then you need papers that show a climatic/meteorological response in that range. Sporadic-E clouds are not meteorological clouds. GHG are transparent to EM in that frequency.
  34. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Tom @16 The first line here states that radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/radio+waves Sometimes you have to put the peaces together
  35. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    muoncounter @30, I do not think we are significantly disagreeing. Your quote from Hansen, "The most important change of the climate dice is probably the appearance of extreme hot summer anomalies..." is exactly correct, and exactly to the point. My purpose, however, was to point out that the increase hot events was not matched by an equivalent decrease in cold events. As can be seen from the following graph (also from Hansen et al, 2011): a) cold (> 1 sigma) events have approximately halved over the last 40 years; b) very cold (>2 sigma) events have declined but not appreciably; and c) extremely cold (>3 sigma) events have never been frequent, but have become rarer, but one still occurred as recently as 2010. In contrast: e) hot (>1 sigma) events have tripled on frequency; d) very hot events have risen from about 1% to about 20% of land area; and e) extremely hot (3 sigma) have risen from negligible amounts to about 5% of land area. Obviously the big news in this is the rise of hot events. There is, however, a common perception that that rise will be matched by and compensated by a decline in cold events. That perception is wrong, and needs to be rebutted.
  36. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    The moderator is quick of the mark today. For the record, jmorpuss posted another of topic response which has been deleted. I presume it was deleted because: 1) It contained moderation complaints, in contradiction of the comments policy; 2) It was extremely of topic, in contradiction of the comments policy; and 3) It contained a link with no discussion of the link's comments, in contradiction of the comments policy. All three aspects of the comments policy are justified, and indeed, valuable in keeping discussions focused, relevant, and understandable. Yet deniers persistently violate all three and then complain that their posts are deleted in order to suppress their opinions, which is laughable. In this case I wish to point out that not only was jmorpus link of topic with regard to the OP, but it was also of topic with regard the particular discussion of his theories above. It contained no mention of clouds, sporadic E, or the ionosphere, and therefore was entirely irrelevant. It was certainly not a defense of jmorpus' theory. Also, for the record, I do not delete anything on SkS, as I am not a moderator.
  37. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Additional to my 16: IN facing theories that are utterly absurd it is easy to miss particular absurdities in the crowd. In particular, jmorpuss claim that: "What I'm trying to point out here is how ground based and satalites data collecting can cause sporadic E clouds to form" is beyond absurd. Like all other ionized layers, Sporadic E layers are formed by ionizing radiation from the sun. While they effect radio communication, they are not caused by it. This claim by jmorpuss is further evidence of crankery, and needs to be defended along the same lines as those in my conclusion of my 16 (12:00 PM 14 Nov, 2011). Note to moderator: I know that my 16 and this post are now responses to a deleted post. Could you please allow them to stand based on the principle outlined inline @7. If you could restore his deleted post on the same basis, that would also be appreciated.
  38. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    DB: Suggest that all jmporuss's comments be deleted and that he/she be banned from posting on SkS.
  39. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Norman @13, I accept your point. Accepting it, however, only shows jmorpuss claim @6 even more absurd.
  40. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    jmorpuss @11: >b>1) I, and I am sure all other comentators on this site have never come across your unusual definition of radio waves as "radiated electromagnetic waves". What we have come across in both physics courses and popular reading on the topic is the definition of "radio waves" as:
    " Wave from the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum at lower frequencies than microwaves. The wavelengths of radio waves range from thousands of metres to around 30 cm. These correspond to frequencies as low as 3 Hz and as high as 1 gigahertz (109 Hz)."
    (Source) Consequently, unless you can provide a clear definition of "radio waves" as "radiated electromagnetic waves of all frequencies" from a reputable source of information on physics, I will conclude that my usage is incorrect, and that your usage is aberrant, and marks you as an ill informed crank. 2) Like Scaddenp, I failed to find any relevant information in your linked source. First, it refers to only a restricted part of the radio frequencies, and hence not to gamma rays. Second, it specifically discusses the effects of the ionosphere on the propogation of High Frequency Radio waves, ie, those between 3 and 300 MHz. The ionosphere is a portion of the atmosphere including the thermosphere and exosphere (50 km to over 500 km altitude according to your source) in which electrons are stripped from atoms in the atmosphere, thus ionizing them. Because of the high altitude and the ionization, no water is found at those levels of the atmosphere, so no meteorological clouds can be found at that level of the atmosphere. Third, the only "sporadic E" things described by your source are "sporadic E layers", which are:
    "Sporadic E refers to the largely unpredictable formation of regions of very high electron density in the E region. Sporadic E may form at any time during the day or night occurring at altitudes of 90 to 140 km (the E region)."
    (My emphasis) It is true that the wikipedia article on the Ionosphere refers to these layers as "sporadic E clouds", but they are clouds of high electron density, not of water vapour and therefore are not meteorological events. Equating clouds of high electron density with meteorological events is further evidence of crankery. As the wikipedia article on cranks says,
    "Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task."
    Therefore, absent the immediate explicit explanation of your theory, supported by links to reputable sites explicitly advocating and providing evidence for that theory, I will draw the obvious conclusion that you are in fact a crank and that further discussion with you is a waste of my time.
  41. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Philippe @12 this link may help you understand http://www.ips.gov.au/Category/Educational/Other%20Topics/Radio%20Communication/Intro%20to%20HF%20Radio.pdf
    Response:

    [DB] Again, simply posting a link does not help you prosecute your agenda.  You must demonstrate that you both understand the science and mechanisms behind that which you propose AND you must also point to peer-reviewed literature which supports those.

    Your links, as have already been pointed out, do not support your position.

  42. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Riccardo @10 You need to research how a magnetron works and with carbon Nano tube tech's one can make a wave guide out of it and inject gasses into the wave guide The microwaves in your microwave oven is ionised by the metal wave guide
  43. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Tom Curtis @ 8 Cosmic rays are currently described mostly as high energy particles. Mostly protons with a few alpha particles and some heavier nuclei. I do not think they refer to gamma rays as cosmic rays anymore but call them gamma rays directly to indicate the difference between the normal particle flux entering our solar system and the few extreme events that produce intense levels of gamma radiation. Current understanding of the term cosmic rays.
  44. Philippe Chantreau at 11:32 AM on 14 November 2011
    New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    "What I'm trying to point out here is how ground based and satalites data collecting can cause sporadic E clouds to form" Say what? What in the world in this mumbo-jumbo? Data collection causing cloud formation? How is this fantastic hypothesis supported in any way by your link? Sorry to be blunt but you seem to have no comprehension whatsoever of what you read. When one talk about radio waves, it is generally understood to include electromagnetic waves within the radio frequency spectrum. If it is infra-red, visible or ultra violet, this is normally specified. If it is higher energy like X rays or Gamma rays, it is never referred to as radio waves. Conventions may be just that but they do have their usefulness. Electromagnetic waves do not carry nano particals, whatever that may be. Cosmic rays do not do that either. If you know of any scientific work linking, even in the loosest fashion, radio waves and climate, please cite. At this point, you have demonstrated only thorough confusion.
  45. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Tom C#29: Point taken. However, your #21 "an overall increase in the combined total of hot and cold events, even though cold events are becoming rarer" seems like a stretch. Why include cold events in the 'combined total,' if the rightward migration of these distribution curves shows that extreme cold events are becoming less frequent? See Hansen again: The most important change of the climate dice is probably the appearance of extreme hot summer anomalies, with mean temperature at least three standard deviations greater than climatology, over about 10% of land area in recent years. That's illustrated in Hansen's Fig 7: --full scale The vertical scale is % area; summertime area classed as 'hot' has tripled, 'very' and 'extremely' hot went from negligible to sizable percentages. In that context, this really is about increased probability - and extent - of extreme heatwaves (with their accompanying drought and fire risk). So what comes after the 3 sigma 'extremely hot'? Biblical?
  46. Models are unreliable
    So ... no Camburn. Am I only only person who thinks he was just going off on models in an effort to derail the other thread?
    Response:

    [DB] Camburn has elected to recuse himself from further participation.

  47. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    The linked information refers to radio spectrum in the range 1 to 300 MHz (well within normal usage of word "radio"). Again, I fail to see the climatic significance.
  48. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    jmorpuss nowhere in the link you provide do they say that radio waves is short for "radiated electromagnetic waves", whatever that means. In any case, there's no way for them to carry nanoparticles.
  49. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Tom @ 8 thanks for not deleting. Sphaerica @7 Radio wave is short for radiated electromagnetic waves and really covers the whole magnetic spectrem and includes gamma rays though people may not understand this it is still true (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Unless you can point to peer-reviewed science that can substantiate what you hypothesize, you are essentially engaging in "What if _______?" conjecture. 

    Of course, what you neglect is the need for subsequent explanations as to why what amounts to established fact only applies in certain situations...and not others.

    OT snipped.

  50. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    muoncounter @23, the top row of graphs is Jun-Jul-Aug, but the second row is Dec-Jan-Feb. Consequently my point @21 stands.

Prev  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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