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. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    There's quite a few more of these kinds of time-lapse movies from the ISS at a NASA page here. Lovely!
  2. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    skept.fr "Energy is the very base of modern world, it is positively correlated to health, wealth, education, longevity..." Education?? You also distort the use of the word modern. Modern does not equate to anything you have stated. All 'modern' means is that it refers to today as opposed to the past. Hence by definition a modern world can be anything that people want. So 'the very base' of a modern world could for all intents and purposes anything. What you have done is imposed what you think it should be and assume there is no negotiation.
  3. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Skept.fr @2: Such reforms need long-term populations agreement and support, not just expert consensus. I fully agree, which is the reason that I lamented the fact (in the first paragraph, above) that this report is not freely available. And, as you say, the costs and risks of changing our energy infrastructure do need to be better defined. However much we find things to criticize the IEA for, I think we should be grateful that the organization is directing a lot of its resources to helping resolve the climate crisis. The original mandate for the IEA was to coordinate a response to the oil supply crisis in the 1970's. Given that start, it could easily have evolved into an organization devoted to maintaining the energy status quo, rather than, as it now does, proposing constructive pathways to a sustainable future.
  4. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Skept@2:
    Energy is the very base of modern world, it is positively correlated to health, wealth, education, longevity, etc.
    Is that necessarily the case? This was a predicate of mid-20thC US economics, but I don't think that it is consistent with recent data. See for example this report.
  5. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    This fantastic video shows just how much of our energy we are wasting! All the pretty lights, especially noticable in places like California, are just what astronomers call light polution. Think of how much energy AND money could be saved if we only lit up things to the extent we actually need!
  6. steve from virginia at 08:33 AM on 16 November 2011
    Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    Hmmmm .... Atmosphere, mighty skimpy. Better take care of it. Looks like a long way to other dots up there ...
  7. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    skept.fr @2, discovery of new conventional oil reserves are starting to fall behind production. What is more, world reserves of Oil and Gas constitute significantly less than a century's supply at current consumption rates. That means we are going to see an energy transition over the next 30 years regardless. Any risk involved in that transition will be there, whether we convert from conventional fossil fuels to unconventional fossil fuels such as the Athabasca tar sands, or opt instead for clean energy. I will note, on the side, that the adverse effects of coal on health are so large that even a Fukushima accident every 5 years (which is very unlikely) would still not match the harm done by coal.
  8. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Dr. Bickmore @35, Oh I am pretty sure that was the case, at least going by my wife's feedback :) She was astounded by the shenanigans that serial misinformers like Monckton have been up to.
  9. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Albatross @32, I certainly hope so!
  10. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    I think it was Lonnie Thompson who said climate change impacts will be split between mitigation, adaption, and suffering. The longer we wait to mitigate, the more we'll have to adapt and suffer. That's the main message from this report.
  11. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Dr Bickmore, Excellent presentation, but for myself I thought the missing slide/graph really hurt. If there's any way that you could update the presentation (maybe give it again at another locale) I would recommend doing so.
  12. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Skept, There is no guarantee that that if we limit carbon we will all live in paradise. It may be the case that we are too late already. The evidence indicates that more carbon dioxide is bad. If we limit CO2 pollution we will be better off than if we emit more CO2. There remains the possibility of problems, both ones we know about and ones we have not anticipated. If we do nothing the carbon will run out anyway (WUWT had an article yesterday suggesting carbon emissions would peak in 2030) and then we will have no carbon and a ruined ecosystem. Wouldn't it be better to try to preserve soemmthing? If you are in the bottom of a hole the first step to getting out again is to stop digging.
  13. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Dr Bickmore: A very well-done presentation indeed. I found it quite enjoyable and elucidating.
  14. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    We must reduce our energy consumption, rise the price of fossil fuel, accept biofuels and nuclear… on one hand, these choices limit climate risks, and everybody agrees with that, but on the other hand, are they totally risk-free ? Energy is the very base of modern world, it is positively correlated to health, wealth, education, longevity, etc. so it’s hard for me to imagine a scenario which can change in one generation this secular energy basis and guarantee there is zero probability of adverse effects, for 7 billions humans today and 8 billions in 2030 (not just the rich club of OECD). Because we do have examples of such adverse effects in reality, not models : Fukushima 2011 for nuclear, 2007-2008 food crisis partly caused by biofuels, economic recession partly associated with rising prices of oil and commodities, etc. As a French citizen, I’m personally ‘habituated’ to a nuclear-based electricity, a highly taxed gazoline, a state control, etc. so a little more or less would not be a revolution (as it may be, say, for a Texan conservative owning 2 pick-up and 3 SUV). But I think a too manichean discourse (either climate hell or carbon-free paradise) will be hardly convincing. Such reforms need long-term populations agreement and support, not just expert consensus. We know the benefices (climate stabilization) but what are the costs and hazards?
  15. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Hi Dr. Bickmore, Thanks. I assume that they were gasping and laughing at the inanity of the tricks and tactics of the "skeptics" that you were speaking to?
  16. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Albatross @29, I don't know what people think, but one of the people at the university where I gave the presentation said the students around him were either gasping or laughing the whole time. We live in a very conservative area, so odds are that many of those students were conservative, like me. That was about the reaction I was shooting for.
  17. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    its funny how noone ever knows any skeptics
  18. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Dr. Bickmore, Very well said! I note that the expectation that the average individual can become a self-taught 'expert' - or think they should be able to 'verify' mainstream science in their kitchen - is part of this problem. We have a large part of the population that is told 'you can't trust scientists' and yet they still drive cars over bridges, fly in airplanes and take medications; their electricity works (most of the time) as do their cell phones and computers. If they felt that had to 'verify' any of those disciplines before applying them, their lives would come screeching to a halt.
  19. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Dr. Bickmore, Excellent presentation! But what do people think who are not involved in this "debate"? My wife (a scientist too) actually happened on your talk while I still had it up for view on the computer and she started watching it (she went back to the beginning). She said that she got 'sucked in'. She found it great to watch and your arguments very compelling. She normally doesn't get overly animated about this sort of stuff, but she and I ended up talking about your presentation for a long time. So your talk really connected with someone who has very little understanding of climate science, but who understands good science. So again, thank you for this!
  20. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    In response to those "skeptics" here claiming that "the current decline is certainly the beginning of the long-term trend." You missed the posts at Goddard's web site then, and posts like this at the misinformer site WUWT. And this is not the first time "skeptics" have tried this trick with sea level. For example, this effort to mislead by Pielke Senior from mid 2009 was exposed by Tim Lambert and RealClimate.
  21. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Pirate, My qualifications for doing the presentation are as follows. 1) I am a former climate change "skeptic", so I am uniquely qualified to talk about why I changed my mind. 2) I have a PhD in geochemistry, which is very related to a lot of climate science, so when I started looking into the matter it was a lot easier for me than most people. 3) I have actually gone to all the trouble of deconstructing claims by the likes of Monckton and Roy Spencer, and climate experts have told me I did a good job. 4) I am a science educator, so it's my job to explain things that go beyond my immediate expertise. That's all. And since I didn't say anything about the science that the vast majority of experts wouldn't agree with, what's the problem? I was merely explaining the current state of the science, like any good science educator would. If, on the other hand, I had inflated my credentials, or if I were a non-expert challenging the vast majority of experts, those would be valid things to point out. We can moan and groan all we want about how "science is about evidence, not consensus," and demand that everyone examine all the evidence themselves, and avoid coming to any conclusions before then. But the fact is that consensus does play a part in science (as does evidence,) and people don't have the time or inclination to become experts in every field that affects their lives. Since that is the case, we rely very heavily on expert testimony, so "consensus" would be important for the PUBLIC debate, even if it were not important for the scientific debate.
  22. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Monckton has actually repeated Nils-Axel Morner's absurd claims that sea level hasn't risen in 50 years.
  23. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    @apiratelooksat50 #4 "I don't know of any skeptics making a claim that sea level rise has ended." I know of one. Lord Christopher Monckton was on my local airwaves claiming that sea level rise has reversed. I'm not sure if he has any credibility in your books, but I was quite angry that he was contributing to the scientific illiteracy of that radio station's listeners.
  24. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    We sure use a lot of energy lighting up space don’t we? Fantastic clip, thank you John.
  25. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Andy S: Kudos on an excellent and timely post. The findings of the IEA study are getting world-wide attention in the business sector. Perhaps this exposure will cause business leaders throughout the world to stand up and pay attention to what the scientific community is telling us about climate change.
  26. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    John Nielsen-Gammon has an interesting comment up on RC11 Paul
  27. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    The youtube blurb states they used a low light camera and did some processing on images.
  28. It's waste heat
    Tom C: "Given my very low opinion of people who resort to such tactics (-snip-), unless your next response is a clear and direct statement of your theory . . ." Unless, of course, jmorpuss decides to begin asking questions (on the appropriate threads) about AGW or criticisms of the "radio wave hot spot" proposition, and those questions are asked with the intention to learn and engage rather than to make accusations and protect his/her existing assumptions. If not, I agree: any engagement with jmorpuss is a waste of time.
  29. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Tom @22, Great post. Thank you, it makes the efforts to obfuscate and misinform @21 look rather pathetic.
  30. Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
    Monkeyorchid @64, I do not think any reasoned and grounded individual should care or pay attention to what an ideologically (and anger) driven Montford and his followers might think/believe. He is just feeding them fodder to keep them all worked up and angry. Pretty sad that this is what they have to resort to in lieu of science. But thanks for the notification.
  31. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Good to see that the poopdreck list has been thoroughly trashed! Sadly "the most desperate" (comment 48) covers pretty much every denier on the planet...
  32. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    I think the article should mention that "skeptics" were making similar claims about the previous "pause" in 2008.
  33. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    23, apiratelooksat50, Check your e-mail.
  34. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    victull @24, the inverse correlation between the Southern Oscillation Index (an index of the ENSO oscillation) and detrended GMST is evident not only in 1998 and 2010, but also during the La Nina's of the period 1999-2001, and 2008. It is also evident during the El Nino's from 2002-2007. They only place it seems significantly depressed is during the early 1990's, ie, when the global energy budget was dominated by Mount Pinatubo. What is clear from the chart is that there is (at least) one other source of natural variability in detrended sea level of similar magnitude to the effect of ENSO events of ordinary magnitude. As to past data, I have not particularly searched, and am not sure the error in estimates from tide gauges are sufficiently small to make effects of that size meaningfully detectable. Finally, a simpler explanation of the "step change" between Jason and Topex is the concurrent "step change" in ENSO states. Or is that due to calibration error too?
  35. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    @Pirate #24: Reread my post #22. You're smart enough to figure it out on your own.
  36. It's waste heat
    jmorpus @102: 1) You claim that:
    " I do see and have a basic understanding of the green house effect and in NO way am I dissputing the theory"
    but in an earlier post on another thread (now deleted) your wrote:
    "You state in your last paragraph that CO2 is the primary driver for global warming Well I cant see it as the main driver it is only reacting to the radio waves that are ejected from the sun and man has been pumping man made noise into the atmosphere for more then a centuary When you guys start looking down the radiated electromagnetic path then I'LL start taking you seriously."
    Ergo, your claim to have not disputed the theory of the greenhouse effect is proven false; as also is your claim to understand it. 2) I make no apology if I have misunderstood your theory, because to the extent that I have it is because you have refused to elaborate it. Instead you have merely posted unexplained links and made cryptic comments without further elaboration. The former is in clear contravention of the comments policy which states:
    "No link or pic only. Links to useful resources are welcome (see HTML tips below). However, comments containing only a link will be deleted. At least provide a short summary of the content of the webpage to facilitate discussion (and show you understand the page you're linking to). Similarly, images are very welcome as they can be very useful in explaining the science. But comments with pictures in isolation without explanation will be deleted."
    (My emphasis) That has been explained to you several times, but still you persist, with your most recent post being the most recent example. What is more, failing to elaborate your theory is a doubly obnoxious behaviour. Obnoxious because it wastes the time of anybody who attempts an honest discussion with you. Obnoxious also because it constitutes a cowardly method of protecting your theory from criticism. Left to your devises you can always claim we have misunderstood your theory whenever the rebutal destroys what that theory appears to have been. Given my very low opinion of people who resort to such tactics (-snip-), unless your next response is a clear and direct statement of your theory, I would suggest moderators simply bar you from polite company, as you would clearly not belong in it. 3) Finally, having read your link, I can again report that it has no relevance to any theory that can be reasonably comported of the few vague hints you have deigned to let out. If you disagree, quote the relevant passages, and explain why they are relevant to your theory. 4) Given that past evidence indicates that you will not explain your theory, I will simply observe that the connection between the effects of cosmic rays and radio waves that you believe to be important in climatology is not so. Cosmic rays form precursors to cloud condensation nuclei because they ionize atoms with which they collide. In contrast, microwaves and radiowaves are not ionizing radiation. Therefore they can have no meteorological effect other than through transfer of energy, and as we know the energy they transfer is to slight to be of consequence.
    Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

  37. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Tom Curtis @ 22 The SOI and Detrended GMSL only appear to show strong opposite correlations in the most extreme cases - the 97-98 El Nino and the 2010-11 La Nina. Do you have any data on past extreme ENSO events showing such negative correlations? Also the linear trend line of Topex and Jason readings appear to be more of two distinct trends. Jason 1 and 2 seem to be on a lower trend line of about 2mm/year with a step between the two trends. This could be explained by calibration error between the satellites.
  38. citizenschallenge at 01:03 AM on 16 November 2011
    Bigger, Badder Atlantic Hurricanes In the 21st Century
    Well heck I know how to look up some of this stuff: Modeled Impact of Anthropogenic Warming on the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes Morris A. Bender, Thomas R. Knutson, Robert E. Tuleya, Joseph J. Sirutis, Gabriel A. Vecchi, Stephen T. Garner, Isaac M. Held Science, 22 January 2010: Vol. 327. no. 5964, pp. 454 - 458 DOI: 10.1126/science.1180568 ================== Bender (2010) - More intense Atlantic Hurricanes in the 21st century An Overview of Current Research Results 1. Has Global Warming Affected Atlantic Hurricane Activity? Thomas R. Knutson Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA Sept. 3, 2008; Last Revised August 26, 2011 A. Summary Statement "Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following: Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity? What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from current IPCC models? In this review, I address these questions in the context of published research findings. I will first present the main conclusions and then follow with some background discussion of the research that leads to these conclusions." ================== Global warming and United States landfalling hurricanes Chunzai Wang and Sang-Ki Lee GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L02708, doi:10.1029/2007GL032396, 2008
  39. It's waste heat
    muoncounter @103, what can I say? I'm a charitable person ;). I particularly liked the claim in one of the links that microwaves heated the ice and water, and IR did not, because IR was absorbed by the ice and water, while microwaves passed through them. (Your quote expresses a similarly bizzare sentiment.)
  40. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Sorry, forgot to include the link for the last piece of data, which is from Church et al, 2008. Specifically, figure 3 C.
  41. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak @21, it is a convenient myth of AGW deniers that climate scientists ignore natural variability. As can be seen in the figure 1 above, there have been periods of zero or negative sea level rise in the past, a fact climate scientists are well aware of. Those periods are consequences of natural variability set against a background, accelerating long term trend. As also are periods of very rapid rise in sea level, as occurred in 1998. This interest in natural variability is why Church and White 2011 draw attention to a plateau in sea level rise probably due to Mount Pinatubo. It is why the CSIRO draw attention to the relationship between ENSO and detrended Global Mean Sea Level: What climate scientists do not do is take those periods of natural variability and inflate their importance well beyond what the data will bear. That is intolerable to deniers. Any account of natural variability that does not call the whole theory of AGW into question is insufficient, in their opinion. Which is why those sites trumpeted the fall in sea level in 2010, without discussion of the cause beyond the ultimately vague term of "natural variability". And why they will not be giving the same prominence to the recovery of sea level since then, which is now above the recent trend (3.2 mm per decade) once more (See graph @1). And what they absolutely never do is point out that a GMSL rise of 3.2 mm /decade is more than 2 Standard Deviations higher than the mean of 20 year trends of GMSL since 1880 (Mean: 1.45, 1 SD 0.79). Because that would let the cat out of the bag.
  42. It's waste heat
    TomC: You are being very charitable in calling these 'theories.' No such formal structure exists in that world: Microwaves scatter THROUGH the atmosphere whereas solar radiation does not. As the microwaves penetrate to the surface, the water, ice, and atmosphere have microwave frequencies passing through them. This causes friction in the ice and water at the molecular level. This friction causes heat which is called Radio Frequency Heating. This is the basic principle behind the Microwave Oven. Speaks for itself. Perhaps we should put microwave towers in corn fields ... and grow popcorn already popped!
  43. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:03 AM on 16 November 2011
    Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    First, almost identical posts (with the same graphics) appeared a few months ago, eg. this Secondly, I have reviewed a lot, even extremely skeptical - "aggressively" opposition - blogs. None of them says that: warming has no effect on sea level rise, or that the current decline is certainly the beginning of the long-term trend. For them it is just proof of underestimation of natural variability - and overestimation of the impact of GHGs manmade on the climate sensitivity, which seems to confirm this, and this figure and this comment: “... the hypothesized "accelerating" global warming has not caused the hypothesized "unequivocal" increase in mean sea levels, as the chart clearly indicates. In fact, mean sea levels have actually decreased, counter to all IPCC expert and climate model predictions - literally, a stupendous scientific fail. Although linear trends don't necessarily make for very good long-term predictions, this empirical evidence is suggesting a far less worrisome, non-catastrophic increase in sea levels ...” - which is in opposition to this comment Hansen (coauthor) of this year: “Gravity satellite data, although too brief to be conclusive, are consistent with a doubling time of 10 years or less, implying the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise this century.”
    Response:

    [DB] "In fact, mean sea levels have actually decreased"

    Defend this statement with a citation to a substantive source (reputable, not some "skeptic" blog).  Add in the appropriate context for why this change is significant.

    "Although linear trends don't necessarily make for very good long-term predictions"

    Indeed, it is just the fake-skeptic blogs, like those you cite, that maintain this canard that SLR is, and will continue to be, linear.

    If everyone can refrain from responding to this comment until Arkadiusz addresses the above points, I'd appreciate it.

  44. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    apiratelooksat50, if you want to avoid the truth about Climate Change (the topic of this post), keep perusing WUWT on a regular basis. If you are more interested in facts, evidence and reality, you really need to stop perusing WUWT on a regular basis.
  45. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    For the sea-level rise (and energy budget) on a longer term, the most recent analysis from Church et al. 2011 (GRL) can be read here : http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/2011gl048794.pdf There is also an overview from Cazenave et Rémy 2011, but no free access : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.139/abstract
  46. apiratelooksat50 at 23:31 PM on 15 November 2011
    How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Hartz @ 22 "You really need to stop perusing WUWT on a regular basis." Please clarify.
  47. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    How about a yellowish glare over the athmosfere ever-present on all images, even without auroras? I guess itr could be the mesopause, as auroras seem to apear above it and ISS flies at some 350km. So is this yellowish a "true colour" of mesopause or some artificial enhancement? Perhaps it is an enhancement, maybe an invisible spectrum, pickedup by hisense camera. With that in mind, brighter/broader lights might be a result of the same.
  48. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    apiratelooksat50, that website is wattsupwiththat.com, as I believe you very well know.
  49. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    Beautiful.
  50. apiratelooksat50 at 23:12 PM on 15 November 2011
    How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Sphaerica @ 21 I've actually been waiting on you. I did take a pause in our communications near the end of swim season, but right after that I e-mailed you and have not heard back. Maybe it went to your spam box, but I truly want to continue. Thanks

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