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  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  Next

Comments 73101 to 73150:

  1. Eric (skeptic) at 21:11 PM on 5 October 2011
    GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    An article by former Rep Bob Inglis suggesting "accountable pricing": http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-02/conservative-means-standing-with-science-on-climate-bob-inglis.html It makes political and scientific sense to attach a price for externalities to a fuel because then that narrows the arguments to how quickly to ramp up the price and how to reduce other taxes or rebate the emission tax (also note the not-to-subtle change from carbon tax to emission tax).
  2. SkS Weekly Digest #18
    Talking of cartoons, I see that WUWT have recently posted some, one of which shows their hero Monckton walking on water ! And so-called skeptics are usually the ones who claim that AGW is a religion and that those who accept it are religious followers, etc. ! How deep into denial can they be ?
  3. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    Thanks for all the positive feedback and comments so far. logicman's reference to submarines reminds me of another one (USS Skate 578), an unsubstantiated photo of which has been widely misused by so-called skeptics, e.g. at WUWT. As for the graph, obviously craft, equipment, gear, etc. are getting better all the time but conditions in the Northwest Passage are definitely allowing more craft the opportunity to make crossings anyway.
  4. The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
    I should have phrased my last comment a lot better. The two concerns I mentioned were with reference to the past record and not today's world. As I tried to state today's world is so different in might as well be another planet. As we were discussing paleoclimate I just assumed it would be taken for read. 1)Did we have runaway Greenhouse effect leading to Venusian type conditions. 2)Did we have a cooling world leading to Ice ages. People like Monkton cant assume that because runaway greenhouse effect did not happen in the past it cant happen today as the conditions are completely different. There that is fixed.
  5. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    How remarkable that a graph of transits should so closely match everything else related to climate change, beginning roughly in the 1970s!
  6. It's ozone
    KR - Yes. Science of Doom concurs, but only just :)... http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/18/stratospheric-cooling/
  7. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    Excellent article: my compliments to JM. Additional info: In 1960, the Skate class submarine USS Seadragon sailed through the North West Passage. Before the 'skeptics' remember that event and start talking about underwater travel, I should explain the concept of 'squeeze'. A submarine traveling under ice is said to be squeezed if the depth of ice keels and the height of the ocean floor leave a gap too small for the sub to squeeze through. It is unlikely that ice conditions encountered by Seadragon in those relatively shallow waters were as bad as those encountered by St. Roch - but they were bad. St. Roch is famous enough to be available as a model kit. And no, I don't own shares in Billing Boats. :-)
  8. Understanding climate denial
    Thank you for your clarification (@139). (-Snip-).
    Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.

  9. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    #179, we'll just have to disagree on your idea of preferred data. #178: So you accept that the globe is hotter and there is more water vapour in the air? This is a good start! Do you also accept that hotter air temperatures will lead to more evaporation, faster drying out of the land, and once the land is dry, even higher temperatures (as the energy isn't used in evaporation)? And do you accept that more water vapour in the air golobally leads to increased precipitation globally (what goes up must come down)? Do you think all this precipitation is drizzle? Sphaerica and Eric's points are also good - that not every weather type will necessarily intensify or increase in frequency with warming, but there is good reason to expect that some types will intensify/increase (e.g. more precipitation, more evaporation).
  10. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    You didn't mention one of my favourite transits: the tanker Manhattan in 1969. There is a climate change link - part of the push to transit the NWP was driven by the finding of oil in Prudhoe Bay, and the desire to have a shipping route to the eastern coast of North America. There were the usual geo-political implications, too. The US didn't recognize Canada's claim to sovereignty over the passage, and didn't ask permission to go. Canada sent an ice-breaker to tag along, anyway, and it did have to provide assistance on occasion.
    Moderator Response: That was certainly a first for a vessel of that size (the length of the Empire State building, apparently), but the article was getting too big (yes, bigger than you can see here !), so I decided to stick to the smaller craft in general.
  11. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
    Jonathan@43: The only reason I can see not to use Danmarkshavn is that the temperature record starts in 1950, while Angmagssalik exist prior to 1900.
    Or you could use both. Use the closer one when it is available, and the more distant one to extent the record, after showing that the two follow a sufficiently similar pattern during the period of overlap. Unless, of course, the closer one shows something you don't want people to see, and need to resort to cherry-picking to get your message out.
  12. Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
    Jonathan @ 26: The NRT report did not include the costs of heating, but only cooling, which was my original beef. Would you not agree that omitting 90% of the costs is somewhat misleading?
    It isn't the absolute cost, it's the change in costs. Will the heating bill drop more than the cooling bill rises?
    Jonathan @ 24: First off, most of us who live north of the 45th parallel do not have air conditioning. We do not need it.
    ...and how much will it cost to install when you do end up needing it? Here is a story from CBC news in 2007, about Regina area hospitals needing to shut down elective surgeries because the cooling systems could not cope with the high heat and humidity. The cost of the heat wave is not simply measured by the use of extra electricity to run the AC a little more. Usually when Regina (or elsewhere in the western Canadian prairies) gets hot, it's dry. The unusual conditions of high temperature and high humidity was leading to increased risks of infections in surgery. Brutal heat, humidity wreaking havoc at hospitals How much do you think it costs to upgrade a hospital's heating/cooling system?
  13. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
    Jonathon @43, the Mittivakkat Glacier shown in my 26 is just 15 kilometers North-west of Tasiilaq/Angmagssalik. As you can see, while the glacier retreated between 1931 and 1943, it continued to retreat extensively thereafter. If we are to take Tasiilaq/Angmagssalik as typical of the climate conditions over the 20th century at Warming Island, then while we can possibly expect glacial retreat in the 30's and 40's (although that is not certain because of the more Northerly latitude), then we should also expect that retreat to have been ongoing as it was at Mittivakkat. You and Michaels may wish to argue conditions where sufficiently different at Warming Island that the glaciers retreated in the 30s'and 40's, then grew again in the 60's and 70's before retreating again. I would certainly entertain that as a possibility, but if your argument depends on the difference between the Warming Island climate and that at Tasiilaq/Angmagssalik, then there was no excuse for not showing the more local and relevant temperature series from Danmarkshavn. On the other hand, if the claim is that Tasiilaq/Angmagssalik is sufficiently representative of the Warming Island Climate, then Mittivakkat must also be considered sufficiently representative of glacial behaviour at Warming Island, from which we can deduce that the ice tongue has retreated relative to 1957 even 1985 when the ice shelf entirely filled the strait between Warming Island and Liverpool land (see second picture in main article), let alone in 2005 when the the strait opened.
  14. It's ozone
    Shibui - Note that a cooling stratosphere is one of the fingerprints of greenhouse gas increases. The troposphere warms, the stratosphere cools, as heat is increasingly kept lower in the atmosphere. A cooling stratosphere is entirely expected given current forcings.
  15. Philippe Chantreau at 14:32 PM on 5 October 2011
    Understanding climate denial
    This site adresses questioning that is not truly critical, nor constructive, nor sincere. The latest examples on Pat Michaels' island foolishness and the common argument on the NW passage are 2 typical examples. Denial is not critical questioning, especially when coming from people who are poorly informed or lack the qualifications.
  16. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    Nice article. Now there is no point for any denialist to stick to the "St.Roch did it in 1940s as well" story, because of such overwhelming precipitation of debunking eveidence. On the other hand, the evidence or other aspects of climate change are not so obvious and denialist claims still stick to some minds. One related that comes to mind is that antarctic is not warming at the same rate as arctic. While antarctic peninsila ice shelf is desintegrating, some other places are gaining ice, i.e. middle of the continent, is one of favourite stories by lord Monckton. Perhaps someone has the details of similar antarctic story that would compare the antarctic conditions back and then. For example, the story of Scott who had frozen to death trying to bet Amudsen to reach S pole. And compare this story to what people living in the various stations McMurro, Vostock, SPole, etc are saying life is like (and how cold) over there.
  17. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    Thanks for a most interesting post.
  18. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    skywatcher @ 168 "Norman, I've pointed you towards links that are not just anecdotal, yet you ignored them." I did look through your Stu Ostro document. The other links you posted were to disaster reports. I did not ignore them. I just stated there are potential flaws in using disaster data to prove extreme weather is on the increase. These are all know variables to the disaster data. More people, more houses, more expensive houses. The uncertain one is how population is moving around, where is population growing and where is is decreasing. I think direct measurements for this important topic are needed. Ones not based upon a variable that changes with time in nonlinear fashion.
  19. Understanding climate denial
    Anyone here remember the Phlogiston Theory? Or Spontaneous Generation? Or the Ether Theory? When big science starts sounding more like religion, perhaps it’s time the rest of the world starts praying? Scientific consensus has been wrong at times. Good science should welcome critical questioning. I imagined that was the purpose of this thread. Before this comment is deleted (again), would somebody care to explain why?
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Your prior versions of this comment were deleted because they violate the Comments Policy. Please review that policy; posting here is a privilege, not a right. Try to deal in evidence and science rather than unsubstantiated rambling about long discredited hypotheses - 'the luminiferous ether' wasn't a theory. What science is 'sounding like religion'? And what science does not welcome critical questioning?
  20. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    And, Dana69, no matter what the non-GHG explanation for the rapid downward trend, one would still need to explain why GHG-based warming isn't a factor. GHG warming is happening--must be, according to the physics of radiative transfer.
  21. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Anne-Marie Blackburn, James Powell brings up the European 2003 heat wave as one sample of increasing hazards from global warming. I did find this link on the item that gives a detailed explanation of the cause of this phenomena. If you ignore the author's opinions at the end of the document you can see if his analysis is valid. Heat Wave in Europe in 2003 explained. I do like how this author gives a mechanism to explain the events and also this explains why using a statistical bell curve for weather extremes may not be a valid approach. Extreme weather events are not random events that occur. The take place because conditions have been set up for their formation. I did not see any mechanisms or explanations for extremes other than the globe is hotter and more water vapor is in the air. No mechanism explaining how this will produce more intense rainfall or droughts in the future.
  22. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Anne-Marie Blackburn @171 I did purchase the book. It was mostly the same items that have been covered on SkS. There was a valuable resource link that James Powell linked to in this ebook. I saved it to my favorites and will go through it slowly. It is a rather long and detailed document and will take some time to study properly. Good resource to see if extreme weather is increasing.
  23. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
    Tom, The only reason I can see not to use Danmarkshavn is that the temperature record starts in 1950, while Angmagssalik exist prior to 1900. The trends are similar, the 1950s are 1C cooler in both sites, and both show ~2.5C rise over the past 30 years. Since the Danmarkshavn temperature record does not include the higher melt years of the 1930s and 1940s, a good correlation cannot be made. The Jan Mayen plot shows similar trends, except that the 1930s are cooler than present.
  24. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    But what drives 'these changes'? If extended periods of the positive phase of the oscillation were expected, observable or historical phenomena, we'd expect historical, archeo/paleo/anthro or geological records to show this, along with an equivalent loss of ice. They don't. Something is changing the oscillation and the ice melt/freeze, and we know that such changes must be driven by some physical, chemical, biological or geological impulse. There are only two such changes contemporaneous with the change in the oscillation and the associated over-a-cliff drop in Arctic ice. The biological/ecological population explosion of one particular mammal and a simultaneous injection of GHGs into the atmosphere. Change doesn't just happen. Something makes it happen.
  25. It's ozone
    Ian, Thank you. The reason for the colder stratosphere is a somewhat grey area ...
  26. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    Dana69: And what do you think is responsible for this change in an ongoing oscillation? If this truly means this oscillation is no longer oscillating, why would the natural cycle stop on its own?
  27. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
    Robert Wray @30, I'm happy to acknowledge your greater expertise in this area, however, my understanding is that for a given temperature, the extent of melt will be a function of the thickness of the ice, which is in turn a function of the age of the ice. That is why the Arctic Minimum Ice Extent continues its death spiral even though temperatures are not very much above 2002/3 levels. Earlier ice melts from warm years in 1998 and 2002-5 have resulted in a loss of multi-year ice, resulting in greater ice melt for a given temperature. As Arctic temperatures did not rise to a sustained peak in the mid 20th century, it is likely IMO that there was a loss of multiyear ice in the late 30's and early 40's, but then the temperatures fell away before there could be substantial loss of ice extent. If you disagree with me, perhaps you could repeat your analysis but for the July-September average rather than for the minimum extent so as to allow comparison with the historical record.
  28. Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
    Hmm, Why is there no discussion on the changing Arctic oscillation patterns as a reason for the Arctic ice melt? "Over most of the past century, the Arctic Oscillation alternated between its positive and negative phases. Starting in the 1970s, however, the oscillation has tended to stay in the positive phase, causing lower than normal arctic air pressure and higher than normal temperatures in much of the United States and northern Eurasia." http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html Could it be these changes, and not CO2 that is causing the melting ice in the Arctic?
  29. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Alleycat#87: "in the past the climate changed without any human intervention whatsoever." No one disputes that. However, this time around we have intervened and the climate is changing, in large part because of that sudden and unprecedented intervention. Using the 'its changed before' argument begs two questions: Do we know what caused climate change in the past? Answer: mostly yes. Do we know if those same mechanisms are making climate change now? Answer: We know very well they are not. Let's use an analogy: The last time your house burned down, it was due to a lightning strike, an entirely natural cause. Does that mean that an arsonist can't burn it down the next time? Does that mean you shouldn't be concerned when you see smoke coming out of the attic?
  30. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Alleycat @88, You really do not seem to understand the science behind climate change and the theory of AGW, and that is confusing you. Also, no reputable climate scientist are claiming that ALL the observed warming is due to increased GHGs from burning fossil fuels and land use change. Nor do the IPCC assessment reports make that claim. As for fingerprints indicating that the warming is because of an enhanced greenhouse effect, well they are everywhere (follow the link below for more information). [Source]
  31. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
    With regard to the discussion of microclimates, Box, 2002 is a comprehensive discussion of Greenland temperature records. Most germane to this discussion is that he list the correlations between certain temperature stations, including Tasiilaq/Angmagssalik (65.6 N 37.6 W), whose temperature record Michaels reproduced, and Danmarkshavn (76.8 N 18.7 W). Danmarkshavn is approximately half the distance from Warming Island, compared to Angmagssalik, and importantly, is subject to the same ice stream, while Angmagssalik is not. This is probably the reason for the poor correlation between Danmarkshavn and Angmagssalik temperatures, reported by Box as being 0.28. That is about half of the correlation normally expected at those latitudes. Given that low correlation, and given that Danmarkshavn is both closer and geographically more similar than Angmagssalik, there is no question that it is the preferable station from which to make an estimate of temperature trends at Warming Island. So here it is: And for comparison, Angmagssalik: Comparing them, there is no question that in Danmarkshavn, the temperature was cooler in the 1950's relative to the 2000's than was the case in Angmagssalik. 1956 is an exceptional year, and the second warmest on record. However, no other year in the 1950's or 60's is warmer than any year in the 2000's except 2008 and 2009. Given that it takes more than one year's warmth to bring about substantial melting, had Michaels used the Danmarkshavn temperature record (as readily available to him as to me), it would have weakened the apparent strength of his case. That, of course, raises the question as to why did he use Angmagssalik? Was it that he, having decided he was expert enough to contradict an Arctic explorer like Schmidt, was not expert enough to be aware of Box, 2002? Or that having decided to weigh in on an issue in the national media, he could not trouble himself to undertake even the limited research I undertake for a blog comment? Or was it deliberate cherry picking? No answer is creditable, and I can see no other option. For completeness: Dana (@13 above) shows the Jan Mayen temperature record, indicating is as the closest to Warming Island. Although it is the closest moderately complete record, it is also in the middle of the Arctic Ocean, and has not in recent times been connected to Warming Island by an ice bridge even in winter. Therefore we cannot assume a significant correlation between Warming Island and Jan Mayen Temperatures. There are two other records available at GIS that are both on the coast of Greenland, and closer than Jan Mayen. They are Myggbukta and Kap Tobin. Unfortunately neither is complete enough to allow direct comparison between the 1950's and the 2000's.
  32. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Sorry guys, but I remain skeptical. Not denying that the climate is changing, but I am skeptical that it is 100% man made.
  33. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    I watched Dr. Alley's speech and it seems to suggest that in the past the climate changed without any human intervention whatsoever. Very interesting stuff but it doesn't do anything to point a finger at man as the cause. I really hate the term "climate denier", it says to me that someone has made up their mind and their is no room for debate. In fact none of this is carved in stone and we're still figuring it out. I have to quote the article "So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger." The fact is that water vapor IS the dominant greenhouse gas, and if all this happened many times before man entered the picture, that says to me that we are not the problem and that this is a natural process. Just because it might not end well for man doesn't mean it's our fault.
  34. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    Agnostic: it's hard to say, but extrapolating the trend points at sometime before 2030, and possibly before 2020. It depends on the weather being favourable for ice melt - which is why 2011 raised so many eyebrows. It came within a whisker of beating 2007 by all measures (and did beat it on some), but unlike 2007, the weather wasn't good for ice melt & compaction. It also depends on what you mean by "ice free". A lot of people consider "less than 1 million km2 of ice" to be effectively ice free, but I'm sure the 'sceptics' will claim that, so long as there's one ice cube's worth, it's not "ice free"...
  35. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    The graphic from the University of Bremen says it all. How long before the Arctic is ice free in summer?
  36. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
    Now that there has been some discussion, I would like to sum up my case for SkS readers as a judge might sum up a case for the benefit of a jury. The facts: Greenland is a very large island covered with a single great ice sheet and many regional ice caps. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists assert that the ice sheet and the ice caps are shrinking, supporting this with real evidence from accumulated data, photographs and satellite images. In 2005 Dennis Schmitt announced his discovery that the shrinking ice has revealed that a part of Liverpool Land formerly thought to be a cape was actually an island: this assertion was supported by photographic evidence. Schmitt asserted that he had visited the region by land 10 years earlier at which time the cape was not seen to be an island: this assertion is supported by the record of satellite images. In 2008 Patrick Michaels was shown a book of photographs (Arctic Riviera, Ernst Hofer, 1957) by his friend Paul C. Knappenberger; in Michaels' opinion the map of Greenland found in that book showed that the new island already existed as such in 1957; in Michaels' opinion a temperature series from a weather station 800km distant supports his opinion about the 1957 map; in subsequent comments Michaels has referred to maps of the island in the plural but has never demonstrated the existence of more than one map. The article which Michaels wrote in 2008 has been cited by various bloggers and commenters, some of whom have asserted, or have used words to the effect, that Dennis Schmitt lied about his discovery. Dennis Schmitt in 2008 rebutted Michaels assertions citing inter alia the prevalence of fog in the relevant region. It is a notorious fact that fog is of frequent occurrence in the Arctic and especially along the relevant coastal area. Michaels has presented no evidence whatsoever to show that the map in question is based on accessible scientific data or was produced by a known cartographer or was intended by the author Ernst Hofer or his publisher to be taken generally as an accurate map or specifically as an indication of the existence of a new island. It is clear from the context in which the GISS data is used by Michaels that the intention is to persuade the viewer to infer - from the short term interannual variations in temperature at a far distant location within a fjord - a virtually identical series of interannual variations in temperature in the exposed coastal region of the new island. The width and southern extent of the ice stream which affects that coast varies from year to year and has a very strong influence on coastal temperatures, as noted in 1822 when William Scoresby Junior first described that ice stream in a scientific manner. More evidence needed: Michaels has made an assertion which needs to be proven. He has asserted that maps - plural - exist which support his ideas. It is not for scientists to provide his evidence for him: he, not they, must perform the necessary cartographic research. Michaels may wish to purchase one of the very many maps produced by Ernst Hofer's employer: Lauge Koch, if he can find one of these accurate and data-backed maps to support his hypothesis. If the regional ice cap and glaciers had in fact retreated sufficiently to reveal the width of water shown in the 1957 map, then it is for Michaels to furnish evidence of e.g. precipitation to show that glacial ice had grown back by 1985 to the extent shown in the satellite image from that year. Michaels must furnish evidence in rebuttal of Ernst Hofer's relevant statements in his book to the effect that: summer temperatures within fjords are generally much warmer than temperatures on coasts adjacent to the East Greenland ice stream; the book is a book of photographs; the author makes no assertions of scientific discoveries; the author describes his work as the taking of photographs mainly for the scientific benefit of geologists. Michaels must also show intent: that is, the intent of the author Ernst Hofer to demonstrate, speak of or mention in even the least way the existence in 1957 of the island now known as Warming Island. In my submission: if Patrick Michaels cannot prove such intention on the part of Hofer then the map - which bears no mark of authorship or of authenticity on its face - cannot be described legally and scientifically as 'Hofer's map'. Rather, in my submission, it is an inaccurate sketch map of no scientific value which happened to suit the purposes of a self-described advocate.
  37. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    I recall years ago hearing this argument being used by a local talk-radio host as a claim against global warming. Hard to say if said host has been convinced by the evidence. Probably not.
  38. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
    #38: pauls: Where in the world are glaciers advancing along with cooler temperatures? You make valid points abut point data versus regional trends, especially where data is sparse (Michaels should take notes); however there are not a great deal of locations where non-surging glaciers are advancing due to cooler temperatures. In JMurphy's link, very few glaciers show even a positive mass balance, which is a prerequisite to an advance - the positive mass balance must also be sustained over a number of years (length dependent upon the glacier) to move the terminus forwards. Additionally, those very few showing positive mass balance and advancing may be doing so on account of increased precipitation, not from lower temperatures. Furthermore, how many of those non-surging glaciers showing positive mass balance, advancing, and under a recorded cooler climate - are in a position more advanced now than they were in the 1950s? I suspect not many, but see if you can find any! But all this just distracts from the key point here that Michaels was extremely unskeptical about a sketch map, and appears to be intent upon sowing seeds of doubt, rather than following evidence. Debunking these seeds of doubt is very important, when they are as clearly incorrect as in this case.
  39. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    Bernard, sorry you were confused. In post 4 we stated that "You may recall from school that a pH of 7 is neutral" and went on to explain about the dissociation of water and then clarified that "So, we define a neutral pH has the same concentration of H3O+ as pure water" (and that 'has' should have been 'as having'). We had hoped that it was obvious that this meant "...as pure water at the same conditions of temperature etc" but we can see how people might not have appreciated this. Nevertheless we felt it was as concise a definition as we could give without (as we had said we would not do) mentioning activity or delving into the intricacies of the several pH scales used for seawater.
  40. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Alleycat, I think you'll dig this Alley cat.
  41. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    NASA weighs in on the 2011 melt season. The near-record ice-melt followed higher-than-average summer temperatures, but without the unusual weather conditions that contributed to the extreme melt of 2007. "Atmospheric and oceanic conditions were not as conducive to ice loss this year, but the melt still neared 2007 levels," said NSIDC scientist Walt Meier. Two good video segments.
  42. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
    Albatross - See above. SkS has been doing just that, some examples: Certainly, I guess my concern is that SkS doesn't get drawn into meaningless debates about microclimates. JMurphy - My point is that we know there are microclimates and small regions which don't follow the wider regional and global trends. With this in mind debating the historical evolution of a microclimate (Warming Island) about which we know nothing earlier than the 1970s and very little after that is speculative at best. Observational data in the area is sparse so much better to remain focused on wider regional trends, at a level where we can make genuinely meaningful statements. As Albatross shows, SkS has a wealth of information on this.
  43. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    My first thought when I heard that vessels have navigated the passage decades ago was, "Did they sail in an ice-breaker?". As your article makes clear, if St Roch is not an ice-breaker then she is something equivalent. One point, which may sound like a quibble but is important to ex-naval types like me is could you please refer to St Roch as a ship, not a boat.
    Moderator Response: [JMurphy] Oops, sorry about that ! Looking into it, the basic definition seems to be that a ship can carry a boat but a boat can't carry a ship. I think I understand...
  44. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    #81, 82: Take yourself to the Most Used Climate Myths, you'll see such gems as Water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas, and Does breathing add CO2 to the atmosphere. You can search for more as well. I'd also recommend Richard Alley's AGU talk about why CO2 is the biggest control knob on climate despite the small overall percentage in the air. One of the best bits of science communication you'll see, and a better use of an hour of your time than browsing on most climate blogs!
  45. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Alleycat... You getting a few things wrong here. First, water vapor responds to heat. More heat, more water vapor. This is very basic. The only way you get more water vapor is to turn up the heat somehow. Second, the sun varies only a very tiny amount. Of the ~1370Watts/m2 it only fluctuates about 0.5W/m2 over the course of an 11 year cycle. The sun is very stable, it just doesn't change much. We know with a high degree of accuracy how much the added CO2 has changed over the past century and we know the radiative forcing change for it (and the other man-made greenhouse gases) is about 2.4W/m2. That is a big change that turns up the thermostat and causes more water vapor to be held in the atmosphere. Human's exhaling doesn't actually add to the carbon in the atmosphere because, well, where did that carbon come from? It was already part of the natural carbon cycle. The problem comes from burning ancient carbons in the form of fossil fuels.
  46. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Alleycat, you would do well to look at (and comment further, if you wish) the following threads : CO2 is a trace gas Water vapour It's the Sun Human exhalation of CO2
  47. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Still, compared to water vapor, CO2 is such a miniscule percentage of the atmosphere. Water vapor and the sun itself seem to play a much greater role in the natural cycle of heating and cooling the planet. Take the sun out of the equation and no amount of man made warming would keep the planet from turning into a frozen world. You can't regulate or outlaw water vapor any more than you can CO2, they are the essential building blocks of life. Has anyone considered that the sheer numbers of humans exhaling has increased several fold over the past 100 years? Where are we now 6 billion? It was barely 2 billion when I was a kid. Could that account for increased CO2?
  48. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
    pauls wrote : "The thing is that there are currently places where glaciers are advancing, places that have been cooling for the past few decades." I'm sure there are (although it would be interesting to hear from you about those cooling places - what further information do you have ?), and anyone can check to see just how many comparative glaciers are retreating/advancing at The World Glacier Monitoring Service - how many are advancing, would you think ? But, what are you trying to say with that sentence ?
  49. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
    Hi Pauls @35, Oh dear, we do seem to be talking past each other and talking in circles. I'll try and communicate more clearly. "What logicman and myself have said is that you can't necessarily assume that the trends...in one location are representative of another single location even if they are nearby" Actually, I think that we are in broad agreement on this. But the degree of agreement probably depends how accurately one wishes to quantify the trend at one location using the trend data from a nearby location. But this is all rather moot and we are getting away from the fact that Michaels was not speaking about trends (or anomalies) at all, he was speaking about absolute annual temperatures as shown in his chart. "I really don't think the relative condition of a single tiny island will have much of an impact on political action to tackle global climate change." Pardon my cynicism, but I have unfortunately witnessed too many times how such chicanery by Michaels et al. has been amplified and propagated far and wide using the internet. Such demonstrably false assertions such as those made by Michaels cannot go unchallenged. "You're on a much better grounding talking about the wider regional changes across Greenland and the rest of the Arctic." See above. SkS has been doing just that, some examples: # Arctic Ice Part 2: A Review of Factors Contributing to the Recent Decline in Arctic Ice # Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area # Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check # Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean? # Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made? # Arctic sea ice... take 2 # Arctic Sea Ice: Why Do Skeptics Think in Only Two Dimensions? # Arctic Warming and Hadley # Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered # DMI data on Arctic temperatures: Hide the Increase? # Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer # Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview # Greenland's ice mass loss has spread to the northwest # Gripping video of Arctic sea ice melting away before your eyes # Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes # Not so Permanent Permafrost # The Arctic is cooling? DMI and GISS Arctic Data
  50. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
    Albatross - That is not what logicman said. He said: "Even though only 75km apart, the Daneborg and Warming Island microclimates are not, I suggest, comparable." And "Most definitely a single station's temperature series is not enough to prove that a location 800km distant exhibited exactly the same trends year on year." Nothing about anomalies. If you're talking about trends it doesn't matter whether your data are expressed in anomalies or absolute temperatures. There wouldn't be any difference in the trends. Actually his second quote basically says the same thing as I did in post 24. I do agree that the anomalies at nearby stations can probably be used to infer the anomalies or rate of warming at Warming Island, but unless one knows the offset, one cannot infer the absolute temperature, and that is what the ice responds to. We're getting a bit off track from the original point here and I would suggest you're now disagreeing with the second of your quotes from logicman. What logicman and myself have said is that you can't necessarily assume that the trends (I'll use that word because there has been some confusion over my use of 'anomalies') in one location are representative of another single location even if they are nearby. Do we really want to delay taking action on AGW because of disinformation from someone like Michaels? And that is the very inconvenient fact that Pat Michaels and Watts desperately want to distract us from. I really don't think the relative condition of a single tiny island will have much of an impact on political action to tackle global climate change. The thing is that there are currently places where glaciers are advancing, places that have been cooling for the past few decades. I think refocusing the debate to be about remote microclimates like Warming Island is the distraction that they're after. You're on a much better grounding talking about the wider regional changes across Greenland and the rest of the Arctic.

Prev  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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