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  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  Next

Comments 75251 to 75300:

  1. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    The Tar Sands of Alberta are going to continue to be developed. Whether they are shipped by rail or pipeline remains to be seen, but I would hope pipeline as it is much more efficient and safer. Just as Australia will keep exporting coal to China, resources will be developed.
  2. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
    cynicus - I matched up the two baselines (model and data) in 1990, because that's when the FAR projection began, and the SAR and TAR sought to compare their projections to those in the FAR.
  3. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
    Climate sensitivity isn't an input, it's built into the model based on how various feedbacks react to a given forcing. I think understanding ocean interactions was one of the big challenges that took a while, perhaps the amount of CO2 uptake by the oceans.
  4. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    John and the rest of the SkS team, congratulations! 'Well deserved' is an inadequate way to describe it, but it'll have to do. Probably the best climate science communication website on the Net.
  5. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    Here's a graph of oil pipeline related spills in Alberta, CA (where the tar sands projects are located). Their record on the 15 year period shown - not so good. -- source Historical evidence reveals that the problem of oil pipeline ruptures and spills is endemic to the industry in Alberta. ... As the province pushes forward with tar sands development and aims to export its oil products to China via an extensive pipeline through to Kitimat, British Columbia, Canadians should take notice of this history and its implications for the country's future. Take notice? Nah, it's ok as long as it's not in my backyard. Alberta's tar sand crude is sour - higher in H2S and CO2 content than the light, sweet crude produced in much of the US Gulf Coast. Piping that stuff cross country is not good for the health of the pipe, nor for the people who live along the pipeline route. Desulphurization and CO2 capture has to take place at the upstream end. So anyone living downwind of the production facilities and pipeline route in what was formerly known as 'The Great White North' better bone up on their emergency preparation plans. On second thought, H2S is just a trace gas, so it can't be harmful.
  6. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
    What are the basic reasons why Hansen et al chose a climate sensitivity of 4.2C as input to their model?
  7. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    In a perfect world, I wouldn't have to buy insurance as I, nor my employees would ever be involved in an accident. Even tho I maintain my equipment diligently to the highest standards, accidents do occur. When one looks at the per barrel transported verses spilled, it really is quit astonishing that it is as good as it is.
  8. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    I am an optomist by nature. When I see a downward trend in something that I consider bad, I am all for the trend. As far as more regulation etc, observe the present trend. It appears that the current regulation and employees are doing a fine job. I commend them for doing so.
  9. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    Camburn#71: "the trend is down, while the volume has risen. A good thing to observe." Not sure what volume you're referring to or if you have a source for that claim. However, it is a good thing to observe that it is not the spill that kills you, it's the pollution that doesn't get cleaned up after the spill: Federal records show that although the pipeline industry reported 25 percent fewer significant incidents from 2001 through 2010 than in the prior decade, the amount of hazardous liquids being spilled, though down, remains substantial. There are still more than 100 significant spills each year — a trend that dates back more than 20 years. And the percentage of dangerous liquids recovered by pipeline operators after a spill has dropped considerably in recent years. Also important to observe that much of this safety is due to federal regulation. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who oversees the pipeline agency, acknowledges weaknesses in the program and is asking Congress to pass legislation that would increase penalties for negligent operators and authorize the hiring of additional inspectors. That may be a tough sell in a Congress averse to new spending and stricter regulation. The pro-business agenda of many politicians will kill such regulation - and then you'd better not drink the water.
  10. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    Pete@68: It is a matter of tax policy as far as exportability. A stroke of the pen, and the tax policy will change, and the production will remain in the USA.
  11. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    Note how the trend is down, while the volume has risen. A good thing to observe. Thank you for posting this link. It is very encouraging.
  12. Spending A Week Above Arctic Circle On M.S. Fram Off Greenland’s West Coast
    Beautiful photos too. Doesn't it have some traditional farming? I usually point that out to deniers who claims that the Vikings farmed there with the assumption that it can't be done today.
  13. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    A map of 20 years of pipeline related oil spills appears in Sept 9 NYT. Not surprisingly, there's a cluster of spills in the oil patch, places represented by the some of the most vocal deniers: Texas Guvna and would-be King Perry, Oklahoma's Sen. Inhofe, Kansas' Brownback, Louisiana's Sen. Vitter.
  14. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    This is way off topic, but do you have any aboriginal ancestry?
    Response: [JC] No, I'm half French, half Malaysian (and all Aussie).
  15. Models are unreliable
    muoncounter: So you have read the paper? Does it provide anything new that is worthy of paying the rental fee?
  16. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
    8, cynicus, You might wish to go directly to section 9.4.1.2 Simulations of the 20th Century for more information on the accuracy of hindcasting with the models.
  17. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
    8, cynicus, You missed this line from the original post:
    Bear in mind that these are models of anthropogenic forcings and temperature changes, which do not include any natural forcings like changes in solar irradiance or volcanic eruptions.
    As such, the included figure roughly matches figure b in this graph from chapter 12 of the TAR. That is, it excludes the natural forcings that dominated prior to 1930.
  18. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    My post is a proof how well deserved this prize is: I've been neutral towards the climate change debate and really I was taking the "balanced" view fostered by tabloid press. That was until about a month ago when I fisrt looked at SkS. This website really "opened my eyes" at how logical and clear/unrefuttable are the findings of climate science about AGW. The debate should not be called "balanced" when most "skeptics" are simply denialist. Congrats John and the rest of the team!
  19. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Well done John!
  20. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
    Regarding Figure two: - I assume the two different datasets have been adjusted according to their baselines? I.e. the offset between the measured and projected temperature data is not a result of trying to get the best match on the right hand side of the graph? - Is it known why the hindcast is performing so poorly before 1930 (to my eyeballs)?
  21. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Congratulations John and the team of SkS! Well deserved indeed.
  22. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Great news and hats far off! Keep up the good work.
  23. OA not OK: Booklet available
    Guys. Great series!! You alluded to a future series looking at future ocean chemistry changes. When can we expect to see that? No pressure of course, don't feel that I am breathing down your necks or anything. PANT, PANT, DROOL, DROOL! ...
  24. Haydn Washington talks Climate Change Denial on Steaming Toad
    Luv it JC. And more of the world needs to be introduced to the 'focused' skill of H.G. Aahhg. If only his old partner RR Slavin had been there as well. To those from outside OZ, that is Rampaging Roy Slavin. Roy & HG has always been a name to conjure with.
  25. Models are unreliable
    Camburn @397, the performance of the models against the early 20th century has been known for a long time: As can be seen, the trend of the observed temperature changes in the early twentieth century is very close to the modeled temperature changes. Exceptions can be seen in 1909-10 and 1915-17 when the observed temperatures are significantly below the modeled temperatures, but both of those periods coincide with < ahref="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml">strong La Nina years (exceptionally so in 1917). A further exception can be found in the period 1938-1945 in which the observed temperatures lie well above the modeled line. This is partially explained by a strong El Nino in 1940-41. The unexplained increase represents approximately 10% of the increase in temperature between the 1910's and the 1940's. It may well be explained by a dip in anthropogenic sulfates at the time, or indeed by a sudden influx of black carbon aerosols. Regardless, trying to interpret an approx 10% at one point as "Climate models don't show the warming in the early 20th Century" (my emphasis) is bizzare. Your statement was both unequivocal and wrong. Your follow up that "models do a poor job replicating the temp pattern" seems to come down to this - Climate models do a poor job at retrodicting the exact year of ENSO fluctuations (as opposed to their frequency), and the onset of wars and depressions. Well, your probably right on that, but I don't think a failure to predict WWII (or the exact amount of black carbon released by the blitz) constitutes a serious problem for climate modelers.
  26. Models are unreliable
    Camburn#398: "The statement of the abstract that the models do not do a good job of hindcast is a fact. " Of what use is a selectively chosen, isolated fact, without context or mechanism? This paper calls for higher positive feedback; Camburn is on record siding with Spencer on the side of low feedback and therefore low sensitivity. I would think you'd be running away from this paper as fast as possible - if you agree with it, you are contradicting your support of Spencer and tacitly siding with Dessler. Surely that's not your intent?
  27. Models are unreliable
    397, Camburn, Lame response. You've been caught red-handed misrepresenting a paper abstract to try to imply doubt about climate science. Then you compound the error by acting as if your misrepresentation is still a reasonable interpretation. This is typical denialism, laid bare for anyone with half a brain to look at and recognize. Thank you for the demonstration.
  28. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    WOW! congratulations all! And having contributed an article during 2011, I now have a very inflated addition to my resume ... ;-)
  29. Models are unreliable
    Tom: As far as feedback, that is in question. The statement of the abstract that the models do not do a good job of hindcast is a fact.
  30. Models are unreliable
    Tom: The hindsight of the models do a poor job replicating the temp pattern in the early 20th century. That is obvious from the abstract. As to my question, is the paper worth paying the rental fee for? Someone may be able to access this and give an opinion. Abstracts are a hint, but the meat of an issue is in the paper itself.
  31. Models are unreliable
    Camburn @395, I cannot comment on the paper, but I can comment on your misrepresentation of the abstract. The relevant sentence, just one item out of many discussed is:
    "Few models reproduce the strong observed warming trend from 1918 to 1940. The simulated trend is too low, particularly in the tropics, even allowing for internal variability, suggesting there is too little positive forcing or too much negative forcing in the models at this time."
    There is a very large difference between the claim that "Climate models don't show the warming in the early 20th Century" and the actual claim in the abstract that the warming shown by most models is not as great as that observed. There is also a difference between your blanket "Climate models" (indicating all Climate models) and the abstracts concession that a few models do in fact show the correct trend. It is difficult to not believe that your misrepresentation of the contents of the abstract is deliberate. Further, your choice of just one sentence to highlight out of the abstract also shows bias. Why not, for example, discuss this sentence:
    "Over the whole of the 20th century, the feedback strength is likely to be underestimated by the multimodel mean."
    The answer, I am sure, is that you do not want people thinking about the possibility that climate sensitivity is more than that which the models indicate.
  32. Models are unreliable
    This is an interesting abstract. Does anyone here have a journal handy to read it and know if it is worth the subscription rental? Climate models don't show the warming in the early 20th century
  33. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Nice! Good job! Can't help but notice that Certain Names aren't adding to the congrats. They certainly jump on the other threads fast enough.
  34. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    You are all so fabulous, and it is great that your contributions have been recognized in this way.
  35. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Congratulations to John and all others working for this fantastic resource.
  36. Climate's changed before
    Thanks, Tom, Very informative. It brings up new questions for me, but I'll save 'em while I do more reading.
  37. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 06:11 AM on 11 September 2011
    Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Congrats John and also to all your contributors and mods. Totally deserved.
  38. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    An award richly deserved. SkS is the TalkOrigins of climate debates, an invaluable resource and teaching tool.
  39. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    The following is from the most historically in-depth, recently published article on Galileo that I have come across. "For scientists it shows that if you are in agreement with most of your colleagues, you will most likely be forgotten while history remembers some crank. For advocates of non-consensus positions (e.g., AGW skeptics, Intelligent Design theorists) it teaches that claiming your theory is correct is no substitute for backing it up with experiments and data (even if you are right). For aggressively self-confident people the lesson is that sometimes being persistent and believing in yourself will just get you into trouble. For Catholics it provides an example of why you shouldn’t insult the Pope (at least when there is an Inquisition going on)." Source: "The Myth of Galileo: A Story With a (Mostly) Valuable Lesson for Today by Joe Carter," First Things, Sep 8, 2011 To access the article, click here.
  40. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Congratulations John and team. You thoroughly deserve it for creating the best denialist squishing facility around. Keep up the good work.
  41. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Congratulation to John Cook and the SkS team!
  42. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Dana & Marcus: Thanks for the feedback re the term, "error bars."
  43. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    A big cheer for John and the whole SkS team! And I would add to that my sincere thanks for everything they've done to promote education about climate change and its ramifications. This site is a fantastic resource for anyone interested in the subject.
  44. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Well done! A small reward for a lot of hard work.
  45. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Encore! Encore!
  46. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Congratulations on receiving a much deserved award!
  47. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Congratulations to John and all other contributors!
  48. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    This is what happens when you create and share a website of public interest. Congrats to John and his team !
  49. CO2 is just a trace gas
    here is another comparison of trace gases. Hydrogen Sulfide - H2S. it occurs naturally typically in swamps and sewers as well as emmitted from volcanoes. 0.00047 ppm is the recognition threshold, the concentration at which 50% of humans can detect the characteristic odor of hydrogen sulfide,[14] normally described as resembling "a rotten egg". Less than 10 ppm has an exposure limit of 8 hours per day. 10–20 ppm is the borderline concentration for eye irritation. 50–100 ppm leads to eye damage. At 100–150 ppm the olfactory nerve is paralyzed after a few inhalations, and the sense of smell disappears, often together with awareness of danger.[15][16] 320–530 ppm leads to pulmonary edema with the possibility of death. 530–1000 ppm causes strong stimulation of the central nervous system and rapid breathing, leading to loss of breathing. 800 ppm is the lethal concentration for 50% of humans for 5 minutes exposure (LC50). Concentrations over 1000 ppm cause immediate collapse with loss of breathing, even after inhalation of a single breath. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide
  50. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Congrats. Well deserved.

Prev  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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