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  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  Next

Comments 75401 to 75450:

  1. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Camburn, The paper you'v cited ignored ~10 other studies that yields contradicting relationships between cloud cover and decrease in GCR (Forbush decreases). (For example see references in Laken et al. In addition, Laken et al demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between the decrease in solar irradiance prior to an FD event, and thus just relating FD event to a change in cloud cover does not necessarily say anything about GCR, as the effect of a change in TSI can't be isolated.
  2. IPCC is alarmist
    lancelot - it's not a misquote or typo. Some argue that current CO2 levels are too high because as Dikran notes, we have not yet experienced the full climate effects of the CO2 we've emitted thus far. Looking at historical data from when CO2 levels were this high in the past, sea levels were significantly higher, for example. See this post. On the other hand, realistically it will take a major effort just to limit atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm. Personally I think that should be our target, and in the future maybe we can find ways to reduce the level back down to 350 ppm. See this post about the global warming 'danger limit'.
  3. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    There's a more subtle version of this... since climate has changed in the past we can't be sure that it isn't natural now... followed by since Obama didn't get excited about it in the last state of the Union, and Gore doesn't live like the Amish the we can be sure it isn't really problem. We can judge this by how political leaders walk the walk, rather than taking the trouble to examine the science ourselves.
  4. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Camburn @2, ditto what Riccardo said @5. I don't know why you say now, since climate scientists have been studying cosmic rays for years. See all the studies referenced in the cosmic rays rebuttal, for example. Ian, thanks for the correction on the spelling of Kirkby.
  5. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Although the wording on the box of nails is probably not legible, it actually reads: "Made in Deniersville."
  6. Dikran Marsupial at 04:44 AM on 13 September 2011
    IPCC is alarmist
    lancelot The warming from increased levels of CO2 is not instantaneous, the thermal inertia of the oceans means that it will take a century or so for all of the warming to which we are already committed to be fully realised. Thus even though we are now above the 350ppm figure doesn't mean that the "climate tipping point" should already have happened, but that if we stabilise at that level the tipping point may occur before the climate reaches its new equilibrium. Essentially there is no contradiction there. Just because we have reached a level of 385ppm doesn't mean we can't stabilise at 350ppm.
  7. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Well, as a modifier to my previous comment, the theory is fine in principle but still far from being demonstrated in full. There are still several indirect indications that GCR have not been the driving force of warming during the last several decades.
  8. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Chris, as you can see it is not the argument that some are attempting to seal in the coffin, it is AGW itself. The graphics poke at the "final nail in the AGW coffin" that is always reported by the MSM, for instance. The most recent situation with the CERN GCR experiment is a good example. The theory is fine yes, just like that nail might have been fine had the person with the hammerer looked where they were swinging.
  9. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Kirkby is easy to misspell. Also, Bill Chameides gets it right in his post, but gets it wrong in the URL. I also think the overlay of solar cycle and GCRs on the same graph is illuminating, a very quick way to show that it isn't the sun, and, because they are correlated, it's not cosmic rays either. A good post, but I'm not entirely comfortable blurring the distinction between a theory that is alive and well because of its robustness, and the zombie arguments still walking around despite being well dead. It might be more humorous to show AGW standing nearby, alive and well, as the nail is being driven.
  10. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Camburn there has been a whole lot of studies on the cosmic ray influence on climate. Saying that scientists are now studying it is simply untrue. But don't believe my words, go check the scientific litterature.
  11. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Muon, Yes, minimum temperatures definitely increased since the mid-70s. Precipitation increased also, but your link to the NOAA graph shows that precipitation decreased from 1910 to 1970, and has increased since. The past decade looks similar to the 1910s in both absolute and filtered values. Can you confidently say that total precipitaion in the U.S. today is significantly different than one hundred years ago? I would be hesitant to proclaim a new precipitation normal if a similar normal occurred a century ago.
  12. IPCC is alarmist
    Hello, I'm a newcomer in this field. I have read most of the arguments on all sides. This site by the way is really good. Keep up the good work The point of my question here is - OK, AGW is real, but for policy and decision makers, how much confidence can be placed in IPCC predictions, and how much weight should we attach to them? In Wikipedia article on IPPC the Chairman biography link is given here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri] and the following is stated: 'On 20 April 2002, Pachauri was elected Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations panel established by the WMO and UNEP to assess information relevant for understanding climate change. Pachauri has been vocal on the issue of climate change and said, "What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target." 350 refers to the level in parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that top climate scientists such as NASA's James Hansen agree to be a safe upper limit in order to avoid a climate tipping point.' AS the current CO2 levels are 385 ppm, in excess of 350 ppmv, my questions are; 1. Is thus is a misquote from either of the two sources? 2. If so, should the Wiki text be corrected? 3. If not, what are the consequences in terms of confidence in future IPCC predictions, for policy makers? This is not an idle question, it is a question which concerns me when having to make financial decisions on allocation of public resources. It would be great if any replies could be objective, rather than emotive.
  13. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    BTW, Chameides' article includes a NOAA graphic that one of the more technical savy SkS authors could import to this comment thread.
  14. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    As they say, “Brilliant minds think alike.” Bill Chameides has posted a similar article today (Sep12) on his “TheGreenGok” blog. To access Chameides’ “Climate’s Cosmic Connection?,” click here.
  15. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    The best thing in all of this is that scientists are now studying, with validity, the link between GCR and climate. A serious study of the link between GCR and effects on climate Svensmark has stated this before, and this is a moderate confirmation of his link.
    Response:

    [DB] "and this is a moderate confirmation of his link"

    Nope; this has been pointed out to you before & still you repeat the meme.

    Also, you are still ducking Albatross' questions here.  A real skeptic would embrace challenges, not hide from them.

  16. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Jonathon#15: "Is it a new "normal," or a return to a previous one?" New. The graph I linked to at Climate Extremes Indices clearly shows an abrupt change in trend starting in the mid-70's - right about when the most recent warming spell ramped up. "unless the pattern persists, it will be just a short-term blip. " Have to agree with you there; short term blips aren't of too much interest. Please be sure to remind anyone who rejects the on-going warming trend with an 'its el Nino' of that point.
  17. ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
    tblakeslee#23: "The paper does confirm Svensmarks earlier experiment" No. From the earlier experiment: ... the researchers found that this effect also took place when they used a radioactive sodium source, which produces gamma rays, and as such claim that similar measurements in the future will not require expensive accelerators. -- emphasis added If low energy gammas produce sufficient ionization for cloud nucleation, why don't we see all clouds, all the time? Gammas are not modulated by the interplanetary magnetic field, so the entire basis of the GCR->cloud hypothesis is blown. The Kirkby paper says nothing about any of this. For the rest, please stay on topic and avoid citing WUWT, which is never considered a credible source. Refer to the Comments Policy; off topic comments are often quickly deleted.
  18. ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
    22, tblakeslee,
    The real test of a theory is its ability to accurately predict. So far Svensmark's theory looks like a winner.
    This combination of words make no sense. Your criteria is an ability to accurately predict. Fine. What has Svensmark accurately predicted so far? How do you jump to "looks like a winner?" In September of 2009 he said:
    “In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable."
    Too bad we keep seeing record temperatures. You call that "cooling?" You call that an "accurate prediction?" Same for Achirbald. I read your link (as much as it made my skin crawl to visit WUWT). It's nonsense. It borders on a laughable joke. What of any value did you take away from that tripe?
    it won't be hard to do better than the dismal failure of the dire predictions based on the CO2 warming theory.
    And this is just a pathetic falsehood. Try How reliable are climate models for starters, and please spend less time just making things up.
  19. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    It is ironic to note that the "very important first step" was actually performed 100 years ago by Scottish physicist Charles Wilson. Wilson received the Nobel Prize for his studies using a cloud chamber. Being Scottish I'm sure he would have spent far less than CERN spent on repeating his experiments. The big problem with this line of research on cosmic ray effects is that cosmic ray flux has not been increasing over the past 50 years or so whereas both temperature and CO2 concentrations have been increasing. By the way it is "Kirkby".
  20. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    For a better understanding of why Governor Perry has taken such a hard stance on climate change science and climate scientists, check out: “On Global Warming, Texas Governor Perry and Glass Houses,” by Bill Chameides, The Green Crok, Aug 18, 2011 To access this informative article, click here.
  21. ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
    Your arguments confuse Kirkby's beliefs with what he was forced to put in the paper during the more than a year of negotiations with reviewers to get it published. The paper does confirm Svensmarks earlier experiment which was condemned by people in the IPCC who are in denial that they could have made a mistake by betting on CO2. We will soon see whether Svensmark is right that cosmic ray and therefore clouds are a significant driver of climate. Though the solar wind has an 11 year cycle, that cycle has significant variation in period that correlate very well with La Nina/El Nino cycles. Theodor Landscheidt wrote a paper ten years ago showing an amazing connection. ttp://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm Here is a later paper pointing out that the predictions were remarkably accurate. Archibald has done another prediction to 2050 based on a model that backtests amazingly well. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/13/archibald-climate-forecast-to-2050/ The recent La Nina, which caused all of this year's terrible weather was part of that prediction. The future prediction is for a return to La Nina and another two decade spell of cooling. The real test of a theory is its ability to accurately predict. So far Svensmark's theory looks like a winner. We will see who is right in the near future. it won't be hard to do better than the dismal failure of the dire predictions based on the CO2 warming theory.
  22. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Sphaerica @47 says basically the same as me @19 - Dessler's paper is peer-reviewed. Spencer's blog post is a blog post, and commenters have already found a number of errors in his calculations. If Socractic's numbers are right, then it essentially confirms that Dessler was right and Spencer wrong. We'll have to see what Dessler and Spencer come back with. But in general, disparaging a peer-reviewed paper as "not good" for no apparent reason, while fawning over blog posts and their comments, is not a sign of true skepticism.
  23. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Sphaerica@47 Like Monckton! He is an a self proclaimed expert in both climatology and medicine.
  24. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Muon, The question would be, how does this affect global sea level? Looking at the total U.S. precipitation, there was a dip in the middle of the 20th century (1940s, 60s, and 70s), but otherwise recent precipitation is similar to a century ago. Is it a new "normal," or a return to a previous one? One would expect the added precipitation to raise lake levels and advance glaciers, both of which would act to lower global sea level. While the drop is of interest, unless the pattern persists, it will be just a short-term blip.
  25. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    A belated congratulations to John and the rest of the Skeptical Science team. I know it really opened my eyes to what was going on.
  26. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    Great series, really enjoying the videos. Nicely done to all involved.
  27. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    camburn#12: "Was there a weather event" Yes: by definition, a tropical storm is a weather event. But that is, of course, an utterly irrelevant question. In case you missed it, the 'normals' changed. Have a look at the graphs of US Climate Extremes Indices, particularly this graph of 'extremes in one day precipitation'. The relevant questions are: What is causing the rise in extreme precipitation events? What is causing the 'normals' to change? Note the use of the word 'extreme' in the title of this post. Why are we hearing that word so frequently? But you seem to cling to the 'its fine' school: Climate change is always in the future. What we are seeing is merely weather. It is in the nature of Climate change that you can never observe it because only weather is observable. So everything is fine...
  28. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 00:16 AM on 13 September 2011
    Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Ditto, Paul D. Congrats everyone - great achievement, and I'm glad John and SkS are finally getting the attention they deserve.
  29. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Well I've learnt something even with this post, regarding 'just deserts'!
  30. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    Is there a menu that lists all the videos? Also how many in total will there be?
  31. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    It's really cute the way Camburn dismisses an actual peer reviewed scientific paper as not very good, but loves to go on and on about how masterful a blog analysis or two appears to him. People are advised to realize that not only aren't the two anywhere near equal, but the comparison is laughable. You may be tempted to think to yourself that scientists do not have a monopoly on science and good methods. This is true. Nor do doctors have a monopoly on medicine. You are welcome to allow yourself to be treated by someone who never went to medical school, and just reads and posts whatever he wishes, without critical review or consequence, on his blog "How I Can Cure You When Doctors Are Stupid Compared To Me, Especially Since, Unlike Them, I Will Tell You What You Want To Hear."
  32. CO2 is just a trace gas
    95, Pualie200, The equation you gave is ppm / km. This means that the units of measure of your answer is in ppm / km, not km. This basically represents molecules-of-CO2 per molecules-of-atmosphere per kilometer of depth, which is a fairly meaningless number. I'm not sure what you were driving at, however, by your post. Can you explain what you are trying to do?
  33. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Congrats to JC and the SkS team.
  34. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    You must have done some research on those numbers. Care to share what those numbers are?
  35. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    It amazes me how many "skeptics" simultaneously believe that the earth's climate wildly varied in the past, while also believing the earth is only 6000 years old. I would pay a million bucks for a report to ask Governor Perry about this apparent contradition of his anti-scientific views.
  36. prudentskepticism at 21:42 PM on 12 September 2011
    Animals and plants can adapt
    What may be of conversely great concern to this topic is plants and animals that adapt exceptionally well but are pests - most insects, rodents, and weeds will and are adapting to warming trends exceptionally well, in some cases becoming invasive species on entire continents due to the change of climate allowing new habitation. In the same light, the change in climate is putting pressure on "friendly" and "neutral" species, as well as a strong increase is invasive and pest species, which does not bode well for our species even in the short term. It certainly doesn't bode well in terms of comfort - longer term, it won't sit well for meeting the basic needs of all of society as species relied upon for necessities are pushed out by species regarded as pests.
  37. CO2 is just a trace gas
    Paulie200, see http://funnel.sfsu.edu/satlab/docs/wthr_sat.1.html for just one example that seems to contradict your pathlength calculation.
  38. Climate Denial Video #6: Past climate change
    Typo already in this early morning: "...we explains (sic) how logical fallacies are employed...."
  39. CO2 is just a trace gas
    The average depth of the troposphere is 17km. 400ppm of a 17 km path is 400/1,000,000 x 17km = 0.0068km So 6.8 meters (~22 feet) of the shortest possible optical path for an IR photon leaving the earth is occupied by CO2.
  40. It's not bad
    Lancelot. Follow the moderator's link. I've responded there.
  41. IPCC is alarmist
    Lancelot (question on other thread) The results this last week for Arctic sea ice - lowest ever extent, lowest ever area, lowest ever volume - tell us that the IPCC was nowhere near 'alarmist' enough on this particular topic. As for floods. Pakistan, Australia, several South American countries, USA, several African countries have all had exceptional events recently. Droughts, likewise. For the policy implications? The scientists can only be as direct as possible in their drafts for IPCC reports. When the international negotiations start on watering down those direct scientific statements, the scientists try to keep the statistical likelihoods as close to their results as possible. But the reports are always less 'alarming' in your words, direct would be my preference, than the original. I'd like to see the "director's cut" for the next IPCC report. Seeing what it looks like before the editors / negotiators got their hands on it might be instructive.
  42. It's not bad
    Hello, I'm a newcomer in this field. I have read most of the arguments on all sides. This site by the way is really good. Keep up the god work The point of my question here is - OK, AGW is real, but for policy and decision makers, how much confidence can be placed in IPCC predictions, and how much weight should we attach to them? [- inflammatory comment snipped-] It would be great if any replies could be objective, rather than emotive.
    Moderator Response: (Rob P) Please take heed of the advice in your last sentence. Make sure posts adhere to the comments policy. If you wish to re-frame your question this SkS post is the relevant thread to comment on: Is the IPCC alarmist?
  43. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
    Sphaerica and Dana, thank you!
  44. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    Bern: science one sided? I'd like to nuance that a little. If you just look at climate sensitivity, various evidence ranges from 1.5 to 8 degrees. Sealevel rise equally: from 30 cm to 4 meters by 2100. Etc, Etc. No, science is clearly not one-sided. However, I agree if you look at it from a distant septic vs science perspective. Afterall, science is pretty one-sided in accepting that CO2 a greenhouse gas and that more of it contributes to warming. ;-)
  45. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    GFW - yes, I noticed that too. Interesting that the region (north west Greenland) that was showing 'recent' accelerated ice mass loss, seems to have gained a lot of snow in the last year. And southern Greenland ice loss, which had slowed right down, has lost a lost of ice in the last year. A recent paper on the Greenland ice sheet melt: Interannual variability of Greenland ice losses from satellite gravimetry - Chen (2011) illustrates that even the Greenland icesheet can undergo large year-to-year fluctuations. In other words, there's a natural signal component to the loss of ice - in addition to the melt induced by global warming. Seems to indicate the icesheet can respond very quickly to climatic change. Hopefully one of the SkS authors might want to write about the paper? (hint, hint)
  46. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    muoncounter@9: Was there a weather event that caused the 7 day period of rain?
  47. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Camburn @45, Still ignoring my question posed to you earlier I see. And if you do decide to answer that, please tell us also what is so "excellent" about Bart's blog analysis. What do you think about is lag time, for example? Is it physically plausible? And remember, "Why would anthropogenic CO2 now be the first forcing that doesn’t engage net positive feedbacks?" Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon Those in denial continue to bet against physics and history.
  48. Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
    chriskoz: yep, I was pretty surprised at just how one-sided the scientific evidence was, when I started reading SkS. mandas: I didn't come up with the headline, and I too thought it was a typo, until I looked it up. Just goes to show, you learn something new everyday!
  49. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    The GRACE Map shows Greenland as much more blue than yellow/red. To me that would indicate mass gain from March 2010 to March 2011. But all the Greenland-specific mass balance papers of late have Greenland trending down hard. What explains this? I suppose very few papers are quite that up-to-date.
  50. Haydn Washington talks Climate Change Denial on Steaming Toad
    Good to see Haydn Washington for the first time, John.

Prev  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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