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  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  Next

Comments 76451 to 76500:

  1. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    "In fairness to Romney, he is not all that unique in his new rhetoric. For years, politicians have confessed uncertainty on the science and, from that, concluded that the government should do too little or nothing to address it. This line might continue to have political appeal in GOP primaries. But it’s still non-sensical on the merits." Source: "Mitt Romney’s position on climate change" by Stephen Stromberg, PostPartisan blog, Washington Post, Aug 25, 2011
  2. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    scaddenp#398: "amplitude of ENSO variation will increase" Spot on. EtR is indeed all wet on this idea. As far back as 1999, Timmerman et al saw the potential for these changes: The tropical Pacific climate system is thus predicted to undergo strong changes if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase. The climatic effects will be threefold. First, the mean climate in the tropical Pacific region will change towards a state corresponding to present-day El Nino conditions. It is therefore likely that events typical of El Nino will also become more frequent. Second, a stronger interannual variability will be superimposed on the changes in the mean state, so year-to-year variations may become more extreme under enhanced greenhouse conditions. Third, the interannual variability will be more strongly skewed, with strong cold events (relative to the warmer mean state) becoming more frequent. -- emphasis added The key is that stronger variability is superimposed on the warming trend. I see a clear analogy with increasing the energy content of an already oscillating system. More energy = more amplitude in both directions.
  3. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    To all of you wondering about the wisdom or futility of participating in WUWT or other comments sections and the fact you just can't get through to convince folks. Please keep going! The person you will convince is not who you are arguing with, but rather the one who is simply reading the blogs w/out a deep committment one way or the other -- just looking. It is apparent, when you participate w/a cool head and good science, that you are the one who knows what is going on (vs. the conspiracy talker). Just having your voices there is important for that reason. Being polite, not engaging in ad homs, being very straight and reasoned, while the opponent becomes increasingly unhinged shows others the quality of arguement on each side. Frequent use of citations to back up your points helps too. True also for general news sites that occasionally report on climate -- comments generally flooded by non-sci types -- good science voices will help, esp if they are polite and don't talk down. The person you are trying to convince is in the audience, not on stage.
  4. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Stephen, I would echo most of your thoughts. The party leadership may pull the Republican party do far the general populace to become an endangered species. There will be those Republicans who stick with the party just for the support on election day, because jumping ship would be political suicide in their district. Local politicians do not seem to echo the party leadership. Yes, things could be worse. I have seen predictions both much higher and lower than the IPCC range, which I believe is only one standard deviation. Correct me if I am wrong on that. This is not meant to inflict uncertainty into the debate and therefore, stalement (as some have accuse me of inciting), but rather to show that the issue is not black and white, but has multiple shades of grey.
  5. Stephen Baines at 07:57 AM on 26 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    EtR I don't think the GOP has a monopoly on anti-science thinking, so I agree with your admonition there. I have heard crazy-making things from some dems, just not with regard to climate science. The autism debate comes to mind. "the middle-ground politicians have similar opinions on this issue." I would have agreed with you some years ago. A lot of scientists I know are what might be called fiscal conservatives. Heck, Hansen, Alley, Emmanuel and Keeling are/were all republicans - as was my doctoral advisor. We used to have rep. Boehlert in NY, a real champion of science. But in the last week I have read at least 10 posts on blogs stating outright that belief in AGW amounts to a religion and brands one as a liberal democrat out to steal liberty (at the very least). Now blog posts are probably not a random sample, but this is what people see more and more of when they move about the web - it is the public face of the debate. Believing the evidence for AGW has somehow become a "political stance." It has an effect...I see it in my classroom. So things seem to have changed - and this post points to one mechanism behind that change. "Middle ground politicians" who believe the science (e.g. Huntsman) can no longer survive the Republican Primary Process. The leadership has shifted to the right to appease the most militant forces that drive that process - and that rightward shift includes consideration of climate change because of its (presumed) implications for policy. It seems to be that the GOP as whole, being more of an ordered top down ship than the dems (who are historically all over the place), has shifted toward more extreme positions on climate science in response. That process is also purging the party of that moderate pro-science contingent that has always existed previously. Even strongly conservative scientists like Emmanuel are now being disenfranchised. There has been a deliberate attempt to caste science related to policy in a purely political light, so as to discredit the science. It will be a real problem for the GOP in the end, and maybe for all of us, depending on how long this trend lasts. Nature will do what it does regardless of the debate. You claim projections vary widely, and they do for very real reasons, that is actually a worrying thing -- things could be worse than we expect! Even the low end of IPCC projections would present sizable challenges. As AT and mc point out, stalemate on the issue of whether AGW is occuring is not a neutral stance. It effectively represents a decision to not believe the evidence for climate change, and not to accept the sizeable risks associated therewith.
  6. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    On the bad news front... "The State Department will remove a major roadblock to construction of a massive oil pipeline stretching from Canada to Texas when it releases its final environmental assessment of the project as soon as Friday, according to sources briefed on the process." Source: "State Department review to find pipeline impact ‘limited,’ sources say," Washington Post, Aug 24, 2011 To access the complete article, click here.
  7. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Since global warming theory tends to favor El Nino conditions, the occurrance of the strong La Nina runs counter-intuitive.. Unless there is new publications I am unaware of, this statement is not correct. Please reference if you do. The effect of GW on ENSO as far as I know is very much unsettled science, with different models giving different results. Expansion of the Hadley cells could give more La Nina conditions (just a lot hotter than previous El Ninos). What does appear to be robust, is that amplitude of ENSO variation will increase.
  8. OA not OK part 19: SUMMARY 1/2
    I like what you are doing with this point-by-point summary, but I have a serious suggestion concerning the STYLE of the writing. Please remember that the most important readers of your material are folks in the Denial camp, or tending in that direction, who are visiting in order to see what arguments are currently being made. I suspect that they may not be amused or in any way attracted by the cutesy titles (e.g. "The f-word: pH") that you have given these points. This is at heart a political argument, and these readers may already be extremely angry about what they see as scientific fraud and meddling in important public affairs. Humor, especially of this kind, can be misinterpreted as condescension, ridicule, and worse. I think it would be best to keep everything sober and as plainly stated as possible. Thanks!
  9. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    I have replied to EtR's final comment on Texas weather on the thread I suggested earlier.
  10. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    I am going to respond on this thread to a comment by Eric the Red on the Republican Candidates vs Climate Science thread. Eric the Red: Your suggestion "Since global warming theory tends to favor El Nino conditions, the occurrance of the strong La Nina runs counter-intuitive" is, to the best of my understanding, simply false. Climate change does not favour any one state of ENSO except insofar as it affects the Pacific ocean currents which drive ENSO. Do you have a cite to scientific literature supporting your claim?
  11. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    I should also add, that I dont back any particular solution. I have every confidence that market would find good solutions if building new coal generation was banned. However, no technological solution is going anywhere while coal is cheaper (are you happy with subsidies?). I am not seeing right-wing skeptics stepping up to the plate to answer this one. Does this mean they simply cant, so resort to denial instead?
  12. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    EtR#53: Please identify the middle-ground politicians on the Republican side. Is Huntsman the one and only (and does he stand a chance?) How are any of the others' stances on climate change based on science? And the issue is cut and dry; either we do something or we do not. Postponement and 'we don't know' equates to doing nothing. It's as cut and dry as that. BTW, the post needs to be updated with Romney's latest: “Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.” “What I’m not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don’t know the answer to.” Better do it quick, because his campaign might not last that long. Corporations are people. So is Soylent Green.
  13. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    AT, I think your description of one party being ideology-based and one being science-based is much too simplistic. While I agree that there is a huge difference between the fringe elements in each party, the middle-ground politicians have similar opinions on this issue. This issue is also not as cut and dry as some others, like abortion or the death penalty. There exists a wide range of future projections and possible solutions among scientists, let alone politicians. Your last quote could actually come true.
  14. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    EtR - that would be off-topic for this thread, but obviously nuclear, renewables, electrication of transport would be majors with a host of minors. However, if you wished to discuss this, go here.
  15. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Another recent article on the topic du jour: “A Fundamental Republican Science Problem” by Andy Revkin, DOT Earth, NY Times, Aug 22, 2011
  16. actually thoughtful at 06:02 AM on 26 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Paul D your comments regarding the statistical likelihood of a Republican vs Democrat politician agreeing with AGW appears to ignore the broad, sweeping, overwhelming scientific consensus regarding AGW. In deed, one has to ignore the science to deny AGW. That one party does, and one party doesn't, would appear to be caused by one party basing their understanding of the world on ideology (you could loosely understand this as "seeing the world as you want to see it") and one party basing their understanding of the world on science (ie "seeing the world as it is (to the best of our ability)"). There is no room for a "he said, she said" approach to climate change. There is the immutable truth, which science hopes and labors to reveal; and there is wishes and wants, which ideology strives to make palatable to the masses. There is no equivalency between these two approaches. Attempts to create such an equivalence immediately lead into the shark infested waters of setting the science aside so the less knowledgeable participants can feel good about themselves. Better to educate the less knowledgeable than to invoke some sort of "truth lies in the middle between science and ideology" pablum. There be dragons.
  17. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
    fair point mdenison; text revised.
  18. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
    dana1981 Then you made a mistake in the post, because you wrote: This was a very simple model, excluding the effects of the sun, volcanoes,... what obviously is not true. Even if they are indirect signals, they are indeed part of the model. As it is written, it is a bit confusing. Sorry.
  19. It's cosmic rays
    First it was 'cosmic rays cause clouds;' now its 'Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays ...' Have the goal posts shifted? And why does the NatureNews headline read Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays, which is not at all a justifiable conclusion of the paper? From the Kirkby abstract, We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold. Hmm, 100 parts per trillion NH4 is significant now, yet 395 CO2 parts per million is not? Sphaerica#57: You open an interesting possibility. If there is a good witch (helpful to Munchkins everywhere), surely an evil witch (very destructive) could be referred to as an anti-good witch. And the abbreviation for that is AGW!!!
  20. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    EtR#45: Now you are fully off-topic; there are multiple ENSO threads, as well as specific extreme weather threads, as Composer mentioned above. Saying something is a 'historical cause' is meaningless here.
  21. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
    #2 Dana I think your intro to fig 4 would be clearer if you changed it to something like ...and see what the model would look like with the more modern estimates of the GHG forcings from AR4 (Figure 4). As I read the text I had the impression you were only updating the projected forcings since 1990 and was rather surprised that the graphs differed before 1990. I gather from your reply to Charlie that you have replaced all the GHG forcings since 1880.
  22. OA not OK part 19: SUMMARY 1/2
    The 21% refers to current. (762 Gt). But yes. It is clunky. May look at changing that for the booklet. Arrgh. Fixed that less/more in the original post but not the master copy used to produce the summary. Fixed now.
  23. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
    Alexandre - correct, the baseline is 1765 as used in the IPCC FAR, and thanks!
  24. Stephen Baines at 04:43 AM on 26 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Composer99 I agree with you first statement, but that only makes the point I was trying to make stronger. Even if warming and intensity/frequency of ENSO cycles were not linked in some way, it would make no sense to dismiss warming out of hand as a factor given the ENSO state. Since they are potentially linked, it makes dismissing an effect of warming even less sensible. EtR... you specifically referenced the heatwave in your post above as quoted by apirate. It's OK to backtrack, it would be better if you did so explicitly, though. Also, I would argue that heat does exacerbate drought conditions. It certainly makes it harder for plants to maintain water balance at a given level of soil moisture.
  25. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Composer, Since global warming theory tends to favor El Nino conditions, the occurrance of the strong La Nina runs counter-intuitive. The warmer baseline temperatures are certainy a possible cause for the higher temperatures, however, linking that to the current drought is a stretch. This is not to say that AGW could not be a contributor, but the La Nina has a strong, historical cause for the current drought.
  26. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
    bart and Albatross - thanks. JoeRG - what's left is mainly internal variability, which does contain some cycles. Bear in mind that Broecker's "Camp Century Cycles" are very rough estimtes used to try and fit the model to the data. As such, they actually do indirectly include solar and volcanic forcings in the early-mid 20th Century.
  27. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    And of course, going in circles on Texas droughts in this thread is going off-topic. I think this thread is the most topical for 2011 droughts in Texas. Bringing my own contribution back on topic, I find it unfortunate (some understatement involved) that (a) the majority of Republicans who are running to represent their party in the 2012 Presidential election are so deep in denial about climate change and (b) the one who isn't is probably not, at least the way things appear at present, likely to secure his party's nomination.
  28. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
    Base period for figures 2 to 5 is the year 1765? Thanks for the informative post, Dana. I've been curious about this comparision, which is in my view even more telling than Rahmstorf 2007.
  29. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    I think that trying to de-couple ENSO from global climate behaviour (global warming) is not a productive way to distribute causality for such things as the Texas drought. That said, suggesting La Niña without acknowledging the importance of warmer baseline temperatures from AGW and the tendency for extreme weather to become more extreme as a result of the warming, strikes me as disingenuous.
  30. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Stephen, With regards to the drought in Texas, La Nina is the persistent cause. I was making no reference to temperatures, either daytime or nighttime, but to the rainfall, or rather lack thereof. This past La Nina was the most severe, and neither is the current drought. Texas has experienced worst droughts at lower temperatures than have occurred this year. We have a strong historical connection between La Ninas and drought in Texas, but not so with global warming. No dichotomy, no double standard.
  31. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Maybe the point is that the exceptional, record-shattering heatwave/drought is generally blamed by the deniers of AGW on la Nina. The rest of us aren't so sure of that easy assessment any more. Look at John N-G's fingerprint analysis to see just how exceptional this drought is -- and how ignorant Guvna Perry must be to deny it. The old proverb 'may you live in interesting times' should be updated to 'may you live in exceptional times.'
  32. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker
    Can anybody explain what remains as a natural forcing if Sun and Volcanoes are excluded, and how this remnant is able to form a cycle (as used in the model)? It must be an important one to drive temperatures in a range of nearly 0.8K within 100 years, but I've never heard of it and I found no explanations of it in any of the IPCC publications. But it is of course necessary to know about to call the model discussed here a proper one.
  33. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
    Charlie - which data? The caption says that the observational data is from GISTEMP. If you mean the model adjustment, the source is the IPCC FAR projected GHG forcing (Figure 1) vs. the actual forcing (from the IPCC AR4, stated below Figure 1). It's a GHG forcing model, so I took observed GHG changes into account. As I said, the model doesn't account for aerosols. That's one reason why the "best" 2.5°C sensitivity is probably a bit on the low side, even though the model matches observations quite well (also noted in the post).
  34. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    Thank you all very much for the very informative posts on this interesting subject. It also helped to refresh my rather rusty chemical knowledge. Nice to have it combined as a booklet. Regards, Jos
  35. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
    What is the source of data for Figures 4 and 5 ? Did you adjust both aerosols and GHG forcings, or just GHG ?
  36. Stephen Baines at 02:18 AM on 26 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Apirate I think EtR is drawing a false dichotomy and invoking a double standard. We should (and do) acknowldge the influence of ENSO and other factors in the SW weather patterns. But wouldn't we be remiss if we didn't also acknowledge the likely role of warming - given that we know it is occuring? Why is mere mention of AGW with respect to record breaking temps to be avoided? That seems more like a political position than a scientific stance. Think of it this way. The La Nina just past was substantial, but not the most severe on record. The la Nina can explain a persistent pattern of drought in the SW...but it cannot explain the degree to which this summer has spawned an enourmous number of temp records, nor can it explain the disproportionate number of nighttime temp records. La Nina (and other factors) that influence weather patterns at regional scales are important. However, the the diel signature of warming and its extreme nature are perfectly consistent with a role of global warming, distinct from La Nina.
  37. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    I do not think it as at all inappropriate to refer to those who oppose mainstream climatology on AGW as 'deniers' or even 'denialists' as long as it can be shown that they are: - in the first case, engaged in denying a phenomenon which has ample evidentiary support without bringing sufficient evidentiary support to their positions. - in the second case, extending this denial into a systematic misrepresentation of the evidence. The attempt to take offence at this terminology by drawing attention to Holocaust denial is a red herring.
  38. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Great article idea. I think this may have been mentioned before, but I bet getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies would be palatable to all political stripes, in the USA at least. Other than that small effort, the conservative/libertarian minds at the highest levels of government have had decades to think about the answer to this policy question. If they haven't come up with anything but attacks on the science yet, it is unlikely they will ever come up with a solution. Business as usual along with repealing environmental and utility regulations seems to be their solution. Apparently, the market can solve the global warming issue if we just wait and see it perform its magic. This may conflict a bit with the point of the article, but I feel like the radicals among the conservative/libertarians ought to be ignored in the policy debate. They had their chance already. Outreach to the uninformed middle ground folks and moderate conservatives ought to be top priority. If an information campaign were successful, many of the moderates will see the kooky nature of conservative climate science denial. With enough people firmly established in the science and its implications for our society/economy, denialism will be increasingly viewed in the public eye as fringe. I say converting hardcore deniers directly is probably not as efficient as outnumbering them. A three prong campaign to inform the reasonable middle ground, keep the disinformation in check, and move forward with solutions such as an equitable carbon tax seems to be the best overall strategy to me.
  39. apiratelooksat50 at 01:33 AM on 26 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    EtR at 38 "The Texas heatwave is generally blamed on the strong La Nina. Passing it off as AGW influenced is the type of misinformation that is causing people to distrust climate scientists, as shwon in the previously posted polls." Darn good point.
  40. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Paul D wrote: "Statistically if they (politicians) all studied the science and came to their own conclusions, you would get some Democrats being skeptic and some Republicans pro AGW." That would only be true if there were some science which supported a position skeptical of AGW. There isn't. Indeed, by the same reasoning we should see Democratic politicians who deny evolution... rather than that too being a purely Republican position. In 'news' and politics there often seems to be a search for false 'balance' even on issues which are entirely one sided.
  41. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Dana@17 said: "no, there aren't any prominent Democratic politicians who are climate "skeptics"." Statistically if they (politicians) all studied the science and came to their own conclusions, you would get some Democrats being skeptic and some Republicans pro AGW. So the only conclusion, is that both sides are largely ignoring the science. The current situation defies science in many ways.
  42. A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
    Wow indeed. John Cook runs this site from his own pocket + donations + volunteer support. Then announces publicly he's been give a [well deserved IMHO] fellowship... and the bizarrosphere goes "Busted! SkS is a funded propaganda machine". The reality distorting force is strong a bit wishy-washy with these ones...
  43. Dikran Marsupial at 23:38 PM on 25 August 2011
    It's cosmic rays
    Sphaerica Indeed, a good example of how not to communicate is Svensmark and Calders book "The Chilling Stars", which essentially attempts to explain every change in (paleo) climate to GCR (slight over-statement there, but only slight) before the fundamental work demosntrating that GCRs actually could affect climate (nevermind whether they did). As a scientist (of sorts) I cringed reading the book, not because the theory is bad, but the lack of perspective which is potentially maximising the height of the fall they are setting themselves up for. I am always very suspicious of any paper that comes with a press release suggesting its findings are contraversial; most often such a paper either (a) doesn't actually support the message of the press release or (b) turns out to be wrong or (c) both. It is much easier to think of examples where this is true than it is for papers that actually did merit controversy.
  44. It's cosmic rays
    58, Dikran, Well said. The only thing that I would add would be that anyone should look at that study and its conclusions and from it recognize that such research is absolutely in its infancy. It is going to develop and progress as it should, but it needs to build its very foundations before it can progress to making many meaningful conclusions about effects on climate. It is not going to challenge current climate science anytime soon (which says nothing about whether it ever will or won't), and skeptics need to avoid trying to use such research, and every resulting paper which will merely represent another baby step in the process, as a debate tool to be used to provide one more "let's wait and see, we don't know enough about clouds and GCRs yet" excuse. Let it just be good science at work.
  45. Dikran Marsupial at 23:08 PM on 25 August 2011
    It's cosmic rays
    Eric, I completely agree (I try to be a good scientist, but I try to avoid talking to myself as much as possible ;o) as do the RC chaps. The really interesting thing about the CLOUD project as far as the climate debate is concerned is that it is a good example of how science and science funding actually works. Skeptic often say that government agencies will not fund their work, but CLOUD is a big project (see the number of authors) with big funding (about 12MECU IIRC), that aims to investigate the very most basic physical underpinnings of an alternative hypothesis (for which there is only the most circumstantial evidence). It also shows that skeptical hypotheses can and do result in good basic science of general interest to the research community. It also shows that the outcome of an experiment can be very interesting and useful, even if it doesn't provide much support for the working hypothesis (and hence suggest new lines of enquiry or provide support for an existing line etc). A really good experiment is one that has a 50-50 chance of corroborating or refuting an hypothesis as these are the ones that provide the most information about science (in an information theoretic sense). This means we should expect experiments to reject the working hypothesis on a regular basis (a significant minority of experiments); it shows that the research is "sharp".
  46. It's cosmic rays
    54, muoncounter, Really, I find your anti-denial of such science to be the antithesis of all that science represents. As Dorothy would tell you, anti-Em may not be the Wicked Witch of the West, but she's no Glinda the Good Witch, either. That, my friend, makes this entire topic a horse of a different anti-color. Or would that be an anti-horse? I suppose I should visit WUWT to be set straight on such issues.
  47. It's cosmic rays
    Dikran, Their experiments produced between ten and a thousand times fewer aerosol particles than found in nature, which basically means that they have not determined the cause of the aerosol formation in our atmosphere. The results were not what they hoped for in that no climatic conclusions could be drawn from their work. But as any good scientists will tell you, this study will inspire more research in the area.
  48. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    243, Dr. Doom,
    My simple calculation of climate sensitivity is < 1.9C. In scientific studies, the lowest estimate is 0.5C. Various studies put the lower bound at 1.5C. IPCC claims < 1.5C is unlikely. But may I add not impossible.
    This is a gross distortion of the facts. You say "various studies put the lower bound at..." but then make no mention of the median expected sensitivity, or the upper bound. It strikes me as just so much gamesmanship to be that blatantly manipulative with a presentation of the facts. "But I may add not impossible?" Meaning what, exactly? It's not impossible that I would find a million dollars on the street tomorrow. What's your point? If you want to be engaged, you must do so with more honesty. No one wants to get into the mud with someone who seems to enjoy it.
    It didn’t say whether there is a saturation CO2 concentration in the upper troposphere.
    More gamesmanship. My college chemistry text never explicitly stated that gremlins don't live in the spaces between electrons. Do I also need to worry about that? Or do scientists need to conduct multiple studies of your issues just to put your personal concerns at ease (as well as designing and building an Interspacial Gremlin Detection Apparatus to lay my own fears to rest)? But I can answer that question. Science is warning of climate change due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. This, by fairly simple logic, leads one to the obvious conclusion that CO2 in the upper troposphere is not saturated, and will not be in the near future, because if that were the case no climate change would occur. No explicit statement statement to that effect is necessary. There are also myriad paleoclimate studies (see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and just about every paper that you bother to look at here) that demonstrate that CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past (by a whole order of magnitude), along with global mean temperatures, further evidence that if there is a saturation point, we're currently nowhere near it.
    But if there is a clear cut answer, scientists should say that CO2 saturation is physically impossible.
    Why? Who cares? The point is that it's not saturated, we're increasing CO2 levels, and it's dangerous. Your questions appear to be only so much "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" speculation, of no value to anyone attempting to understand the relevant science. Make a valid point, or pose a worthy question. The positions you've presented appear to be distractions with no merit whatsoever.
  49. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    EtR#38: If OPEC/big oil was the concern, then where is the support for 'cheap, reliable American coal'? What happened to all those 'clean coal' TV ads? Banished to the SciFi channel? "Gerrymandering has create many districts which push towards both extremes" You have the process exactly backwards; redistricting is done by the party in control of the state legislatures. Extremists win local elections, take control of state houses (look at Wisconsin, for example) then redraw the electoral maps to suit their candidates - and that can win a presidential election (see: Tom Delay). "generally blamed on the strong La Nina." Off-topic; but not so much any longer. You're forgetting the hallmark of this heatwave: nighttime cooling isn't getting the job done; that's not an elNi/laNa effect - but it is a greenhouse symptom.
  50. OA not OK part 19: SUMMARY 1/2
    Nice summary, Doug, but I have two remarks: In figure 2 – Carbon reservoirs – shouldn’t the change in atmospheric carbon since the industrial revolution be +40 percents instead of +21 percents? And in your last sentence: "However, the amount of released fossil fuel CO2 is less than the amount of extra CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere." I guess it should be: "However, the amount of extra CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere is less than the amount of released fossil fuel CO2."

Prev  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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