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  1654  1655  1656  1657  1658  1659  1660  1661  1662  1663  1664  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  Next

Comments 83051 to 83100:

  1. Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
    Of course, garethman, there's this informative and easier to read graph from cryosphere today, which shows their area data is totally consistent with the extent data from NSIDC: That's one hell of a flattening off we're seeing there, dude. Of course this doesn't show the linear regression but the summer (green) line in particular shows clearly that the area minimum for each of the last four years lies well below the linear trend, just as it does for NSIDC, and I'm certain that analysis done on this data would show an accelerating trend, just as it does for NSIDC extent data. Maybe not such a nice try, garethman, it was more lame than I first thought given the wide variety of data available at cryosphere today.
  2. Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
    garethman:
    We must accept that this chart is just propaganda and there is in fact no stabilisation of ice at a substantially lower level than average.
    It's not consistent with your point as the september area minimums there are totally consistent with the NSIDC extent graph I showed above. You really need a graph like the Hamilton posted above by DB that shows month-to-month comparisons as it's almost impossible to do month-to-month comparisons on the cryosphere today graph you're showing. The fault isn't with cryosphere today, the fault is with your eyeballs, and possibly the fact that you're unaware that variability at maximum and during the early melt season is much smaller than the september minimum in the first place due to geographical constraints (in much of the arctic, freeze-up is right up to the continental shores and of course it's impossible for further sea water to freeze afterwards because continents are made of land, not water). There's a reason why researchers and amateurs alike focus on the september minimum, when geographical boundaries play a minimal role in the extent and area of sea ice. Nice try, though.
  3. Dikran Marsupial at 02:46 AM on 11 June 2011
    There's no room for a climate of denial
    Eric the Red Tom said "of the top of your head list the natural disasters of 1954" (emphasis mine). If you can only remember the one tornado, then then your answer is not very complete and you have illustrated Tom's point quite neatly.
  4. Geologists and climate change denial
    DSL Garethman, I have to take exception at your use of "alarmist." You imply that "alarmist" and "denialist" are binary opposites. That's clearly not true. You also fail to define "alarmist." Can you point out any poster on this site who you would consider to be an "alarmist"? And could you point out any climate scientist who you consider to be an "alarmist”? Garethman. Hi DSL, I have this idea that human beings cover a range of beliefs and emotions. Therefore, logically there are alarmists if if we recognise there are any other type of personality. If you are happy to see denialists in the post, you must ( or hopefully!) also have the understanding that terms are relevant and subjective and if you are OK with using them, I imagine you are happy to extend that right to others.. My main point, to return to the discussion point was that the previous poster had correlated “denilaism” with Geologists of a certain age. It has been my observation of young people in Climate camp etc, that they are much more radical in their beliefs, in fact to the extent that they occasionally do not believe evidence should ever be used to prove or cast doubt on Climate change, we should just believe. Any contrary evidence should be suppressed, cars should be banned and veganism imposed by law. You get the picture This is healthy. Don’t panic or be alarmed. Young people go through this phase, it’s part of their development. Old duffers like myself tend to take more persuasion to move from our life long beliefs. Hopefully we all get there eventually and we all believe we must do something constructive to stop the damage being inflicted on our environment by ourselves. As long as we are not too “holier than thou” It’s a pretty broad church. By the way, I don’t think alarmists are on the opposite pole from revisionists , But I do think they are on the same continuum from complete and utter obsessive adherents tolerating no questions or doubts, to complete doubters who do not think in a logical or evidence based manner and are not really connected to the world as we know it. You are also right, in I have not seen any of them on this wise site, but if they are human, trust me, they are out there. Maybe someone could propose a continuum correlating professions to their place on the line? Such pigeon holing or reductionist concepts would provide at least entertainment if lacking methodology or illumination.
  5. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Eric the Red at 02:29 AM on 11 June, 2011 Come on Eric, you've just been shown here and here that the evidence doesn't support that tentative hypothesis of Veizer and Shaviv. Veizer himself has reinterpreted the temperature part of the apparent correlation in the paper you cite and reinterpreted it. Veizer now considers that the temperature correlates with atmospheric [CO2] at least throught the Paleozoic part of the Phanerozoic. It's pretty desperate to base interpretations on an old paper that has been shown subsequently to have little scientiic merit, and which (at least one of) the authors now consider to be incorrect!
  6. Eric the Red at 02:31 AM on 11 June 2011
    There's no room for a climate of denial
    Tom, Those of us who grew up in Michigan are well aware of the devasting Flint tornado of 1954 to which the recent Joplon tornado is compared.
  7. Eric the Red at 02:29 AM on 11 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Spaerica, Fine, this should satisfy both your requests. http://www.juniata.edu/projects/oceans/GL111/celestialdriverofclimate.pdf
  8. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Re the top article, Hansen's interpretation that climate sensitivity might be amplified (as much as doubled) due to very slow feedbacks, especially associated with slow ice sheet responses in glacial periods (we're in a glacial period now), is supported by other recent analysis of greenhouse gas/temperature responses from the deep past: J. Park and D. L. Royer (2011) Geologic constraints on the glacial amplification of Phanerozoic climate sensitivity American Journal of Science, 311, 1-26 abstract M. Pagani, Z. Liu, J. LaRiviere & A. C. Ravelo (2010) High Earth-system climate sensitivity determined from Pliocene carbon dioxide concentrations Nature Geoscience 3, 27 – 30 abstract D. J. Lunt, A. M. Haywood, G. A. Schmidt, U. Salzmann, P. J. Valdes & H. J. Dowsett (2010) Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data Nature Geoscience 3, 60 - 64 abstract
  9. Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
    DSL @25, I share your concerns; the Galileo movement will be up in arms ;) Hopefully this will be one of a series of T-shirts that portray/reflect the many independent lines of evidence that corroborate the theory of AGW.
  10. Geologists and climate change denial
    CoalGeologist at 08:19 AM on 10 June, 2011 Very interesting description. Looks plausible. About the "left-wing conspiracy" bit: I've come across many different versions of that argument. - an imperialist conspiracy to keep poor countries poor - a Thatcher conspiracy to harm labor rights (don't ask me to explain...) - an Al Gore conspiracy to raise taxes (I wonder how the Gore family managed to co-opt Tyndall back then. Very long term goals!) - a developing country plot to harm American and European economies
  11. Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
    Dhgoza It's almost as though garethman isn't aware that the three years following 2007 are *all* lower in minimum extent than any other year in the satellite record, and that two of the three were well below the long-term trend, and the third right on the trend, isn't it? Aplogies Dhgoza, I was led astray by that well known denialist site Cryosphere today. Have a look at the sort of information they are brazenly publishing to lead all good men astray and lead to the sort of post which you have quite rightly criticised. We must accept that this chart is just propaganda and there is in fact no stabilisation of ice at a substantially lower level than average. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
  12. The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
    One thing that perplexes me about the second diagram is the elevated end point for the 2011 start. By eye, each curve has the same area underneath it. That means each strategy uses the full permissible Carbon budget by 2050, but that in turn will mean the early start/ slower reduction approach will need to cease all remaining production instantly in 2050. Presumably a better approach would to be to have slightly higher initial reductions and to reach zero emissions some time after 2050. In that case the rate of reduction for a 2011 start will be higher than 3.7%, but still less than 5.3%.
  13. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    chris @56, thank you for the link. I was not previously aware of that paper, which is interesting. Sphaerica @54, I went through the rounds on his material some time last year. Luckily for me some of it stuck. Dikran Marsupial, thanks.
  14. The Critical Decade - Part 3: Implications for Emissions Reductions
    Important data, in a form that is easy to communicate. Great post, Dana.
  15. Eric the Red at 01:46 AM on 11 June 2011
    Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
    Tom, Detroit, I think the change from global warming to climate change just caused confusion. Using global climate disruption will add even more fuel to the fire. Out of habit, I have stuck with global warming, but see people using the terms interchangeably. As far as the shirts and mugs go, I dislike them all. Mainly because I am not a big fan of using the Doran survey.
  16. Bob Lacatena at 01:43 AM on 11 June 2011
    Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
    Consider this (although maybe it still could be a little darker, or more saturated, on the lettering):
  17. Climate sensitivity is low
    MajorKoko - Feedbacks are amplifications (positive) or dampenings (negative) of a forcing change. So they're related to changes in T, not T itself. That said, there are definitely phase changes (melt of clathrates, lack of summer ice in the Arctic, etc.) where feedback levels can be expected to change. As to the original statement: "basically if there is some large negative feedback which makes the sensitivity too low, it would have prevented the planet from transitioning from ice ages to interglacial periods" The Milankovitch cycle forcing change between ice age and interglacial is estimated to be on the order of 3.4 W/m^2, for a direct forcing change of ~1C. Global temperature changes for those cycles, however, are on on the order of 5-6C or so. So a short term sensitivity of ~3C for a doubling of CO2 (3.7 W/m^2) with additional long term feedbacks (ice melt, vegetative changes, CO2 temperature/solubility changes from deep ocean, etc) matches the feedback amplification seen in the ice age cycle.
  18. Bob Lacatena at 01:35 AM on 11 June 2011
    Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
    I think the second is more effective because it puts the visual emphasis (many people are visual) on the relative quantities, and the words are there for clarification. The first would be okay, if the figures in the back popped more, maybe by using a lighter shade for the words (or darker shades for the bodies), or by using outlines instead of solid coloring for the words.
  19. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Eric the Red at 21:58 PM on 10 June, 2011 Eric, remeber that Veizer himself has reinterpreted the sea surface data you cite and concludes that his temperature reconstruction now indicates a coupling to CO2 concentrations, at least throughout the Paleozoic: R. E. Came, J. M. Eiler, Ján Veizer, K. Azmy, U. Brand & C. R. Weidman (2007) Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era Nature 449, 198-201
  20. Bob Lacatena at 01:32 AM on 11 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    52, Eric the Red, You response sounds rather dismissive, as if you want to put all of your emphasis Viezer, and see no reason to be skeptical about it. This thread is about climate sensitivity. We're discussing climate sensitivity. Viezer, Royer, Shaviv, etc. are all about climate sensitivity. So suddenly someone doesn't like the idea of discussing the topic? Is it only fun to wander off topic, and bring up things that belong on other threads? WTF...
  21. Bob Lacatena at 01:30 AM on 11 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    51, Tom, Excellent work (did it take much, or did you know this off the top of your head?), and once again you've demonstrated the need for a database which makes it easy to realize which papers, while published, were later refuted or amended in some way. It's too easy for people to find a paper that says what they want, and then put 100% stock in it (and as I said, my reading of the original paper seemed like the authors were more raising questions, and admitting to gaps in knowledge themselves, and the need for further investigation, rather then putting a stake in the ground and making specific, hard claims).
  22. Dikran Marsupial at 01:14 AM on 11 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Eric the Red s/we/I/ ? ;o)
  23. Eric the Red at 01:10 AM on 11 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Tom, Thank you for the reference and subsequent graphic. I do not think we want to enter the dispute between Viezer, Royer, Shaviv, etc.
  24. Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
    detroitsylz @24, if they do, you can point out that one cold day does not a winter make. Everybody knows that a cold day, or week in a Northern Hemisphere May (or Southern Hemisphere November) does not mean that summer has been skipped this year and that Winter has come already. They know the vagaries of weather are not the same thing as the seasonal cycle, and that following that cold day, its going to get warmer, indeed much warmer before summer finally fades. So, if they are open to reason, they will also appreciate that one cold month (or year) does not end the trend of global warming. If they are not open to reason, on the other hand, they've probably heard the claim that scientists changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change" to conceal the fact that their theory had failed in the face of no warming. That, like many denier claims, is transparently false, but it means you do not get any rhetorical advantage from switching names.
  25. Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
    I like it, but it's still an argument from consensus, and worry that it will be represented as a bandwagoning attempt by doubters and denialists. I'd prefer something a little more direct. Perhaps "Your Hum-Vee is diminishing the quality of life of my grandchildren" is a little too pugnacious. Maybe a top ten list is better: FRONT Top Ten Reasons Why Global Warming is Not a Problem
    1. God will fix everything.
    2. Technology will save us.
    3. Companies and corporations will begin to practice “ethical capitalism.”
    4. Gaia will bring balance back.
    5. More warming = more destruction = more jobs.
    6. The Arctic Ocean will be open for shipping.
    7. The physics is all wrong (that’s what this ex-meteorologist says on his blog).
    8. More CO2 = more plant food (I’m moving to northern Saskatchewan to grow corn).
    9. More CO2 = fewer coral reefs = safer surfing (yeah, baby!).
    10. Extreme weather events will mainly kill poor people, so poverty will end.
    Click here to learn more: SkepticalScience.com BACK Top Ten Reasons Why Global Warming is a Problem
    1. Sea level rise
    2. Drought
    3. Flooding
    4. Water shortages
    5. Agricultural disruption
    6. Human migration
    7. Plant, animal, and insect extinctions and migrations
    8. Increased weather intensity
    9. Greater energy demands
    10. (related) A more acid ocean
    Click here to learn more: SkepticalScience.com Perhaps have citations for each of the Back ten. Of course, I'd switch the ordering to lead with the tenth. The "click here" is just to get people to touch. Everyone likes to be touched. I'm a little touched myself.
  26. detroitstylz at 00:36 AM on 11 June 2011
    Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
    Cool idea, and I would totally buy one if only you had used the more correct term of "climate change" instead of global warming. We should stop using the phrase "global warming" because it invites more skepticism whenever there are weather events that people point to and say "see its not getting warmer!", as I'm sure you know...
  27. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Eric the Red @45, Viezer et al 2000 did not allow for the change in uptake rate of O18 that results from changes in the pH of water. Royer et al 2004 correct for pH changes due to high levels of CO2, and show almost complete consistency between the temperature record and the CO2 record: A later paper by Dr Royer show that many of the apparent discrepancies are found to not be so once we find high resolution proxies for the relevant periods. He also shows that the combination of changes to solar forcing due to the "faint young sun" plus CO2 forcing correlate exceptionally well with temperatures throughout the phanerozoic: Even the remaining discrepancies detailed in Royer 2007 have now largely been closed, as noted by Dr Alley in his famous lecture.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] sub tags fixed
  28. Dikran Marsupial at 00:19 AM on 11 June 2011
    Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
    JMurphy An especially good point was that Prof. Jones highlighted the need for trends over longer timescales than the 16 years needed to achieve statistical sgnificance (cherry picking start and/or end dates to get the result you want invalidates the hypothesis test anyway - at least unless you account for the implicit multiple hypothesis testing).
  29. Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
    With regard to CRU, it's good to see Phil Jones finally clearing-up the 'not significant' comment so (wilfully) misunderstood by the so-called skeptics : Global warming since 1995 'now significant' I'm sure we will now no longer see this 'misunderstanding' in such a prominent position all over the Denialosphere... (Oh, is that a flying pig ?)
  30. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Eric the Red @34, for the 20% figure:
    Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect Gavin A. Schmidt, Reto A. Ruedy, on L. Miller, and Andy A. Lacis Received 30 March 2010; revised 27 July 2010; accepted 3 August 2010; published 16 October 2010. [1] The relative contributions of atmospheric long‐wave absorbers to the present‐day global greenhouse effect are among the most misquoted statistics in public discussions of climate change. Much of the interest in these values is however due to an implicit assumption that these contributions are directly relevant for the question of climate sensitivity. Motivated by the need for a clear reference for this issue, we review the existing literature and use the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE radiation module to provide an overview of the role of each absorber at the present‐day and under doubled CO2. With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles. In a doubled CO2 scenario, this allocation is essentially unchanged, even though the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect is significantly larger than the initial radiative forcing, underscoring the importance of feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to climate sensitivity.
    (My empahsis PDF) Some indication of the climate sensitivity across a range of conditions is given by work by Pierehumbert et al (2011) from which Chris Colose shows this graph: The climate sensitivity at each point is given by the slope. In the upper section (non-snowball), climate sensitivity is never much below 3, and becomes significantly greater at higher levels of CO2. In the snowball Earth condition, climate sensitivity falls as low as 1.5 to 2 degrees per doubling of CO2. The increase in sensitivity for higher levels of CO2 is due to an increasingly powerful water vapour feedback. Chris Colose advices us to take exact numbers from these graphs with a large grain of salt, but the slopes at least are indicative. Pierrehumbert's graph is, of course, the product of a model. An evidence based approach to historical climate sensitivities can be found in Royer et al 2007. They take the fact that CO sequestration rates are controlled by temperature. Consequently, different CO2 sensitivities will result in different rates of accumulation of CO2 through out history. They model the CO2 cycle for different climate sensitivities and compare the results to the CO2 proxy record. As you can see, low climate sensitivities are inconsistent with the CO2 proxy record through out the phanerozoic, as are very high climate sensitivities. Admittedly the evidence is tenuous due to limitations in the proxy CO2 and temperature record in the past. But the evidence we have suggests a climate sensitivity around 3 degrees as a robust feature of the Earth's history.
  31. Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
    Thanks for the heads up Idunno! Fairly narrow band of predictions; 4.0 to 5.6 million km^2. Two 'public' contributions this year - one of them from Watts.
  32. Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
    Well, just to be contrary... I like the Tshirt with the big lettering, and the mug with the text and graphic separated.
  33. Bob Lacatena at 23:53 PM on 10 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    47, skywatcher, Yes... I actually typed "hypothesis," and thought about it, and forget why I changed it to "theory," but you're right. On the ice sheets coming back... I think my main (natural) view is that in normal climate sensitivity time scales are utterly huge, meaning that thousands of years is a very short time frame. Human time frames of even hundreds of years, let alone ten or five, are utterly silly. So the point is that the ice sheets would grow back, and increase albedo, in their own good time, which to mother earth is more than fast enough. The same thing goes for the very slow transition in CO2 levels under normal circumstances (abrupt glacial termination being a still unresolved exception). At the same time, it puts serious emphasis on exactly how crazy we are to be doing what we're doing. The earth's climate is a machine with a few knobs and levers and dials that the pilot lovingly adjusts, only a nudge here or a smidgeon there, and still he steers the planet between pretty marked extremes. We just barged into the cockpit, grabbed the biggest lever, and shoved it all the way forward, from lowest to highest, shouting "Yeehah! Flank speed! Go, baby, go!"
  34. Bob Lacatena at 23:47 PM on 10 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    45, Eric the Red, You are reading a lot (when you say "has less to do" rather than "may have less to do") into a letter which admits to and glosses over strong arguments that contradict the findings of their own work, and for which they admit there are large error bars in many areas. That said, the letter is also discussing climate 500 million years ago. I think that certainly there are some scenarios which would wildly vary climate sensitivity and the effects of certain mechanisms (in that case, CO2) then versus today's values (for instance, the lack of an extensive, land based life ecosystem 500 million years ago, to either accelerate or balance many of the chemical interchanges). The authors say as much in their conclusion when they say "climate models ... are calibrated to the present ... and may thus be unable to reproduce correctly the past climate modes". To me, this is less of a comment on climate sensitivity, and more of a comment on the fact that the actual dominant mechanisms at play could have been very different (again, on a planet 500 million years removed from this one, almost as if it were another planet in the solar system). Basically, trying to do climate work today is very hard. Trying to do it for 500 million years in the past is a daunting task, and not what I'd use as a yard stick for evaluating the quality of other science, or values of climate sensitivity. I'm not saying paleoclimate is not valuable, but 500 million years is really stretching it. You also still have not yet posted your evidence and citations for the position stated in post 34 that climate sensitivity is low.
  35. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Sphaerica #42: a small nit - theories are the parts of science that are generally well-substantiated and tested, so presumably you meant hypotheses? I like your post at #38. I would add that there is an importance in considering the fate of the ice sheets. Regardless of the effects of presence or absence of ice on overall sensitivity (probably small but noticeable), we need to be aware of the fact that the ice sheets would not grow back as they are under present climate conditions. That is, if warming is sufficient that the ice sheets are melted, and then in the far future we are able to stabilise and manage global temperature, the ice sheets would not magically return to their present state merely by returning temperatures to those of the 19th or 20th Century. You would need to cool the climate very substantially lower than at present if you wished to lower the snow equilibrium line enough to grow the sheets back, due to the lost thickness of ice. It's part of the reason the ice sheets are at great risk from current warming, but it's not something that has a great bearing on the question of our climate sensitivity.
  36. Climate sensitivity is low
    "basically if there is some large negative feedback which makes the sensitivity too low, it would have prevented the planet from transitioning from ice ages to interglacial periods" Doesn't the above assume that the negative feedback is linearly related to T? Is that a safe assumption if so?
  37. Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
    Whatever you do, I strongly prefer the 10x10 over the 5.882x17; especially if the goal is effective messaging to the non-committed public. IMO, I'd like to see the SS.com go to the back, which would free up space to drop the 2 grey and 1 red guys onto their own lines with an explanation ("undecided" and "skeptical"). If you aren't going to explain them, make 'em the same color (grey). Mark USA PS When can we see a shirt with Dana's awesome Observed vs IPCC CO2 graph?
  38. Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    okatiniko @44, the Northern Hemisphere summer is warmer than the Southern Hemisphere summer despite greater insolation in the SH summer because the ocean has a much greater thermal inertia than does land. Because there is more land than water in the NH, and the reverse in the SH, it takes longer for the SH to approach the equilibrium temperature than does the NH. If insolation where held constant in a SH Summer Solstice conditions, the resulting global temperature would be significantly higher than if the same where done for the NH winter Solstice. In contrast with the seasonal variation, the temperature fluctuations between glacial and interglacial are sufficiently slow that treating temperatures as having approached equilibrium for the level of forcing is a reasonable approximation. Consequently Hansen's method of determining climate sensitivity is valid for that data, but would be invalid if applied to seasonal data where such a presumption is straight forwardly false. So far as I can tell, your entire argument against Hansen's sensitivity calculation is based on the invalid analogy between centenial and seasonal temperature variations. To the extent that is true, you have no valid criticism of Hansen. If it is not true, surely you can repost your argument without appeal to that invalid comparison as a distraction.
  39. There's no room for a climate of denial
    OK Norman, @ 46, of the top of your head list the natural disasters of 1954. And also note how many of them where record breaking and near record breaking events. The reason I ask you for the list of the top of your head is that, unless this sort of information is common knowledge, so that it can reasonably be listed "of the top of your head", then it is not relevant as to why people are deniers. If you can't list the events of the top of your head, but think there have been two years comparable to 2010 and 2011 (todate) for natural disasters, by all means discuss those years, but under a more appropriate topic.
  40. Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
    Hi all, The SEARCH predictions have now been published. Follow the link @33 if interested. @37 Daniel, looking at the PIOMAS graph, between September 2006 and Sep 2007, sea ice volume fell from 10,000 cubic km to 6,000, a fall of 4,000. In September 2010, ice volume was at 4,000 cubic km. If the melt this year is at the same rate as 2007, that leaves nothing: 4,000 - 4,000 = 0 Also, I have a hunch that the Woodgate paper is part of a broader trend that exaggerates the importance of Pacific waters in Arctic melt, for the following reasons: 1. More English language research is conducted in US and Canadian waters, for obvious reasons; 2. The new sexy topic of ENSO has a huge effect on US weather patterns, but actually, with the Bering Strait being so narrow, has much less effect than the boring old Atlantic currents such as the Gulf Stream; 3. A lot of attention has been paid to 2007; but 2007 was an anomaly, which was related to a strong El Nino. I personally hold that the Arctic is being melted primarily by the influx of consistently warmer water of Atlantic origin; and I suspect that research on the Atlantic side is less well funded, often published in languages that I don't understand and, in the case of Cyrillic texts at least, subject to strong political pressure.
  41. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    How do we know that the system is limited purely by the nature of its positive feedback? I'm trying to understand how the possibility of negative feedback being a limiting factor has been disregarded? There is a theory that the increasing levels of water vapour in the atmosphere due to increased temperatures might greatly increase cloud cover, increasing the earth's reflectance, reducing heat absorbtion into the system. As far as I know, the question of what the impact of increased atmospheric water vapour has on cloud formation and, therefore, albedo is still very open? So I wonder whether it isn't premature to assume that the system is self-limiting due solely to the reason given above? Particularly as the methane release issue casts further doubt on the idea that the system is self-limiting, without some other unconsidered factor coming into play. Thoughts?
    Moderator Response: See Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas and Clouds provide negative feedback.
  42. What's in a Name?
    I'd like to re-visit this thread. If the "science" in question is the science of climatology, then I understand the distinction between the two terms just fine. If the "science" in question is on the human cognition side (communications, politics, psychology) then I believe the peer reviewed literature has other interesting things to say about these terms. For example, in the USA the views of those who self-identify with the democratic political party are reportedly much less affected by the choice of terms (global warming vs climate change) than those who self-identify with the republican party. See "It's All in a Name: 'Global Warming' Vs. 'Climate Change'" @ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110308173242.htm After visiting that article (or the underlying paper) please look at the end of this blog post again, where Dana discusses Luntz' memo and the concept of fear. That reminded me of other recent research comparing neurological responses of conservatives and liberals. See "Political Views Are Reflected in Brain Structure" @ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407121337.htm I suggest that another response to "the myth" is to focus on who "they" refers to. Climate scientists have not changed the term within their purview. Social scientists did, or at least attempted to, within theirs. Those trying to perpetuate the myth are mixing apples and oranges. These studies suggest that on the social science side, there's value to talking "climate change" instead of "global warming", but of course that would come at the price of reinforcing or perpetuating the myth with respect to climatologists. Mark (USA)
  43. Eric the Red at 21:58 PM on 10 June 2011
    Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity
    Sphaerica, The issue of lower cliamte sensitivity in past eras has less to do with the physical properties of CO2, than in the biological and chemical reactions which increased removed of CO2 from teh atmosphere. Here is one paper that demonstrates that occurrance (note a specific climate sensitivity is not given, but can be presumed). http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/idclark/courses/Veizer%20Nature%202001.pdf
  44. Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
    Hi Rob, how about "seaweed". My point is that labeling a critical and normal component of reef ecosystems "slime" to telegraph a message of a yucky, unwanted protoplasm is not exactly helpful or scientific. And yes, a few misguided coral reef scientists subjectively refer to "slime" on reefs, but they are referring to microbes not seaweed/algae. Regarding the extreme pH values, indeed, they make up a small amount of the total measured, but are the driving force of the extant community state. Same with climate change; eg, it is the very rare extreme high values that cause coral bleaching, so it would be misleading to look at mean temp and relate that to reef state. Ill dig up the papers on the extreme values at some of the world's CO2 bubblers.
  45. Ocean acidification: Some Winners, Many Losers
    Of interest to this topic: SAHFOS page on acidification, and paper linked therein.
  46. There's no room for a climate of denial
    DB and Albatross, Thanks for the explanation. But in the issue of denial as related to DB video, my point was that if you took all the extreme weather of a particualar year, say 1954, could you create a similar video about how extreme things are? Albatross, this thread is asking why so many doubt AGW's dire predictions. By bringing up historical data it may help to explain this. Climate scientists may be well aware of severe weather events of the past but the creator of the DB video link may not be so fully aware.
  47. Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
    I think the top design (10x10) looks more logical and pleasing to the eye (proportionally), and immediately presents the message graphically. Although maybe the text would be a little less bold, so that the design stands out more - but that would just be nit-picking ! It would be nice to see a design using the 10 Temperature Records, or one with the various 'hockey-sticks' - the Hockey Team ? And what about the penguin and the seedling...
  48. Climate Consensus on a T-shirt
    Like the T-Shirt - I suspect these clever people would like it to, have a watch... http://www.thelancet.com/climate-change Clear concise and to the point by individuals who are qualified and have genuine experience and are therefore considered experts ergo they qualified to perform risk analysis for us.
  49. Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
    In the top link @#20, half the agrument put is the 5% rise in the proportion of winter-maximum multi-year ice since 2009 as per the NSIDC graphic. What the NSIDC graphic fails to show is the decline in Ice Extent over the same period. Multi-Year ice in sq km has not risen much if at all. Yes, I do rather dislike those NSIDC multi-year ice graphics.
  50. ScaredAmoeba at 18:40 PM on 10 June 2011
    Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    Monckton is appearing at the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies Inc., the peak industry representative body for mineral exploration and mining companies in Australia. AMEC Convention. Perth WA 28-30 June 2011 www.amecconvention.com.au http://amec.org.au/wp-content/uploads/AMEC0031_WEB.pdf

Prev  1654  1655  1656  1657  1658  1659  1660  1661  1662  1663  1664  1665  1666  1667  1668  1669  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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