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  1760  1761  1762  1763  1764  1765  1766  1767  1768  1769  1770  1771  1772  1773  1774  1775  Next

Comments 88351 to 88400:

  1. It's albedo
    KR (RE: 57) "As to your El Nino event issues, keep in mind that a positive feedback is not a runaway feedback (if that is indeed what you are implying, I may have misinterpreted your post) - see the Does positive feedback necessarily mean runaway warming thread." Yes, I do understand this; however, positive feedback is also not a temporary effect either. There is no reason why it would not continue to amplify further the remaining amplified change even after the initial forcing subsided. The AGW theory claims an intrinsic rise of 1 C will become 3 C via positive feedback, so most of the change comes from the feedback - not the initial forcing.
  2. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    Gilles#24: "for it is nowhere demonstrated that we don't see rather the effects of temperature on the CO2 level." Yet another unsubtantiated bit of hand-waving; another attempt to drag discussion off-topic. If you are claiming that rising temperature increases CO2, find the appropriate thread -- and this time, read it before offering more opinions.
  3. Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
    Ryan Starr @138, no chart is self interpreting. Consequently, any body who attempts to interpret a chart without consulting at minimum, the caption is being foolish. This point can be amply illustrated from your own words. You say "you call a proxy a proxy", but in fact no data on the WMO chart is labeled as proxy data, either on the chart or in the caption. That is because no data series on the chart is uniquely and only proxy data. You say, "You don't call an instrument record a proxy", but in fact, no instrument record is called a proxy on the WMO chart, because no series on the chart is called proxy data. Your interpretation of the charted data as a "proxy record" is your misinterpretation which is not suggested by either the chart itself, nor the caption. You are imposing your interpretation onto the chart. What is more, if you do not impose it, your whole case against Jones evaporates and you know it. The chart itself references the data source for the "paleoclimactic records" (Jones' term) of each of the three reconstructions, and the caption indicates that the three reconstructions use "paleoclimactic records ... along with historical and long instrumental records". Your misinterpretation requires that you read additional information into the chart which is not on it, and that you ignore information about the chart which is in the caption. And yet you want to blame your misinterpretation on Jones. You are therefore imposing a ridiculous standard on the chart whose only merit is that it allows you to condemn Jones. Your preference to condemn scientists rather than understand them is, however, not a great virtue; so I'm afraid I'm going to reject the totality of your nonsense as what it is.
  4. Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
    protestant#88: "... similar warm periods like MWP and RWP in the past, ... might mean the ocean circulation patterns and internal variability could operate in not just multidecadal but also multicentennial timescales." 'It might mean' a vast number of things. 'It might mean' is hardly a scientific statement. What you lack is a credible theory, consistent with existing data and the fact that these multidecadals and their hypothetical multicentennials must be driven by something. 'It might mean' AGW. 'It might mean' Spencer's magic clouds. 'It might mean' LGM. Science has standards other than forming a list of possibles; it is a process of eliminating the improbables from consideration.
  5. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    20 Sphaerica and 17 DM : What I'm saying is that there is a flaw in "consequently" - because it assumes that what is to be demonstrated, that we see "the effecs of raised CO2 levels" : for it is nowhere demonstrated that we don't see rather the effects of temperature on the CO2 level. DM : again I'm contesting the use of a "undismissed" theory which allows other "undismissed" theories. While you're right in your assertion about falsificationnism, you don't seem to understand its use : it's that you can gain confidence in a theory only after disproving all reasonable other explanations. What I'm saying is that nothing in what is written disproves alternative explanation - that you mainly track natural sensitivity of CO2 to external causes of temperature changes (whatever these causes are), and this is not the same that what you seem to look for - the sensitivity of temperature to CO2.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No Gilles, as has already been pointed out to you, where there are multiple competing hypotheses, none of which have been excluded by the observations/experiment, then you apportion "belief" to each hypothesis according to the strength of the evidence. It is not correct that all unfalsified hypotheses are equally plausible. The "consequently" is just saying the evidence points towards a hypothesis being true, that is all. Popperians call this "corroboration", and they are happy with the idea that hypothesis become stronger the more corroborated they are.

    However the hypothesis that the post-industrial increase is due to the effects of rises in temperature, rather than the other way round, is falsified by the observations. The matter has been discussed numerous times here on SkS, so find an appropriate article where it has been discussed, read the arguments presented there, and I will be happy to discuss it with you (not as moderator) further on that thread - but not here.

  6. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    3 degrees rise by 2050 or 60 now seems possible- 4 degrees by 2099 probable. A 4 degree rise in just over 100 years means that most species will not adapt, including us- as Alexandre said.
  7. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    PS: This may not have anything to do with what we've been discussing, but I've noticed that in this article you claim to have rebutted the skeptic argument that it warmed the same rate from 1860-1880 and 1910-1940. I just wanted to point out to you that Phil Jones himself has confirmed that the three periods of warming were indeed exactly parallel to each other. So in your "rebuttal" you're actually contradicting a prominent AGW scientist, who has confirmed the skeptical argument. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical? An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component. Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below). I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998. So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. Here are the trends and significances for each period: Period Length Trend (Degrees C per decade) Significance 1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes 1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes 1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes 1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
  8. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    MattJ Actually, the problem is the pace of the change. If the Earth warms 3 degrees in millions of years, new ecosystems will evolve, species will adapt, new species will appear. Do it in one or two centuries, and the change will be too fast for everyone. Including humans that built their whole civilization in the stable Holocene climate.
  9. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP#390: "not considering this minutia," If by minutiae, you mean evidence. Your statement: ... fluids such as air and water, A (the area) equals zero ... Conclusion: If A is zero, J is zero, which means energy radiated is zero ... clearly says fluids don't radiate energy. You've been shown evidence (more of that minutiae) here and here that your 'conclusion' is utterly wrong. Your continued persistence in accepting this only makes your entire argument less credible than ever.
  10. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    "You wouldn't answer to the obvious bait I placed in front of you, because to do so you had to admit that you were changing the black body temperature of Earth." Alec and Ken, there is nothing like "THE" blackbody temperature of the Earth - it's simply not an isothermal sphere. If you ask if it is possible to change the average temperature of the Earth without changing its energy content, or the opposite, the answer is without doubt yes - and I can demonstrate it on request. It's enough to change the latitude repartition. And if you ask if the latitude repartition has changed, the answer is again yes.
  11. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    First of all, I just like to make it clear that I am not poptech. We are two different people. "No, you were repeating my claim (about Greenland) and then extending it in a single leap to apply to the whole of GHG climate science." Sphaerica, so to be clear, are you saying that there isn't empirical evidence that humans are causing Greenland warming, but you believe that there is empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming? Is that what you're saying, because we seem to be going around in circles here. Muoncounter, might I remind you that it works both ways for you as well. If you believe that using less stations won't significantly affect the readings, then according to your own logic, the data would have been pretty reliable 60 years ago as well. Dikran and muoncounter, once again have you even read the paper I provided? The difference between surface and satellite data, started around 20 years ago, corresponding with the adjustments made to the global surface temp network. Here is a very detailed document, which discusses the problems with the surface temperature record: Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? And read the following paper: 'Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends' by Roger Pielke Sr et al published in the 'Journal of Geophysical Research' (2007) ""co2 was much higher 60 years ago" That's just plain wrong. Enough said. " That was a typing mistake. I meant to say that CO2 is much higher than it was 60 years ago. Anyway, this is going nowhere. I keep having to endure cheap insults, and in this discussion, everyone just keeps going around in circles. I think that anything worth discussing on this thread has now long gone. Unless there is something worth discussing, then I don't really see any point in carrying on. This will be my last comment, unless I need to come back for any particular reason. Goodbye.
  12. Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
    139 RyanStarr - are you discussing science or marking a term paper? Do you, maybe, gave a full guide you give your students on hiw to present results?
  13. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    Spike25 I have read Tripati's research at UCLA- I agree with her that we have not C02 levels since around 20 million years ago (see my #2 above)
  14. Debunking Economic Myths from the Climate Hearing
    Good rebuttal, Dana, as always. Sadly, I don't think many of the Republicans are likely to read it. No, no. They'll be too busy reading WUWT, or listening to the misinformation on FOX. Just in case anybody is thinking I'm being anti-American, I'm sure the Conservative Party of Canada is pretty much the same.
  15. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    17, Gilles, For some reason you are focused on variations which are never mentioned, and the cause of the CO2 levels in the Pliocene. There were no notable variations, and the cause of the CO2 levels is not the focus of the post. Please stay on topic. From the text of the post:
    CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Consequently, the Pliocene gives us vital clues of the long-term effects of raised CO2 levels.
    Stick to that, please.
  16. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    How does this fit with Tripati's work suggesting we are currently higher than the Pliocene, with the last time CO2 levels being this high being 15 million years ago? http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx
  17. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    @Ken Lambert #122 It looks you go where you see an opportunity of profit. Nothing better for you that taking a quotation ("Our observing system is inadequate") and without having to state which exact "observing system" it is, and only once that's clearly done, state what's the level of "adequacy" Trenberth had in mind, ... no, instead of doing what is reasonable and right, you attach your "...to support and explain the AGW theory and that this state of affairs is a 'Travesty'." to feed your favourite horse: the observing system and the level of adequacy are univocally those that must explain and support AGW and the whole "state of affairs" being a travesty, a sort of pompous 'o tempora o mores' indirectly suggesting -by using a careful wording- it being sort of a confession made by Trenberth and no what it really is, in essence your personal baseless opinion. Following that, you add a crafty mix of epistemology taken form K-12 propedeutics of science, complacency for you and your kin, and an attempt to taxonomize 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark'. The rest are your numbers, which you won't reply if contested. You still have to answer for your calculations in #116. You wouldn't answer to the obvious bait I placed in front of you, because to do so you had to admit that you were changing the black body temperature of Earth. What did you have in mind? Tunning up the Sun? Moving the Planet 2 million kilometers closer to the Sun? Growing Earth's diameter? You simply came back again to the sole ground you are proficient: rhetorics. You will find a thousand ways to say the same and make it look like there are thousand lines of evidence which point to the same conclusion. But, that's why we are here, aren't we? And this will continue. In the end, no single message will be important, but the whole thread will reveal the a clear repetitive pattern. Don't think vehemence means lack of patience.
  18. Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
    Tom @ 138, I'm telling you that the chart misrepresents what is shown. It gives the viewer a false impression, that's what I've always argued. Any interpretation which is not the correct interpration is a misinterpretation, over or under or other. Even if the viewer bothered to read the caption which shouldn't be required because the series' are clearly labeled then at best they find a vague clue that the splicing was used. A clue isn't nearly good enough, detective work shouldn't be required to interpret a chart. The creator should make it clear what is shown not turn it into a sleuthing exercise. Charting shouldn't require a "best practice" guide, it's simple, you plot the data values as they are and label each series what it is. You call a proxy a proxy, and you call an instrument record an instrument record. You don't call an instrument record a proxy. God help us when researchers don't take that much for granted.
  19. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    Thank you Bern for the nice words. The perspectives I gave above are predicated on C02 levels from about 380-400ppm, which are fairly good estimates of the mid Pliocene, from current data.
  20. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    [complaint about moderation snipped] did, or didn't Dr Kevin Trenberth write these sentences in reply to Tom Wigley : [hacked private email snipped] [complaint about moderation snipped]
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Republishing stolen private emails is not acceptable. Prof. Trenberth has gone on record clarifying what he meant by that email; I think he knows what he meant by what he wrote rather better than you do. If you don't already know this, it is common for emails to be written in haste, using ambiguous terms that the sender knows the intended reader will understand from wider context (e.g. previous discussions they have had). You are not the intended reader, and are not in a position to reliably interpret the content of the email, nor am I, nor is anyone else. Trenberth on the other hand is, so please limit yourself to his intentionally published comments and the science. Complaints about moderation also tend to get deleted (after reading), so don't mix them up with what is intended to be substantive comment or the substantive comment will be deleted along with it. If you want to discuss that sort of thing, there are other places where it is on-topic; but not here, thank you.
  21. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    "It wasn't until the Quaternary Era (the Pleistocene & younger) that CO2 levels reached those that we've known for the better part of 1 million years (well, until the last 50 years or so). " But yet CO2 varied in a non monotonous way - so again what makes it vary ? Just saying "the temperature was X and CO2 was Y " doesn't prove that CO2 is the main driver. Now actually as I said it can be considered as the main driver * if the amplification factor 1/(1-f) is large * (what Sphaerica incorrectly calls the "temperature to temperature feedback") (which means actually f = A.B smaller but close to one). In this case, the main cause of temperature variation is indeed the amplified response, and not the initial perturbation, that becomes actually irrelevant. But this is exactly the same condition as B^-1 ~ A The important point however is that this is a self-consistent, but circular hypothesis. I mean that IF you consider that the amplification factor is large, you will be satisfied because is the sensitivity to CO2 to temperature (B) is low, than its inverse B^-1 is large and you will be inclined to interpret it as a "high " A climate sensitivity (in more concrete words : if CO2 varies little with temperature and that you *postulate* that the temperature varies only because of CO2, you must conclude that the sensitivity to CO2 is high). But it doesn't exclude other hypothesis , namely, that the f factor is low, that B^-1 is NOT equal to A, and that temperature varied because of other things that CO2. You just track the low sensitivity of CO2 to temperature, and that's all. This would equally well work - in other words, the system is under-constrained if you only look at one type of variation.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] If you want to know what causes the variations in CO2 on different timescale (different mechanisms are involved), then stop trolling, step away from your computer and go and do some reading and find out. There is a very good book on the carbon cycle by David Archer, which would be a good place to start.

    I am amused that after your protestation that you understand falsificationism, yet again you are saying X doesn't prove Y. No observation proves any hypothesis; nobody is claiming that X proves Y, so you are trolling with a straw man, yet again.

  22. Debunking Economic Myths from the Climate Hearing
    Back on-topic: considering the previous article, where it was stated that the last time CO2 levels were this high, sea levels were 25m higher. I'd guess the "economic analysis" to date only considers the IPCC AR4 results, out to 2100? If so, I'd love to see an economic impact analysis of a 25m rise in sea levels over the next, say, 300 years. Even with a huge discounting factor, that'll be a doozy!
  23. Debunking Economic Myths from the Climate Hearing
    Oh, no, Dana, we can get Fox News via pay TV... in fact, it's not possible to get pay TV in Australia without Fox News being bundled in... (yet another reason I don't subscribe!)
  24. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    Thanks for that perspective, newcrusader. It's one thing to talk in abstract figures, but another to point out some of the local climatic details. It brings it home a little more clearly.
  25. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    @Gilles #123 What's next? An e-mail with Trenberth telling John Calvin where is Miguel Servet hiding? Trenberth saying "no where close", was he eating "a whole nother apple"? Trenberth quoting his own e-mails ("Hi Tom >blah >blah >blah >Kevin"). Trenberth using the word "travesty" one each fifty words. Trenberth loving exclamation marks and speaking in an emotional way like he's part of Jersey Shore's cast. Trenberth saying "we will never be able" to do something. Don't worry, I would be the first to complain if your message were deleted, as it clearly depicts yours, not Trenberth's.
  26. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    The early to mid Pliocene was markedly warmer then today. The American heartland was mostly desert. Human ancestors where in east Africa (Australopithecus). It has been suggested that, during the Pliocene (ca 5–1.8 Ma), an El Niño state existed as a permanent rather than an intermittent feature; The global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene (3.3 mya - 3 mya) was 2-3°C higher than today, global sea level 25 m higher-Northern hemisphere ice sheet mostly non existent in the arctic- or short lasting in duration mid winter.
  27. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    @ Gilles "I was referring to developing countries, that have no infrastructures to replace" My comments apply to developing countries just the same. They pretty much all have energy infrastructure that needs to be replaced. "maybe they just don't want to take this risk ?? well yes without a carbon tax they wouldn't.
  28. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    "Sphaerica : so what was the cause of initial CO2 variation ?" You are aware, Gilles, that the Pliocene marks the end of the Tertiary Era, when the Earth's atmosphere was still relatively rich in CO2-& other Greenhouse gases-from *millions* of years of volcanic activity between the Permian & Cretaceous eras? It wasn't until the Quaternary Era (the Pleistocene & younger) that CO2 levels reached those that we've known for the better part of 1 million years (well, until the last 50 years or so).
  29. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    390 RSVP "not considering this minutia," I think you may be getting that the wrong way round... as did a number of folk on the 2nd Law post. Basic thermodynamics, statistical mechanics and e-m theory work irrespective of the Minutiæ of the system under consideration. Anything, in which ever phase - gas, liquid, solid, plasma, Bose–Einstein condensate - will have an affective area, temperature, radiative spectrum etc. Things like surface area may not be exactly what one 'sees' - radiation may or may not be able to escape from within the body of the object, changing, for example, the affective surface area. But it matters not the the physics. Some of these abstractions of physics can be hard for folks to grasp but I would strongly advise people to tread carefully in such areas - for no other reason than to avoid another 1000+ post thread squabbling over pure confusion about physics!
  30. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    "b) why is it supposed to be unable to adapt to a change of temperature and able to adapt to giving up 80 % of its energy sources in some decades ?" Wow, you really are a 1-track album, aren't you Gilles? In little more than 50 years, humanity went from the Wright Brothers to Supersonic Jet planes, long-distance air travel & even putting objects & humans into space. Yet you constantly question our ability to replace outdated fossil fuels with clean & reliable renewable energy in a similar space of time. Still, as you clearly get all your info from sites devoted to the fossil fuel industry, I can't say I'm entirely surprised by that.
  31. Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
    "The IPCC WG1 report is full of falsifiable predictions, pick one." Actually I have very hard time to find one. Seems rather that everything that doesn't match is called "weather", "noise", "internal variability" - but nowhere a definite answer of what is testing what. Note that the final conclusion that "it is very likely that the main contribution of the recent temperature rise is mainly anthropogenic " is not testable- since the "likelihood" cannot be checked in itself. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I've not waited for you before understanding what falsificationism means - I've probably needed less time to understand it that you need to understand me.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You are displaying your ignorance, yet again. The IPCC model projections give forecasts for the rise in temperature, all with increasing temperatures over the next century. The error bars on those projections (i.e. what is plausibly attributable to natural variability or "noise") exclude the possibility of temperatures falling (or even remaining approximately level) over the next century. So if the temperature falls over the next century, the theory is falsified.

    Lets make that more concrete, the "business as usual" scenario is A1F1, which involves rapid economic growth driven by exploitation of fossil fuels. The projection for A1F1 by 2100 is between 2 and 6 degrees of warming.

    So here is a directly falsifiable test: Follow A1F1, if temperatures in 2100 are lower than they are now, something the models clearly indicate is impossible, then the models and the underpinning theory must be wrong. Unless, of course there is a major change in natural forcings, for instance Yellowstone erupting, or the Earth being hit by an asteroid, which, but it would be idiotic to object to that sort of caveat!

    By the way, I pointed this particular IPCC projection out to you only yesterday, so you have no excuse for not being able to find a falsifiable projection in the IPCC report. I had already shown one to you!

  32. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    Humanity will adapt - what actual studies we have just show that more expensive in money and lives than curbing emissions. Feel free to point me to studies that are more creditable. Many other species wont. b/ Sorry I dont buy the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" debating trick. This thread is about CO2 in pliocene. Your question has been answered exhaustively in other places on this site and in other blogs.
  33. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    KR 387 "Water radiates from its surface" And what percentage of the ocean's mass does the surface comprise? Similarly, 98% or so of the atmosphere is NOT water vapor, or CO2. So I will grant you my post was wrong for not considering this minutia, (i.e AWG's cornerstone). And far as Riccardo (and you) confusing nuclear physics with classic heat transfer theory, I would ask who exactly is grasping at straws now? I dont think that helped Riccardo as nuclear physics is just a little off topic, however if you think we are talking about the same thing please expand. By the way, as it turns out emissivity drops off rather quickly for the temperatures you are referring to. ( -Snip- )
    Moderator Response: [DB] Pointless and inflammatory sentence fragment snipped.
  34. Last day to vote for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    adelady - no, no, it's not 'several', it's 'many'! :-)
  35. David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
    @20 Lou Grinzo: "I've talked to groups of young people from about age 12 through college about climate change, and trying to get them to understand the urgency of the situation is very hard. A small percentage of them get it before you open your mouth and nearly all of the rest smile, nod, and then go about life as if the presentation never happened." Lou; is the comprehension of the subject, by these students, due to intelligence or curiosity?
  36. Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
    "When you look at the possibility of natural unforced variability, you see that can cause excursions that we've seen recently" And here you keep citing several studies which conclude that natural variability cannot account for the LONG term trend. Christy used the word "recently". He most likely ment the satellite era which is the last 30 years. But of course you like to misinterpret and then fight against strawmen, again. And last 30 years is claimed 100% anthropogenic by the IPCC by using the GCM:s. That is false, even your own references conclude (DelSole) that internal patterns explain 0.08K/decade for the 30 year trend. Of course you failed to cite this important phrase from the paper. And only this finding alone, makes the IPCC house of cards to collapse. AND because there were similar warm periods like MWP and RWP in the past, which yet remain completely unexplained, it might mean the ocean circulation patterns and internal variability could operate in not just multidecadal but also multicentennial timescales. And we do not have the sufficient OHC data to verify anything about this.
    Moderator Response: [DB] "And last 30 years is claimed 100% anthropogenic by the IPCC by using the GCM:s." Strawman. Please support this statement with a link to the specific IPCC chapter where this quote is supposedly taken. Otherwise, your house of cards strawman comment invalidates itself and will be deleted as a trolling comment.
  37. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    scaddenp #8 Two questions : a) what is the warming rate which mankind is supposed to be unable to adapt ? b) why is it supposed to be unable to adapt to a change of temperature and able to adapt to giving up 80 % of its energy sources in some decades ? which can of rate does it give compared to historical ones ?
  38. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    Sphaerica : so what was the cause of initial CO2 variation ?
  39. Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
    DM#78 : So I will help you a little bit to answer. May be you know that GCM models are commonly prone to systematic drifts that can reach 1°C/century, and have been carefully worked out throughout the history of computation to avoid these drifts , and to use "plausible" initial conditions that match just as closely as possible the steady state ? because of course we can't know what 1880 initial conditions can be ! and to conclude after that there wasn't any possibility of long term natural variations in the models ?- the main reason being that they have been carefully excluded ?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I didn't say I couldn't answer, but that I wouldn't, on the ground that you are trolling. You still are. If you think you have a point, download some GCM code, do some experiments, publish a paper. That would be constructive, trolling here pretending you know what you are talking about (but not providing any verifiable references of course), following multiple posts where you have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance, just to get a bit of attention isn't.

    DNFTT

  40. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Dan, I was referring to developing countries, that have no infrastructures to replace because they're just currently building them, and for most of them, don't rely on private companies but on their own national ones - which interest do they have to build now useless thermal plants (one per week in China) that they should close in less than 20 years ? the only relevant argument would be "Also there is the fact that we haven't yet figured out exactly how switch off FFs just yet. This means betting on a specific low/no carbon tech brings with it a fair amount of risk with it " maybe they just don't want to take this risk ?
  41. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    "...we may eventually face the potentially catastrophic conditions of the Pliocene once more." @7 jyyh: "What's catastrophic is a magnitude/location/effect on people issue." Jyyh; I agree with your point. However, the last sentence in the post states "once more". It doesn't sound good since back then there was no civilization that would suffer a catastrophe and the situation was not 'catastrophic' to our ancestral Australopithecines back then. The people issue in my opinion is related to the fragility of civilization. Hence, that sentence would better read: "...we may eventually face conditions that our fragile civilization cannot adapt to, in the short time given." This brings us to a secondary but important issue that was brought out by Scaddenp @8. When comparing globally warm situations in the past with the present, mention should be made of the fact that AGW is progressing faster than natural warming events. Then one should emphasize how civilization cannot adapt to such rapid changes.
  42. Debunking Economic Myths from the Climate Hearing
    That's The Australian for you. At least you don't have to deal with Fox News.
  43. Debunking Economic Myths from the Climate Hearing
    @Dana1981. Well you should have seen the clap-trap The Weekend Australian came up with last week. An article by Geoff Lehmann, Peter Farrell & Dick Warburton that was a veritable buffet & climate denier myths. Things like "Despite predictions a decade ago that severe winters would become a thing of the past, on JAnuary 7, 2010, NASA photographed Britain entirely blanketed in snow. Claims that wind power operates only at 25% capacity (when most operate at 30% to 40% capacity nowadays) & *have* to be backed up by fossil fuel power stations (when, in truth, you could use a combination of storage & non-fossil fueled base-load power to meet demand), erroneous comparisons of *generation* costs (not transmission & distribution-one of the biggest costs of large, centralized power stations) &, most amazingly of all, claims that "An emissions trading scheme, or any other action to increase the price of carbon enough to change behaviour, is bound to fail in a democracy". I mean, that last claim would *definitely* come as a shock to the people of Germany, British Columbia or the almost dozen North Eastern US states that have such measures in place-just to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Still, given the extent to which the fossil fuel industry is going to propagate misinformation, via their puppets in the mainstream media, they must be getting pretty nervous.
  44. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    How many times do we have to say its not the future temperature that is the main worry but speed of getting there. It all about rate. Adaption is easy if you have a million years to do it - hell if its only 100 years. The Pliocene is a window on what world could look like. Some parts of the view could happen quickly, others slowly (there is limit to how fast you can melt ice).
  45. Debunking Economic Myths from the Climate Hearing
    The tragedy of the commons argument is really big in Australia. Understandable when you're only 1.5% of global emissions and much smaller population than the US (although just as bad in per capita emissions). Evans made the argument, so did Monckton in The Australian, so did Lindzen in an Australian interview. And Armstrong and Christy made it in the USA. It's the "in" argument for "skeptics" right now, I guess.
  46. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    "The Wikipedia article on Pliocene Climate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate, does not make it sound like there were any "potentially catastrophic conditions of the Pliocene"." What's catastrophic is a magnitude/location/effect on people issue. Humanity has experienced the end of the last ice age, with a rise of sea level of over 100 meters, a quarter of which is projected for this partial pressure of CO2 in the long run. It's just there are not anymore many places to run to, if/when a local catastrophe aggravated by rising seas hits some coastal city. Pliocene climate itself doesn't sound too bad, though likely there were tropical areas too hot for humans (who weren't present yet). Humidity was likely high and grassfields/savannas fewer than currently (might this have had something to do with molds and other plant pathogens, can't say). Forests possibly grew ever higher and partly induced their own diminishement at the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary set by the first larger glaciation at Greenland/Arctic, Panama strait closure being the main reason, cutting the Atlantic off the tropical ocean currents and beginning the current mode of thermohaline circulation with the amount of Arctic ice, Bering Strait closure/opening, and Milankovich cycles, as the main moderators of the NH glaciations/deglaciations. (The overall warming signal should be less noisy in the SH than in the NH.) Now this is starting to drift off topic so I'll stop.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text.
  47. Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
    @ Arkadiusz "Nothing could be further from the truth." Sorry, but given your tendency to believe complete rubbish, in complete contradiction of scientific fact-not just in relation to global warming, but into the cancer causing effects of dioxins & DDT-based simply on the *opinion* of a single individual, you'll excuse me if I take your claims regarding "truth" with a fairly substantial amount of salt.
  48. David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
    Thanks Lou, that's nice of you to say. Agreed, people have a very hard time understanding long-term dangers. They won't do anything until the consequences are smacking them in the face.
  49. Debunking Economic Myths from the Climate Hearing
    Its very interesting to see this from an Australian perspective, where we have much the same kind of disinformation at play. Just yesterday I listened to Tony Abbott (leader of the Australian Tory party-aka the Liberals) siding with the Manufacturing Union (I know, I almost died of shock too) regarding "concerns" about potential job losses that could be caused to the manufacturing sector if a Carbon Tax gets implemented. Well, I could barely stifle my laughter at this, given that Abbott was a senior minister of a Government that *unilaterally* cut tariffs across the entire Australian Manufacturing & Textile sector-a move that led to the loss of *tens of thousands* of jobs. 15 years later, & I'm still waiting to see or hear of any positive developments for our economy that arose from those policies. All it really did was make our economy far more dependent on the commodity sector-thus harming our balance of trade & making our economy much more energy/CO2 intensive, than if we still had a better mix of primary, secondary & tertiary industries. I often wonder how politicians like him can internalize such obvious contradictions in behaviour & beliefs!
  50. Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    "I think sea level rises of 20-40cms per century - which seems to be the scientific consensus - are completely manageable for 99% of humanity." Oh, well if that's what Daniel thinks-without a shred of evidence to back his opinion-then we can *all* stop worrying ourselves about the myriad dangers of Climate Change. Phew, that's a relief [/end sarcasm]. Of course, even if Daniel Maris were correct in his *beliefs*, I wonder what the cost of managing sea-level rises would be compared to....oh, I don't know, significantly cutting down on our wasteful consumption of fossil fuels? .....and still he fails to tell us, in plain simple language, his position on the Telegraph Article. Still, I've never known denialists to big on admitting the many errors of their fellow denialists.

Prev  1760  1761  1762  1763  1764  1765  1766  1767  1768  1769  1770  1771  1772  1773  1774  1775  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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