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  1763  1764  1765  1766  1767  1768  1769  1770  1771  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  1777  1778  Next

Comments 88501 to 88550:

  1. Clouds provide negative feedback
    The main point I'm getting at here is if the albedo is NOT decreasing (or has even slightly increased) and if incrementally more clouds don't trap more energy than they reflect away, where is the energy coming from that is supposed to be causing the enhanced warming? Also - if, as the AGW theory claims, an additional 3.7 W/m^2 at the surface is to become 16.6 W/m^2 largely through positive cloud feedbacks, then why doesn't it take more like 1075 W/m^2 at the surface to offset the 239 W/m^2 coming in from the Sun (16.6/3.7 = 4.5; 239 x 4.5 = 1075)?? The measured response of the system at the surface to incident energy is only about 1.6 (390 W/m^2/239 W/m^2 = 1.6). Since the atmosphere can't create any energy of its own, COE dictates the remaining difference of about 10.6 W/m^2 (3.7 x 1.6 = 6 W/m^2; 16.6 - 6 = 10.6 W/m^2) can only come from a reduced albedo (i.e. the Sun). So again, where is all the energy coming from that is supposed to be causing the enhanced warming?
  2. Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
    bastsvensson, that was predicted back in the 1930s at least, albeit wrongly trying to explain a different topic : In 1937 [Sir George Clarke Simpson] suggested that, paradoxically, an increase of solar radiation might bring on an ice age. His reasoning was that a rise in the Sun's radiation would warm the equator more than the poles, evaporating more water from the tropics and increasing the rate of the general circulation of the atmosphere. This would bring more snowfall in the higher latitudes, snow that would accumulate into ice sheets. According to Lamb (1977), p. 661, the first to recognize that an ice-free Arctic Ocean would lead to more snow near the ocean (based on observations of 20th century warm years) and that this could lead to onset of glaciation was O.A. Drozdov; the work was not published at once, and Lamb cites a later publication, Drozdov (1966). Also from The Discovery of Global Warming
  3. Muller Misinformation #3: Al Gore and polar bears
    Muller continues to illustrate he in not a climate change scientist. No wonder I had never heard of him until this year in my 25 years working in the field. He clearly does not reach the level of Al Gore in fact checking. Further what about consideration of other supporting lines of evidence. Say the Pacific Walrus in Alaska where indications from 2007 and 2010 are not good. This is what a scientist approaching the subject in a scientific manner would consider.
  4. Clouds provide negative feedback
    2, 3, RW1, I suggest that you read the post here before commenting further. In particular, you'll find that this statement of yours is false:
    The numbers show that clouds reflect more energy away then they trap.
  5. Clouds provide negative feedback
    These calculations are consistent with general observations - that is cloudy days are usually cooler than sunny days. The opposite would be the case if clouds blocked more energy than they reflect away (cloudy days would be warmer than sunny days). It's true that at night the net effect of clouds tends to warm or slow heat loss, but these calculations are for global averages, so the differences between night and day are already factored in. The only exception to this would be in areas that are permanently snow or ice covered, as I think the reflectivity of clouds is roughly the same as snow and ice, so in these areas the presence of clouds tend to warm by blocking what little surface emitted energy there is.
  6. Muller Misinformation #3: Al Gore and polar bears
    What's funny about this, too, is that his argument about polar bears is clearly a bait-and-switch.
    Not a single polar bear has died because of retreating ice.
    First, how could anyone possibly know this, that not a single polar bear has died because...? How could one ever attribute a single polar bear death to retreating ice? Do they have satellites in space that watch every polar bear, to see if any slip, or get trapped on ice floes? Do they have a PDMEM (Polar Bear Death Evaluation Module) which runs on a Cray supercomputer and determines the statistical probability that a satellite-detected polar bear death was, or was not, attributable to retreating ice? But more importantly (Al Gore's actual vague "That’s not good..." comment aside), no one has ever said that climate change would result in an instantaneous and immediate change in Arctic ice, which in turn would quickly devastate the polar bear population. This is a recurring theme in denial, one that bugs me, and one that people should be ready to recognize and dismiss. This is the idea that "if it hasn't happened yet, climate change is not happening, or not bad." Almost all negative effects of climate change are 20 to 50 years in the future, or even beyond that. Any argument which says "hasn't happened" is purposely ignoring the relevant time frames. Sea level discussions often take the same track, as well as effects on crop production. Sea level rises are going to accelerate dramatically. The fact that it doesn't look so bad today is ignoring the problem. Crop production is going to drop for most of the world. The fact that crop yields may temporarily improve in some regions is ignoring the problem. The problem with climate change is that it is a long term thing, with horrible, negative effects in a relatively distant future, but effects which will be impossible to avoid without action in the near future. Everyone should be on constant guard for this. "It hasn't happened" is a strawman argument against a misrepresentation of the problem, meant to distract and confuse.
  7. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    " As I said, if you want to discuss whether temperature is the cause of the post-industrial rise in CO2," But that's not what I'm discussing - I was discussing variations of CO2 in the last millions years: if it's not temperature, what else ?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] On a scale of thousands of years plus, CO2 levels are largely governed by exchanges with the oceans (which depends on a number of factors, including temperature). On longer timescales by the "chemical weathering thermostat". CO2 is also produced by volcanic activity. On shorter timescales, they also vary with internal variability, e.g. ENSO etc. The book by David Archer that I mentioned earlier explains all this in some detail.
  8. HumanityRules at 01:13 AM on 17 April 2011
    Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
    9 DB Thanks for the comments. I'm not denying the basal melt occured just wondering about the mechanism involved. An ice cube in a glass will melt faster if warmer water is used but also if the water is stirred. I couldn't see in the paper where it showed the underlying mechanism for any presumed changes in the summarine melt. I just found this interesting paper from NaturePrecedings 2011 which seems to go some way to answering that question. The intro is illuminating. These authors seem to suggest that estimates of base melt in Rignot and Steffen 2008 are in fact "estimated as a residual from mass balance calculations using ice-flow and ice-thickness data", i.e. they aren't direct measurements. In fact this paper claims to be the first to make direct measurements. I'll just highlight this section towards the end which seems to suggest that it still unclear whether it's warmer waters or circulation changes that are driving changes in submarine melt. "This adds weight to the possibility that the change in Greenland glacier dynamics over the last decade was not simply a result of the warming the Atlantic waters (estimated to be roughly 1 °C10 and hence comparable to the seasonal variation) but also a consequence of the vertical displacement of the Atlantic/Arctic interface due to changes in the large scale ocean circulation." Either way this seems to be a new insight into the science and worth reading. Enjoy. (Here's another version of their work which again seems to highlight the potential role of circulation changes as an alternate (or complementary) driver of submarine warming.)
  9. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    243 Really Dan I'm surprised - why do China build more than one coal power plant per week if they don't need them ? " well yes without a carbon tax they wouldn't." and who will tax them ? It's also surprising that you reckon that there is a real risk that we couldn't replace all FF with renewables after all - which I agree with of course. But telling that, how do you compare it with the risk of CC ?
  10. Eric (skeptic) at 01:08 AM on 17 April 2011
    Solar Hockey Stick
    Ian, your definition of weather is much too narrow since ENSO is partly weather (and partly climate). It is true that ENSO is somewhat cyclical and that it mainly redistributes heat already in the system. But ENSO also changes albedo and outgoing LWR over substantial portions of the earth. The constant small CO2 warming was amplified by favorable El Nino during most of the 90's. That part of the "cycle" will not necessarily be balanced by an opposite phase of the cycle. It can't just be ignored. Another "cycle" that we "skeptics" like to point to is Arctic Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation, both currently more negative than positive. Those tie nicely back into this thread since they are partly solar induced. For example the current low solar UV contributes to negative NAO in general and more specific changes in blocking (chart, paper: http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0814/2008JD009789/2008JD009789.pdf) It is an oversimplification to say that those solar changes are "cooling". What they do is modulate weather (to a large extent) which then affects the amplification of CO2 warming or other forcings (to a smaller extent). And again, they are only nominally cyclical (the upcoming low solar maximum may be a part of a cycle from the higher solar cycles of the late 20th century, but solar cycles of century time scales are impossible to predict)
  11. Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
    DM : are you arguing that it's wrong to say that GCM models were easily prone to secular drifts, or did I misunderstand you ? Mucounter :"< it is a process of eliminating the improbables from consideration." Precisely - that's why you have to demonstrate carefully that the other alternatives are improbable, and that we're totally entitled to ask you the justification - do we agree that saying "I can reproduce what I see with my hypothesis" , and even "I cannot reproduce what I see with my computer simulation" is far from being sufficient to say that ?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I intended to suggest you should provide evidence to back up your assertion if you want to discuss that.
  12. What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
    " It is not correct that all unfalsified hypotheses are equally plausible." Maybe , but you have to prove they're not equally plausible - and there is evidence that at some times in the last million of year , a decrease of CO2 lagged a decrease of temperature. "If you are claiming that rising temperature increases CO2," well please let me know what else could increase CO2 ! and I'm precisely arguing this is relevant to this topics, because you have to disentangle which is the cause of which.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] As I said, if you want to discuss whether temperature is the cause of the post-industrial rise in CO2, or vice versa, please do it elsewhere, it is off-topic here. If you raise this topic again on this thread, the post will be deleted, you have been warned. This is not censorship, you are welcome to discuss it on a more appropriate thread.

    This thread would be particularly appropriate.

  13. Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
    Did any one propose, say, 10 years ago that snowing will increase when the climate warms up?
  14. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    Alec Cowan #125 "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?" Alec my reply was deleted by Moderators. You have to be quick and online to see my replies these days. Offer your own calculation instead of 'baiting' us with your commentary.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] As you well know, comments constructed to adhere to the Comments Policy which are also on-topic are never deleted. In any case, your deleted reply to Alec is here:

    Ken Lambert at 12:29 PM on 16 April 2011

    Alec Cowan #118

    "We're still talking about Earth, aren't we? Please, confirm that and your 255°K. Imagine the surprise of 15 degrees Celsius plus 240 watts per sq. meter becoming 255 degrees Kelvin and then being "remarkably close" to something slightly pertinent to the subject."

    I assume you are taking the mickey here Alec. Respond with something showing some understanding of the numbers or take your 5 year old computer and go home.

  15. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    #104 - Adam My trollometer just went off the scale! Adam, you say: "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." What a world of difference there is between 'exactly parallel' and what Phil Jones actually said: "the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm I find it strange that somebody would state what Phil Jones said, and then proceed to post a proof that he did not say it!
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Unless, like many, Adam doesn't understand what statistical (in-)significance actually means.
  16. Clouds provide negative feedback
    It was suggested I move this discussion to this thread. The numbers show that clouds reflect more energy away then they trap. Given that the albedo has not been decreasing, and if anything has even increased slightly, this is completely inconsistent with clouds operating as a net positive feedback. Here are the numbers on how much incrementally more clouds reflect, according to Trenberth et al 2009: Clouds cover about 2/3rds of the surface, so 341 W/m^2 x 0.67 = 228 W/m^2 average incident on the clouds. 79 W/m^2 divided by 228 W/m^2 = 0.34 average reflectivity of clouds. 1/3rd of the surface is cloudless, so 341 W/m^2 x 0.33 = 113 W/m^2 average incident on the cloudless surface. 23 W/m^2 divided by 113 W/m^2 = 0.20 average reflectivity of the cloudless surface. 0.34 - 0.20 = 0.14. 341 W/m^2 x 0.14 = 48 W/m^2 loss for each additional m^2 of cloud cover. Here are the numbers on how much incrementally more clouds trap: The cloudy sky has a transmittance of 30 W/m^2, and the surface emitted through the cloudy sky is about 265 W/m^2 (396 x 0.67 = 265). 265 W/m^2 - 30 W/m^2 = 235 W/m^2 absorbed by the cloudy sky. The clear sky has a transmittance of 40 W/m^2, and the surface emitted through the clear sky is 131 W/m^2 (396 x 0.33 = 131). 131 W/m^2 - 40 W/m^2 = 91 W/m^2 absorbed by the clear sky. 91 W/m^2 divided by 131 W/m^2 = 0.69; 235 W/m^2 divided by 265 W/m^2 = 0.89. 0.89 - 0.69 = 0.20 difference between the cloudy and clear sky. 0.20 x 396 W/m^2 = 79 W/m^2 additional absorbed for each additional m^2 of cloud cover. If we assume that roughly half of the absorption and re-emission is back toward the surface (Trenberth actually has this being less than half), that comes to about 39 W/m^2, or about 10 W/m^2 less than the 48 W/m^2 reflected away. *If anyone doubts my calculations, I have backed check them by assuming that if half of the absorption is directed up out to space, then the weighted average totals should correspond to a temperature of about 255K. 0.69/2 (absorbed clear sky) + 0.31 passing through the clear sky = 0.66 and 0.89/2 (absorbed cloudy sky) + 0.11 passing through the cloudy sky = 0.55; 0.66 x 0.33 (clear sky) = 0.22 and 0.55 x 0.67 (cloudy sky) = 0.37; 0.22 + 0.37 = 0.59 emitted to space from the surface; 396 W/m^2 x 0.59 = 234 W/m^2 (about 254K), which is pretty close. *The missing 5 W/m^2 is probably due to Trenberth having greater than 50% of the atmospheric absorption being emitted up out to space.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.

  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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?
  29. 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)
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.

  38. 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!
  39. 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!)
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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).
  45. 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!
  46. 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.
  47. 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!

  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. Last day to vote for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    adelady - no, no, it's not 'several', it's 'many'! :-)

Prev  1763  1764  1765  1766  1767  1768  1769  1770  1771  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  1777  1778  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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