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  1802  1803  1804  1805  1806  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  Next

Comments 90451 to 90500:

  1. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Thanks Chrisd3. I'm glad the actual figure was 10 mill, even though 2 mill is still a lot bigger than 31 k... I also see that I made my point above there too in comment 1!
  2. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Perhaps, then, DSL, 'the cool shall rule' by virtue of superior vision?
  3. Arctic Ice March 2011
    DB #25 Adelady #27 I imagine the same graph can be applied to Antarctica in the southern summer. So what does the colour on the graph mean DB? Is there a scale? Does that mean that Antarctica absorbs more heat in the southern summer than the tropics too?? I assume you mean 10N to 10S for the tropics. Adelady - my point is that the amounts of energy absorbed in Arctic ice melt are tiny compared with the purported amounts being absorbed by the Earth system globally.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] The scale is on the graph. Black=zero insolation, white=the most insolation. The Arctic in summer receives more daily energy from the sun, both at the surface and the TOA, than does the equator (Antarctic altitude and albedo effects there lessen the impact of its summer insolation surplus):

  4. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    it's not a new kind of maths : you just mixed up GtC (of carbon) (actually I should have written Gtoe) and GtCO2 (of carbon dioxide). There is a factor three between them 14 g CH2 -> 44 g CO2. You may be surprised by the result, but it is just due to the forgotten fact that most SRES scenario assume much more than the proved reserves for at least one of the FF - sticking to proved reserves doesn't produce that much CO2.
  5. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I would, KR, but if the light is coming from a cooler object, I won't be able to see the contribution.
  6. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    DB - I understand the moderation role, not a problem. I would encourage everyone to form their own opinions of each poster's contributions in light of their content, and act accordingly.
  7. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    A bit of summary here, then. I'll put it in the form of a proof for clarity. - Individual photons have energies, but these do not represent the temperatures of the objects that emitted them. You can say what objects could not have emitted that photon based on temperature, but not which one has. - Absorption of a photon by an object (warmer or colder than the emitting object) has a likelyhood based upon the absorption spectra and the energy of the individual photon; not the temperature of the emitting object. - The Earth's surface has an emissivity and absorptivity of ~0.98 in the IR spectra, so 98% of those photons impinging will be absorbed. - 98% of surface impinging atmospheric thermal radiation (aka "backradiation") will be absorbed by the Earth, as per the Earth absorptivity and atmospheric emissivity spectras. - Each photon absorbed, by the first law of thermodynamics, adds to the internal energy and hence temperature of the absorbing object. - The emitting mass of the atmosphere (due to the lapse rate) is colder than the Earth's surface. - Hence a colder object raises the temperature of a warmer object by it's presence. - Therefore: The assertion by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that a cooler object heating a warmer object violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics is categorically false. Q.E.D - Quod erat demonstrandum. --- I don't think that I need to say anything more on this topic. Adieu.
  8. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    @Nick Palmer #13
    I also think that the results that someone came up with that over two million US citizens (qualified by the OISM's terms) could have signed the OISM (but didn't!) should be far more widely trumpeted.
    That was right here on SkS, and the number was actually over 10 million: http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
  9. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel - I think you've been called out; "By thine own words shalt thou be condemned." To wit: "We are all familiar with the Planck spectrum, the amplitude of which is a function of the temperature, But taking one photon (with energy a function of frequency), or even one spectral component, does not represent the entire spectrum thus the temperature is not defined. Although a single photon has energy it does not have a temperature." - damorbel @70, this thread, 24/11/10 (thanks for pointing this out, muoncounter) versus: "But there is no need to have a certain number of particles to make a sample, so one particle with the same energy as the average energy of all the particles also has the same temperature as the whole sample." - damorbel @892, this thread, 31/3/11 Reductio ad absurdum - by contradiction you have disproven your own arguments. You are a troll - willing to say anything, even contradict yourself, in order to prolong an argument. Nothing you have written can be taken seriously, as you are not engaged in a scientific discussion. I have no idea as to your motivations. Perhaps you just like to argue - in that case I consider you a ( -snip- ). Perhaps you are arguing points you don't believe in for ideological reasons - in that case I consider you an ( -snip- ). Or perhaps you do this because it's your job? I'm familiar with that last case; my brother spent years as a denialist of second hand smoke dangers for a major tobacco company. In that case I would ask you the question I asked him - "How much does a soul go for these days?" Overall, I'm disgusted. Everyone - I would encourage you to consider this demonstrated behavior when evaluating anything that damorbel writes, whether here, or on his multiple attempts to redefine the Wiki page on thermodynamics.
    Moderator Response: [DB] I completely agree with you, word for word, but I have a role to fulfill. Sorry for the snips.
  10. Temp record is unreliable
    160 cloa513- both links work for me - and the 2nd is full of links to data sources as you asked for. Maybe you should try another browser or check your computer for malware?
  11. Temp record is unreliable
    scaddenp I did look at your links- first one is faulty. The second is a bunch of lame excuses
    Moderator Response: [DB] Both links work quite well. If you have issues with discussing climate science, using the scientific method with the intended goal of gaining greater understanding of the science, then perhaps Skeptical Science is not the best place for you.
  12. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    Gilles, is this some kind of new math? "giving 2 000 Gt of CO2. Given that the current production of 10 GtC/yr produce approximately +2 ppm/yr, this will eventually increase the CO2 concentration up to 540 ppm" 2,000 Gt CO2 / 10 Gt/yr = 200 years * 2 ppm/yr = 400 ppm + 390 current ppm = 790 eventual ppm, not 540 ppm. Mind you, I haven't checked if any of these figures are correct... I'm just noting that the basic mathematics don't pan out the way you say.
  13. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    so if we burn 400 Gt of coal, and may be 150 Gt of oil and 150 Gt of gas, we will burn approximately 700 Gt of C, giving 2 000 Gt of CO2. Given that the current production of 10 GtC/yr produce approximately +2 ppm/yr, this will eventually increase the CO2 concentration up to 540 ppm - you can do more sophisticated absorption models but that's the right order of magnitude. If we assume that it would be very difficult to keep the total concentration below 450 ppm, the difference between 540 and 450 ppm is S * ln(540/450)/ln(2) = 0.3 S where S is the sensitivity - actually that holds for the equilibrium temperature and not transient response. Note that if the production is decreasing, absorption will become larger than production and after some time, CO2 will also decrease (Bern absorption model predicts only 20 % CO2 staying permanently in the atmosphere). So taking into account this uncertainties, I would say that if we burn 400 Gt of coal, the difference with the best scenario and this one would be around 0.5 °C in 2100, plus or minus the usual uncertainty. I won't certainly kill myself for that.
  14. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    With regards to creating a resource for poor climate science and/or unreasonable contrarian positions espoused or propagated by journalists, Deltoid over at ScienceBlogs has long been chronicling the misbehaviour of the Australian newspaper The Australian.
  15. Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
    h pierce, The experiment was well designed and meaningful. The results are therefore meaningful and should be taken as a warning that we are destabilizing too many things at once through our callous actions, and in a very dangerous way that is going to come back to haunt future generations.
  16. john mfrilett at 22:41 PM on 31 March 2011
    Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Thank you for another terrific resource to counter mythical climate arguments. Skeptical Science might consider posting the links to politicians supporting evidence based climate policy (are there any?)in response to anti science/education politicians. These climate myths espoused by anti science/education politicians often occurs in the political arena therefore should be answered by other politicians supporting evidence based policy. The former need support and publicity from sources such as Skeptical Science. The denier journalists and politicians already get far to much attention. It is all well and good that scientists step up to the plate but that isn't enough. There needs to be confident well informed politicians to counter the myths of climate change. Is Obama up to the task?
  17. Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
    H Pierce - In the real ocean any decline in the pH will occur very slowly Nope, that's wrong too. The mean ocean pH can only change slowly as new carbon is to the global inventory, however on local scales there can be large fluctuations as dissolved inorganic carbon is "shuffled" about the ocean. A classic case is the equatorial Eastern Pacific (west coast of the Americas) where the La Nina/El Nino phenomenon occurs. In a La Nina phase, plumes of cold water with high levels of dissolved CO2 reach the surface ocean from down deep. When they do, surface pH can fall dramatically. It's why coral reefs in the area are so poorly developed, patchy in coverage, weakly cemented and prone to high rates of bio-erosion. A useful way of thinking about it, is to liken it to the mean global surface temperature. That doesn't change much, but on local scales, and in short time-frames, there can be significant fluctuations. All marine life have the ability to adapt to fluctuations in ocean pH, and tolerance thresholds will of course vary , but if they couldn't they simply wouldn't survive. It's when the ocean pH falls and stays that way, that problems arise.
  18. Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
    BP #25: "All the decrease happened in two distinct steps, one in 1982-85 the other in 1991-94." This statement is simply false. Using the UAH data we get; 1981 was 0.3603 C cooler than 1978 (0.090 C/year) 1985 was 0.4431 C cooler than 1981 (0.089 C/year) 1994 was 0.1550 C cooler than 1985 (0.016 C/year) 2008 was 0.1763 C cooler than 1994 (0.012 C/year) Those numbers would indicate that roughly 55% of the total cooling took place during the years you identified... rather than the 100% ("All the decrease") you claimed. This shows fairly clearly that greenhouse cooling was ongoing before, during, and after the spikes caused by the volcanic eruptions. Of course, the longer term data supplied by Albatross makes that point even more clearly, but I thought it was noteworthy that the original argument was demonstrably false even using the data it was supposedly based upon.
  19. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Re Rohrbacher: I've posted this point several times to various "pro AGW" sites, including this one but nobody seems to have appreciated it yet. Basically, the OISM petition is worded so that even Hansen or Schmidt could just about sign up to it legitimately (certainly the second paragraph). The operative "sleight of hand" is that the OISM gets one to sign that human release of green house gases "is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic global warming". As we should know, the science is not *certain", just extremely probable but the OISM uses the terms "is" or "will" as an implication that climate science has made an absolute declaration and tens of thousands have blown the whistle on that. Rhetorically, those behind the OISM are implying that because even a legit climatologist could sign (because the scientist knows the science isn't 100% certain) that the 31,000 signers are disputing that there is any "convincing scientific evidence" at all Text from the second paragraph of the OISM: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." I also think that the results that someone came up with that over two million US citizens (qualified by the OISM's terms) could have signed the OISM (but didn't!) should be far more widely trumpeted
  20. alan_marshall at 22:01 PM on 31 March 2011
    Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Should We Include Journalists? In Australia, they are the worst peddlers of misinformation. Would it be useful to include them in the database? For example, the ABC program Media Watch, which monitors the quality and accuracy of broadcasting in Australia, recently took to task Sydney radio talk-back host Alan Jones for the following comment: Nature produces nearly all of the carbon dioxide in the air. Human beings produce point 001 percent of the carbon dioxide in the air... It is not as if this was just a passing ignorant comment. It is part of an orchestrated political campaign by Jones against the government’s proposed carbon tax. On such an important reform, people in the media are entitled to express their opinions, but they are not entitled to mislead the public with blatant falsehoods. The organisation Getup has launched proceedings with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), demanding Jones correct his statements. I also pass on the following comment made by a visitor to the Media Watch site: .... anyone can make a complaint under the ACMA commercial radio code of practice directly to the radio station involved. You should find a web form or similar for complaints on each radio station's website. The station is obliged to respond to you within 60 days. If they do not, or if you are not satisfied with the response, you can then complain directly to ACMA. For those of you stateside who enjoy the impartiality of Fox News, the same media baron owns “The Australian” and other newspapers in Australia. They like to regularly publish articles by Bjorn Lomborg. Prominent skeptic journalists with these newspapers who deserve scrutiny include Pies Ackerman, Christopher Pearson and Andrew Bolt.
  21. Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
    H Pierce @ 18 - Carbonic acid is a weak acid and produces little H ions in water at 20 deg C So how do you think the pH of the global oceans is falling?. What's causing all those hydrogen ions to disassociate from seawater?. Just wondering, because thus far you haven't made much sense. Also only about 1% of the dissolved CO2 is converted to carbonic acid. Carbonic acid & dissolved CO2 make up less than 1% of dissolved inorganic carbon in the ocean. If you are suggesting that carbonic acid itself is what ocean acidification is about, then sorry that's just a fallacy. The oceans are becoming more "acidic" because the concentration of hydrogen ions are increasing, and because it's an inverse logarithmic scale, pH falls. Bicarbonate releases very little H ions See my comment at @15 which accompanies the graphic. You have that back-to-front, the excess hydrogen ions combine with carbonate ions to form bicarbonate. This carbonate buffering process is what causes problems for calcifying marine life, because it reduces the carbonate "building block" which many marine organisms use to build their shells/skeletons. For any interested readers I refer you to Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide - The Royal Society 2005. Click on the pdf on the top right-hand corner. It thoroughly covers the subject, without being incomprehensible.
  22. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    MidwestHES, yeah the 'Alabama pi' thing was a spoof on congressional Republican efforts to legislate that global warming doesn't exist. BTW, Alan's aside about citing 'journalists' who spread these myths might not be a bad idea either. Of course, if you went as far as including blogs among the 'journalists' you might have more material than you could handle.
  23. Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
    Paul at 17 I was trying to keep it simple. Although the ocean floor and beaches are littered with shells, I recall that shells contain small amounts of calcium silicate that acts as cement to give them strength and a more compact structure. Thus the shells don't release carbonate easily. Unless they are ground to micro bits by pounding surf from a big storm. Another objection to the experiments is that poor little larva were given "pH shock treatment". In the real ocean any decline in the pH will occur very slowly. It is quite possible the species will adapt overtime to the new conditions.
  24. alan_marshall at 21:25 PM on 31 March 2011
    Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Dana, John Congratulations on setting up this very useful tool. I have long toyed with the idea of setting up a “rogues gallery” that profiled people in public life (politicians, journalists, etc.) who are climate change deniers. The idea was to shame them over time as the increasing impact of climate change forced them to eat their words. But I realised that many of these “rogues” were actually decent people who just had climate change “blind spot”. I decided that belittling them in itself did not advance the public debate. Your approach however, targets the words rather than the man. In rebutting their specific statements, it serves the public good and has my full support. I endorse Chemware’s list of quotes by Australian politicians, and will be adding a few more names myself. Photos of Australian politicians can be found at www.aph.gov.au. Is it necessary to restrict ourselves to current politicians? If former politicians, such as George Bush, have in the past made misleading statements, and have not since corrected them, are they fair game?
  25. Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
    Rob at 15 and 16 Equation 2. Carbonic acid is a weak acid and produces little H ions in water at 20 deg C, ca 0.0001 moles per liter . Also only about 1% of the dissolved CO2 is converted to carbonic acid. Equation 3 Bicarbonate releases very little H ions. The second ionization constant is 4.9 x 10 exp-11 for K2=(H)(CO3)/(HCO3) The diagram is misleading. It I were doing the experiment, I would have added a bed of clean marble rocks and quartz sand.
  26. Bart Verheggen at 20:32 PM on 31 March 2011
    Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
    Chris, Could you elaborate on the "status" of this thermostat hypothesis, in comparison with competing hypotheses (of which you metnion the organic CO2 burial and uplifting)? I'm thinking of a "consilience of evidence" style argument: How strongly are the different hypotheses supported by the combined evidence? and in relation to that, how would you characterize the disagreement about these hypotheses amongst experts? I'm trying to get a feel of how strong the evidence and, as a consequence, the consensus is about this topic.
  27. Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
    @ H Pierce the situation is a little more complicated with seawater than what you have modelled with your simple experiments with CaCo3. There is other buffers at work in sea water. Sulphates, borates and organics from life. The experience of aquarium keepers with salt water is that attempts to buffer sea water aquariums with ground up shells is that this is not workable as the pKa shifts from about 8.1 to 7.6 with simple addition of CaCO3 powder over shorter and shorter periods. In short adding base but shifting the kPa to lower values is counter productive. A commercial buffer is used with a properly mixed set of buffers at about 8.1 pKa is long term workable.
  28. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    884 KR " The "2nd law" objection to the greenhouse effect is based upon a mistaken notion.." I don't disagree with you. However I'd like to suggest there is another problem. In the post, the statement of the 2nd law has missed out the phrase: "whose sole result". This is a statement that the 2nd law only applies to a closed system. For practical purposes, the system which consists of: the sun, outer space, the solid earth and the earths atmosphere is not a closed system. Outer space is, for practical purposes, an infinite sink. The sun is, again for practical purposes, an infinite source of energy. No one can deny that energy from the sun reaches the surface of the earth - at least, nor that radiated energy which isn't reabsorbed somewhere leaves the system... This is implicit in the text - body heat is in effect a source of energy external to the heat exchange system which is moderated with blankets. So long as some source continues to pump out energy irrespective of the destination of that energy, we're free to build an engine which uses that energy to, for example, concentrate it up to any temperature we can manage. How that engine works (photons, gases, cogs, whatever) is immaterial - the beauty of things like the statistical and termodynmaies is that they are defined for an abstract engine, which applies to all real engines...
  29. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    I'd settle for the number of 900 Gt of proven reserves for 2010. That seems pretty well aligned with the assumptions of SRES, but comes from IEA and is pretty much same no. as WCA.
  30. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Adelady, geothermal does appear to have a lot of potential however, like large scale energy storage it hasn't gotten serious attention. The reality is that Australia is still investing in coal fired power plants and, at best, the Carbon Tax looks intended to encourage a longer term shift to investment in Gas powered plants - which may be able to reach the early, low, easy to reach emissions targets but can't deliver the longer term reductions. Presumably the claim that it can be backup to renewables will justify ongoing construction but when built, operators will probably (on the basis of 'fair competition', jobs and profitablity), resist the kind of intermittent operation that would entail. Carbon Capture and Sequestration has got the lion's share of R&D funding in Australia and has provided a way to justify the ongoing government support for fossil fuels; current projections of future emissions reductions are almost entirely based on optimistic predictions of low cost CCS being taken up widely. Anyone looking to Australia for solutions and inspiration is going to be disappointed.
  31. Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
    H Pierce - They medium was not properly buffered. They should have added some ground up sea shells or dolomite lime. Altering the pH of the seawater kinda defeats the purpose don't you think?.
  32. Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
    Albatross & Sphaerica - H Pierce is confused when he refers to the "Ocean buffer system" The carbonate buffer typically referred to, are the chemical reactions which take place to inhibit the change in pH. For instance see the diagram below: I've yet to find a graphic which adequately describes the process, but bear with me: Equation 2 Carbonic acid easily breaks down releasing excess hydrogen ions and drives the pH of seawater down (pH being a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions. More hydrogen ions = lower pH ). Equation 3 Here's where the buffering part kicks in, some of the excess hydrogen ions combine with carbonate ions to form bicarbonate ions. This last step serves to buffer the acidification because it reduces the concentration of hydrogen ions. So without this last reaction, the pH would be lower. He seems to be referring to geological processes which increase alkalinity (often balancing out volcanic CO2 output) which takes place over the timescale of tens of thousands of years.
  33. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    With regard to my previous post... I believe I called the Alabama "pi" fiasco a little too soon. Upon further research, I have concluded that the article, and subsequent rewrites were in fact satire...but indeed brilliantly written. The instance I was trying to find in the first place happened in Indiana in 1897. The original piece, with "disclaimer" at top is linked below...not real, but all too funny! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-squires/republicans-introduce-leg_b_837828.html My apologies!
  34. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    For the Netherlands you can add lots of politicians to the database. I commented upon the statement "we can not rely on scientists who don't speak the truth" once made by Jacqueline Cramer in my blog: here The bad thing is, Jacqueline Cramer is from labour and from that part in the political spectrum you would expect support for climate polities. Climategate left a lot of damage, and in this case some politicians (such as Jacqueline Cramer but also RIchard Mos) simply repeat that the IPCC is lying, to put it bluntly. So where does this fit in the arguments database, perhaps that temperature records are inaccurate and that tree-ring proxy temperature series were manipulated?
  35. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    @Pete Did you know that the state of South Dakota even cited that Oregon Petition Project nonsense in recent legislation...essentially making it clear that the state is officially an AGC denier. Check it out... http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926 It reminds me of the politician that, years ago, tried to pass legislation making "pi" exactly 3. LOL...get this...I was thinking it was back in the 70's...or earlier maybe. When I just tried to look it up to quote facts, I found that the issue has been raised AGAIN...This time in Alabama...LAST WEEK!!!! MADNESS!!!!!
  36. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    what are the known coal reserves following you ?
  37. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    If you're going to tackle some of the locals please don't forget Abbott's latest 'interpretation' of Tim Flannery; "It will not make a difference for 1000 years"!
  38. Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
    I just crushed chalk into water and shoke the mixture vigorously for ca 1 minute. After the solid chalk had settled, I then measured the pH of the supernatant with a Macherey-Nagel (Product No 92110) pH indicator strip. The pH was 8.
  39. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    These are not scientific statements - they are PR sound bytes designed to influence opinions. It is very civil of you to regard this as a scientific debate, but it takes place in the political arena, the rules are political - not scientific. To see the abuse of discourse in our democracy seems pitiful and pathetic. This form of political assassination of science is immoral. These are deliberate deceptions and misdirections demanded by carbon fuel constituencies.
  40. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    It just amazes me that the Oregon Petition is still being used as a talking point. The signatories I know (not one of them could be called a "scientist") signed for selfish reasons. They knew that the Kyoto accord could be the beginning of CO2 abatement rules and regulations, and that such regulations could put a damper on their own personal line of business, and therefore would impact their personal wealth. They received the survey from inside of a trade journal targeting engineers that design/build new construction. Why don't they put together a demonstratively accurate petition/survey, instead of this sort of haphazard shotgun attempt? Could it be that they wouldn't like the results? Or maybe its because they aren't interested in truth, but only in building up a talking point, in which case they have achieved 100% of their goals already? It seems that after the Kyoto accord fizzled, the petition took on a life of its own and (apparently) is going to live forever! As a side-bar, one of the authors of this petition, Art Robinson, ran for congress recently http://www.artrobinsonforcongress.com/ and even WUWT gave him some free exposure. He made a pretty good run against a popular Democrat incumbent, but lost by a relatively small margin. More recently though he's been making political waves by claiming that Oregon State University is treating his children unfairly because of his personal political views. In less than 24 hours WUWT posted his story to trump up the suggestion that another climate denialist is being unfairly persecuted. So far however, no one has been able to uncover an ounce of facts to support Art's story. Some people are now of the opinion that Art has gone off the deep end.
  41. Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
    H Pierce @ 9 - The buffer system of the ocean contains soluble bicarbonate and insoluble calcium and magnesium carbonates. As long the insoluble carbonates are present, the pH can not fall ca 8. This is nonsense. Do you want to try again explaining what you mean?.
  42. Philippe Chantreau at 15:16 PM on 31 March 2011
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    muoncounter at 909. I disagree. It can also be just double talk, or talk adapted to the need of the moment when conducting an argument with no other function than sowing confusion. Or could it simply be that Damorbel's own confusion is so thorough by now that he is completely lost in the whole thing?
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Doublethink includes the ability "to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed."
  43. Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
    Albatross at 11 Ocean Buffer System Formation of Carbonic Acid CO2 + H2O---->H2CO3 Neutralization of Carbonic Acid H2CO3 + CaCO3--->Ca2(HCO3) Dolomite is a mixture of calcuim and magnesium carbonates and is used to "sweeten" soil. A solution of freshly-preparded NaHCO3 has a pH of ca 8. A soluble bicarbonate is unstable and decomposes to carbonate.The pH increases to ca 10.
  44. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Umm, the button is not that snazzy :-) BTW, should give credit to everyone who added quotes to the database, including Dana who did the lionshare of the effort.
    Response: [dana1981] it is too snazzy!
  45. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Chemware, technically, Steve Fielding is right: the science on both sides of the debate isn't conclusive. Remember that "conclusive" is defined as evidence that serves to prove a case, is convincing or decisive. The truth of the above statement is readily apparent when you look at the science. The science that says global warming is real, and that humans are very highly likely the cause, definitely is conclusive. However, the science that says it's not real, and/or that even if it is humans aren't the cause - well, that's most definitely not conclusive... So, you see, Senator Fielding was right when he said the science on both sides of the debate isn't conclusive... [ducks]
  46. Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
    @2 Berényi Péter: "Not necessarily. It depends on how hard posterity is willing to work." @3 Bern: "Given the warnings given by scientists about problems a century hence due to global warming, and the marked lack of action by world governments, I hold grave doubts that they'd work to prevent a problem a few hundred million centuries down the track. :-P No, the "world governments" of today aren't going to be in a position to do anything a thousand years from now. More importantly, if Humanity survives, it will be a different species alltogether. A species lacking in the genetically predisposed behaviors of Dominance/Submission; the hierarchical societies that it creates; and psychopathology; is the only type of Humanity that can survive. So it's either a radically different Humanity (behaviorally speaking) that will inherit the future or none at all. A lot of things will be possible for that kind of Humanity, including relocation of Venus/Mercury and Earth/Moon. A terraformed Mercury would make a nice satellite for a terraformed Venus.
  47. Temp record is unreliable
    And as we have repeatedly told you, temperature record is not about mean data temperature. This is a strawman argument. Didnt you even read the links we gave you? I youtube lecture is not a citation.
  48. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    How about adding a few local ones:
    Response: [John] We very likely will be releasing a collection of Australian politician quotes also. We've already started collecting some so thanks for these links.
  49. Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
    Daniel, Thanks-- you rock!
    Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks, but you did the hard part (finding scientific evidence to trump speculation).
  50. Glenn Tamblyn at 13:40 PM on 31 March 2011
    Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
    BP @2 Interesting concept and totally possible with only a moderate development of our space travel capability. The key sticking point is not technical but psychological. At present our human psychological development has not progressed to the point where we could consider such a long term project. Millions of years from now I surely hope we have developed to that point. Perhaps our response to AGW is one of the first tests of that, the first hurdle. Can we bring enough emotional maturity and dispassion to our thinking on this, as a species, to solve the problem? Watch this space...

Prev  1802  1803  1804  1805  1806  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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