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  1852  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  1862  1863  1864  1865  1866  1867  Next

Comments 92951 to 93000:

  1. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gary Thompson: "Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office." I don't think you have thought that through.
  2. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    What a can of worms this post has opened. I disagree with too many peoples responces to select and resond to particular posts. So, instead I will lay out what I believe briefly, and very briefly why. First, democracy is not "the worst form of government except for all the others". It is not because it is inefficient, or that it places a barrier against the untramelled action of the exucutive that it is desirable. These virtues (the first dubious, the second very desirable) can be achieved by other forms of government; and espousing these virtues as the reason for democracy inevitably leads to the corruption of democracy. Rather, democracy is desirable as government because it alone of all governments reflects the equal moral worth of all people by giving all people an equal say in the governance of their nation. Because that is the reason for democracy, the duty of a representative in parliament is not to "reflect the informed opinion of the public", or "to listen to the experts", or to "vote in the interests of their electorate". It is to reflect the actual opinions of the electorate. They can do this by always keeping their promises to the electorate, and by making their views on all matters clear to the electorate so that when they are stepping outside the realm of promises, they can have reasonable confidence that their informed opinions reflect those of the electorate. So, sad as it is, and as much as I dislike these alternatives, Republicans who campaigned on a platform of opposition to effective measures against AGW should vote against such measures until they are next up for election. And Julia Guilard in Australia should not vote for a carbon tax until after the next election. And yes, this will result in Republicans indulging in the absurdity of voting against the laws of physics. Of course, leaving it there would be a very shallow analysis. If a representative hides behind the will of the people for their voting record, then they are under an obligation to ensure the will of the people is reflected in parliaments. That means that first, and above all, nobody but citizens should be given the constitutional means to influence government, either by donations, or by access in meetings (except as necessary to carry on the foreign affairs of the nation). And no individual citizen should be given privileged access. So if a Republican votes against measures to counter AGW because it is the will of the people, but accepts anything but small donations from citizens in their electorate, then their reliance on a principle of democracy to justify their actions is a sham. Likewise, if they do not take every effort to accurately educate their electorate, and rigourously prosecute deliberate attempts at misinformation, their commitment to democracy is a sham. A person who want the uninformed consent of another is treating that other as less than a rational agent. They desire not the consent, but merely the appearance of consent. So, what realists about AGW shoud be doing is demanding that their political allies be real friends of democracy, by supporting campaign funding reform, including restricting the right to political advertisement to named citizens only. They should be legislating a strong expectation of truthfulness by media, and by witnesses to Congress (or Parliament). They should be abiding by those standards themselve, and fiercely exposing the frauds of those opposed to action on AGW, both in the science and in their political posturing. But they should never commend to anyone that they break a promise to the electorate. And nor should they try to set up governance by experts in which the primary duty of representatives is to by guided by a select group of experts. After all, the history of George W Bush's administration shows that you will not get to choose who the experts are. And seeking to establish governance by experts will just alienate the citizens of the nation.
  3. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Also, nofreewind, to put the previous post into perspective-coal makes up only 23% of total energy demand across all sectors, natural gas makes up 24% of total energy demand-across all sectors, nuclear power makes up around 8% (electricity sector only-obviously), with the remainder being supplied by renewable energy (around 7%). So, in fact, oil makes up the single *biggest* source of energy demand in the United States, by a significant margin, when you consider the entire economy-not just the electricity generation sector-which accounts for less than half of all demand for energy in the US. So it seems yours was yet another improperly researched rant.
  4. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Its you who needs to check your facts nofreewind. Petroleum might be used for only 1% of electricity production-but it makes up around 39% of *total* energy demand-across the transportation (28% of total energy demand-of which 95% is supplied by petroleum), industrial (21%, of which 42% is supplied by petroleum), residential & commercial (11%, of which 16% is supplied by petroleum) & electric power (40%, of which 1% is supplied by petroleum productions) sectors. Given that 15 *million* barrels per day of the oil needed to supply those energy demands come from *outside* the United States, I'd say the good Senator knows far more about what he is talking about than you do. Still, nofreewind, I've come to expect nothing but unfounded propaganda from you-& I see you've not changed. Nor has your penchant for cherry-picking of climate data to suit your own propaganda. For the record, in spite of your cherry picking efforts, both the HadCru & UAH data actually show a modest *warming* trend (+0.0013 degrees per year for HadCru & +0.0072 degrees per year for UAH). Seriously, mate, you really ought to double check the data before you post-or you just end up with some serious egg on your face!
  5. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Democracy should work by reflecting the informed opinion of the public. This opinion can be quite different from the uninformed opinion of public. A forceful example of this was presented to me on UK TV many years ago when there was a considerable difference between public and political opinion on the death penalty (public were more pro than politicians) The TV show took a representative sample of the population and subjected them to expert testimony and lobby groups from both sides of the argument. The result - the sample opinion shifted and agreed closely with the political opinion. This rather uplifting story illustrates some key points; 1. In many ways politicians are there to do our thinking for the people they represent. We cannot hope to be experts in all areas of public policy. 2. Political representatives should be willing to be influenced by expert testimony and to even change their opinion based on new knowledge 3. The fact that political and public opinion differs does not necassarily represent a failure of democracy. It could reflect a badly informed public
  6. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    This post was full of quotes by Senator Markey. Funny you should mention him, because here i am still seething from watching him on MSNBC Friday evening. This Senator is on the Committee on Natural Resources and also Energy & Commerce. He emphatically states we need to use wind/solar to get off foreign oil, yet oil is only used to produce 1% of US electricity, much of it for peaking units to respond to summertime heat waves. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html This is the state we find ourselves in. He was the cosponsor of the Waxman Markey Cap n Trade bill, yet he doesn't even understand the very very basic facts or electricity production. Or, more likely, he knows the facts. This man has absolutely no credibility to make any statements regarding energy or climate policy. Waiting for Global Warming, of course Climate Change is already here. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998
  7. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    garythompson if your 'theory' on the American 'psyche' is correct- or that of Missouri, and we wait for the 'show me' for climate change to become a problem 'seen' it will be long out of control, too late for us to do anything. We will reach that point as C02 crosses 400ppm in a few years, where avoiding serious climate change will not be possible.
  8. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    1 Quick problem. it is an ex ENRON and Goldman Sachs profit scheme that doesn't even change the outcome other then spreading poverty more. Personally, I thought "Cool It" was realistic vision of how to best tackle Global Warming while allowing the #1 killer called poverty to not get worse. The only advantage of cap and trade I see from a devious perspective, not my perspective, is spreading the #1 killer to reduce population and people contributing to carbon emissions. Alternative energy is great, but all we are getting out of Washington is lip service and politicians throwing money at their pet projects that also fund their campaigns (GE), while ignoring what other competitors are out their.
  9. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    "I just remind you that the consequences of droughts, the number of wars, and the famines are STRONGLY INVERSELY CORRELATED with the use of fossil fuels, as any scientific data would show you." So you keep claiming Gilles, yet you've actually failed to provide a single shred of scientific data to back your claim. In fact, its been my experience that the things which alleviate famine & poverty the best are-improved education, more even distribution of wealth, access to contraception & improved health care (which doesn't need to be heavily energy dependent). Energy plays a role, of course, but doesn't actually have to be in fossil fuel form-as Iceland proves quite nicely. Also, a graph by the International Energy Agency (which I currently can't find the link for) shows very little correlation between energy use per capita & per capita GDP. Last of all, Gilles, the EU-27 countries achieved around a 15% reduction in total energy consumption-across all sectors of the economy (industrial, commercial, domestic & transport)-without any detriment to GDP growth. Of course, these same EU-27 countries have also significantly reduced their consumption of electricity from fossil fuels. So, come on Gilles, where is this "mountain of evidence" proving that fossil fuel consumption automatically translates into freedom from poverty.
  10. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    It would be a smart move to the US to shift off fossil fuels for three reasons: - geopolitical, to limit its dependance from imported fuel, from pollitically unstable countries (financing undemocratic regimes on its way) - economic, as the clean technologies will be commercially important on the next decades. - environmental, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, the US policy is being held hostage of lobbyists (voters are secondary here). Maybe that's an important vulnerability that democracy should work to overcome.
  11. hengistmcstone at 21:24 PM on 13 March 2011
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    What's the difference between gross CO2 emissions and net CO2 emissions?
    Moderator Response: [DB] Traditionally, gross emissions are thought of as the total worldwide emissions of the natural carbon cycle plus the injection of the extra CO2 emissions mankind additionally adds into it, while net emissions are total CO2 emissions (natural+manmade) minus the CO2 taken back up by natural sinks. Currently, natural sinks manage to take up about half of the extra manmade CO2 emissions; the result is the net increase reflected in the Keeling Curve database maintained by the Mauna Loa research station. We are currently about 40% higher CO2 concentration levels than at any point in the past 800,000 years (the last time CO2 levels were this high the world was a much warmer place with sea levels about 20-25 meters higher).
  12. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Seems to me that if this post was a comment it would violate the comments policy. I refer people to Skeptical Science and I read it myself for coherent, sensible, and accurate information about the science of climate as it's currently understood. US politics is a quagmire, but surely that doesn't mean it can suck down every decent climate site on the Web. Please no more political posts. Save them for sites where the argument is about the politics of climate; there's no shortage of those.
  13. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    MattJ : "We have already delayed so long that large parts of the world will be afflicted by such severe drought, wars and famines will follow and decimate the population. " you forgot the earthquakes... I just remind you that the consequences of droughts, the number of wars, and the famines are STRONGLY INVERSELY CORRELATED with the use of fossil fuels, as any scientific data would show you.
  14. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    @garythomson- Your idealized picture of the American personality is quite false. Why, now I have to play the part of the man from Missouri and ask YOu for the evidence for your stance: don't tell me, show me that such is the attitude of the majority of Americans. I have to believe it is not, since in both recent elections, they showed a lamentable tendency to do the very opposite, believe what is groundless and false instead. And they routinely do this in many other ways in their lives, too. Advertising relies on it! For that matter, and even more pertinent to this forum, you are the one making false and groundless claims concerning AGW, not Hansen et al. In fact, as has been pointed out very often now in this forum, it -was- Hansen who made the predictable and verifiable claim that global average surface temperature would continue to rise if we continued to pump CO2 into the atmosphere. And his scenario B -has- been verified. The case is -already- ironclad, yet here you are pretending it is not, and demanding more evidence! The time for debate is long over. Billions of dollars will be lost and millions of lives lost, with billions ruined because of the tragic delay people like you are so stubbornly insisting on. We have already delayed so long that large parts of the world will be afflicted by such severe drought, wars and famines will follow and decimate the population. But by the time we convince you and your ilk, it will be too late to prevent yet more deaths.
  15. The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
    Hi all, I am posting in support of Agnostic@47. I recommend rereading that post rather than this. This is just a footnote. We are all aware that the surface Arctic Sea Ice is disappearing. As the surface sea ice disappears, the heat accumulating in the ocean has to do something. It is quite likely to begin to melt the seabed. This is composed of sea water that has frozen in the presence of an abundance of methane. When it freezes, it the water traps the methane in a chemical lattice. This substance is called a methane clathrate. When surface sea ice melts, 1 litre of frozen water (ice) becomes one litre of liquid water. This matters in various ways that are discussed all over the net... When the frozen seabed melts, 1 litre of frozen seabed releases 0.8 litres of liquid water, and 168 litres of methane. For "litre" substitute "cubic kilometre" in the sentence above, and you are then staring at the scale of this problem. I should note that, b-----r the greenhouse effect of methane. It is a poisonous gas, and explosive. Furthermore, if the East Siberian shelf does begin to melt, it is very possible that there are very very large, very shallow deposits of gaseous methane which have been capped for some millenia by the solid methane clathrates above them. Should any one of these gas fields collapse, and vent into the atmosphere then: 1. there would be some danger of the atmosphere becoming anoxic for the purposes of mammalian respiration; 2. there would be a near certainty of an Arctic ocean tsunami, which would be highly likely to cause much more extensive damage to the sea bed... For any Republicans on here who are now delighted to learn that their vehicles will shortly be working better due to a greater level of methane in the atmosphere, I should perhaps point out that the infernal combustion engine also requires an abundant intake of oxygen to work at maximum efficiency...
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Welcome to Skeptical Science. Your contributions to the dialogue at Neven's are appreciated and will be a welcome addition here. I must add some qualifiers and cautions to your observations: while what you point out would seem to be an obvious possibility, the probability is highly uncertain. Further research and monitoring is needed. But the fact that what you point out cannot be dismissed out of hand is a both sobering and cautionary tale to all.
  16. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    As the article says, "Nevertheless, the mere existence of the bill is an ominous sign of the Republican war on climate science, in which they believe they can overturn scientific evidence based on nothing more than the ignorant opinions of a few politicians." Unfortunately, this blatantly anti-science attitude has long lurked in the Republican Party, and has now become fossilized in it thanks to the Bush Administration. This was, after all, the administration that made political interference in government and government sponsored science the norm.
  17. CO2 limits will harm the economy
    I have a question. Some developed countries like Iceland or Japan are almost devoid of fossil resources (mainly volcanic countries whose ground is too young to contain sedimentary rocks). Obviously, barring any CO2 effect, this would be very interesting for them to develop without using FF. there is no interest in using them if they can make it without them, they're expensive to import : and actually they did it when they could ! Iceland has a lot of renewable electricity (hydraulic and geothermal) and is also mainly heated by geothermal sources. BUT..but... they still use plenty of FF for the rest and they produce as much (or more ) CO2 per capita than comparable countries. So if it were so easy to suppress the use of FF, why didn't they do it a long time ago ? maybe the brilliant engineers of MIT should explain them how dumb they are and give them access to their marvelous solutions ?
  18. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    I have an entire list of things that Republicans are against, and "ideas" is at the top. Republicans are conservatives and they don't like "ideas." Anything that shakes their system of Judeo-Christian beliefs and values is anathema to them. Climate science is something they choose not to understand. Unfortunately, we have to wait two years to get them out of office, hopefully before sea level rises and stronger storms kill all the Democrats and free thinkers among us.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Let us not paint all conservative Republican Judeo-Christians with your anti-science brush (at least this one objects to your broad labeling). If you mean the majority of those in elected office in the Republican Party (quite frankly, many on the Democratic side of the aisle have unclean hands in this matter as well), then your point may be valid.
  19. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    From "Plutocracy Now" by Kevin Drum in the April 2011 Mother Jones: Princeton poltical scientist Larry Bartels studied the voting behaviour of US Senators in the early '90s and discovered that they respond far more to the desires of high-income groups than to anyone else. By itself, that's not a surprise. He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all. It doesn't take a multivariate correlation to conclude that these two things are tightly related: If politicians care almost exclusively about the concerns of the rich, it makes sense that over the past decades they've enacted policies that have ended up benefitting the rich. Living here in Alaska where climate change is profoundly affecting the state and yet all politicians clamor for more oil drilling (89% of the State budget is funded by royalties from oil & gas), it is clear that there is one rule in politics: money talks. And no one has more money than the fossil fuel industry. The only surprise for me anymore is that anyone still looks to our politicians for a response to climate change.
  20. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    "And many of those voters don't subscribe to the EPA regulations that are being defined and enforced by unelected bureaucrats." Not sure where you got that distraction from, but the EPA was forced to take action by the Supreme Court. The EPA dragged its feet waiting for Congress to act, and Congress flunked out. Don't blame the process - it worked right up to the point where a Republican piece of anti-science syndrome went to Disneyland for a pollution solution.
  21. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Robert and Alex, well said!
  22. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    To clarify, since we're both using "interests" but with different meaning, I think "wants v. needs" could apply better to what I'm trying to say.
  23. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    >>>Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office. According to the ideal, hypothetical processes of governance within a democratic republic. This is real life though, where there are several philosophies of voting and where the issues often dictate the type of response needed. An issue as potentially dangerous to our well being and future stability, for which scientific evidence and verified projections have already beed provided time and time again (e.g. the Fingerprints articles on here, and the "Models are unreliable" rebuttal), would be best approached from a mindset that holds the interests, not the whims, of the constituents in mind. Such a political mindset is what, after all, led to the end of slavery and segregation for example: policy being implemented over whims and toward interests.
  24. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    "Americans have had a long history of confronting the brutal facts and changing accordingly when the evidence and the message are clear (slavery, segregation, women's rights, tobacco, gay rights, isolationism, etc.). " No no sir, certain americans have a history of confronting these brutal issues. Certain americans learned long before the rest of americans that slavery was wrong and that women and gays deserved equal rights. Are you implying that we should be satisfied with slow progress because "that's how it works in america"? I'm sorry but there are far too many african american people who got beat up while waiting for their rights to kick in for me to take your argument seriously. It is wrong to drag your feet on these issues, I dont care about how it has happened before, those who slow progress will not be looked upon kindly by history.
  25. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    garythompson at 16:17 PM on 13 March, 2011 "Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office. And many of those voters don't subscribe to the EPA regulations that are being defined and enforced by unelected bureaucrats. This may be hard to swallow for the AGW crowd but this is how Democracy works and that is how the Republic of the USA was set up." Actually Science isn't a democratic venture. IF the majority in the Senate put in place a law that said Gravity wasn't real because their constituents supported it, it doesn't make it any more true. Politicians have a duty first and foremost to look out for the well-being of the country even ahead of the will of the people. We would still have racial segregation in the South if your opinion of democracy were followed through on.
  26. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gary - if we lived in a democracy, we would already have a cap and trade system in place, as it's supported by the majority of Americans. As for showing you the data, that's what we'vebeen trying to do. Your eyes have to be open first.
  27. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    "You can claim that the other side is ignorant but that doesn't progress your cause." Again someone who believes there are sides in this matter. n/t.
  28. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    It seems that whatever the issue there will always be politicians who believe that the economy should be placed first in all debates about human welfare. In response to the evident economic motivation behind the claim that "global warming is a natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it", I would like to cite the reply given on another issue regarding government interference in the economic affairs of gentlemen: Rebuttal to the claim that government interference in the trade in question would cause great economic harm: "This is a proposition not only false and unfounded, but which has been repeatedly confuted by those who are better qualified than myself to discuss it. I believe the contrary to be case ..." Viscount Mahon. Hansard, Feb 23 1805 Hansard database Is a mine of information about historical events and can be a useful adjunct to scientific studies.
  29. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    "These politicians need to be reminded that they are supposed to be looking out for the American public's welfare and best interests, not prohibiting the EPA from doing just that." Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office. And many of those voters don't subscribe to the EPA regulations that are being defined and enforced by unelected bureaucrats. This may be hard to swallow for the AGW crowd but this is how Democracy works and that is how the Republic of the USA was set up. Most Americans do want cleaner energy and will pursue that in a common sense manner. The following link outlines this thinking. I think the following quote from that article sums up the feeling of most Americans: "People with common sense know you can both exploit our natural resources and pursue renewables at the same time. In fact doing the former will help generate the wealth to permit engaging in the latter. And wealth is what it is going to take to move from fossil fuels over time." The proposals from the EPA and others suggest a cut and burn apporoach which is painful and without a reason for this pain, the American people will not embrace this. If we don't have time to slowly transition to cleaner, renewable energy sources then we need data to support this. I think this is the crux of the argument and the point of frustration from the AGW point of view. If the science and data really supports this premise then the scientists have the duty to tailor their message accordingly. Americans have had a long history of confronting the brutal facts and changing accordingly when the evidence and the message are clear (slavery, segregation, women's rights, tobacco, gay rights, isolationism, etc.). In the examples I listed here, the change took longer than it should have taken but Democracy is not easy and it isn't for everyone but we are in the middle of a serious debate with regard to climate change. It is my feeling, that the likes of Gore, Hansen and Schmidt (realclimate.org) have hurt the AGW position and caused a majority of Americans to have preconceived notions with any AGW message that is delivered. You can claim that the other side is ignorant but that doesn't progress your cause. With a subject as complicated and important as Climate Change, it is the duty of the Scientists to do something they are not comfortable with. They must think about how their message is communicated and do this in a political manner. This has nothing to do with data or science but it is required and they must own up to this. The state of Missouri is called the 'show me state'. The people of that state typify the feeling of most Americans - show me the data, make predictions that are verifiable and then I'll believe you. If AGW is true, then list predictions for the next 1 to 5 years that people can monitor and verify - then your case will be iron clad and we'll line up and do what ever is necessary to solve the problem.
  30. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Of course politics can dictate scientists, f.e. in Nazi Germany all remaining scientists were recruited to assist in war efforts and phrenology (fringe science even back then) was used to separate aryan races from other races. There's even the traditional joke, that the phrenological constraints of being an aryan had to be changed to include Hitler which in turn saved 10000s of polish people...
  31. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    The Tamino post in further reading is no longer active. Fortunantly, the wayback machine can help us.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thanks; that one and many more recoverable lost Open Mind posts are linked at the Archive.
  32. Climate sensitivity is low
    For your amusement - this is now an active topic on Jo Nova's site. One of her readers did a blog post for her on this very thread, claiming that efficacy was a "fudge factor" allowing made-up numbers. Discussion ensued...
  33. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    HR: Is it possible that Hansen can be both a scientist and an ideologue? His activism certainly suggests so. I think his "activism" only suggests this if you proceed dogmatically from the assumption that he's largely or entirely wrong. Otherwise, you could just as easily see it as a rational response to an actually existing problem. Hopefully, you're not so wedded to the a priori assumption that AGW is a hoax or an exaggeration that you can't acknowledge this point. And before you ask: Yes, I can imagine the consensus turning out to be wrong, just as I can imagine evolution turning out to be wrong. I just wouldn't care to bet anything valuable on it. You present it as a clear black and white issue, science on one side, ideology on another. No, I really don't. I say that there are people who tend to have a lot of relevant expertise on one side, and people who tend to have little or none on the other. Ideology enters into the equation primarily to the extent that it empowers the latter group to present their generally uninformed and paranoiac speculation as "scientific scrutiny." My position on this question is probably not that different from your position on aircraft mechanics versus pastry chefs: you'd probably prefer the former to service the airplanes you board. Of course, the people who tend to lack relevant expertise could turn out to be right, despite their errors and misrepresentations and demonstrable ignorance. But again, I wouldn't bet anything valuable on it. Especially if it weren't really mine to bet.
  34. The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
    It isn't quite so simple as to say warm periods cause the IRD events. In fact evidence suggests that these occurred simultaneously across difference ice regions of the northern hemisphere. Very complicated subject.
  35. Rob Honeycutt at 12:49 PM on 13 March 2011
    The Climate Show Episode 8: Kevin Trenberth
    cloa513... You clearly do not understand what a baseline is. A baseline is merely a base point to measure an anomaly from. It's really quite irrelevant.
  36. The Climate Show Episode 8: Kevin Trenberth
    There is no way to compare what would happen without Anthrogenic green house gases to with as all the significant data gathering happened well after the start. So no baseline possible.
  37. HumanityRules at 12:26 PM on 13 March 2011
    What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
    18 Chris Colose Thanks for the reply. Do you mind clarifying something. "but non-linearity in sensitivity is rather small over the ranges of climate of interest to us right now. Certainly you don't want to compare snowball Earths to say, the PETM directly, but I haven't seen anything suggesting it's a big deal for evaluating modern global warming." Here you're suggesting that you don't think the magnitude of the problem is so great when comparing modern conditions to say the LGM? Anyway your references lead me to this review (which includes Crucifix as an author). I thought it was useful in presenting the strengths and weaknesses of various CS estimates as well as being easy to follow. Would this be a balanced assessment of the science? Chris ignore this if you think it's straying too far away from the CO2 free atmosphere subject.
  38. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    HR: RiskG do you think that the West Side Highway will be inundated by the sea in 2028? Does the evidence suggest it will? Not in 2028, but it eventually will at some point in the future as sea level continues to rise at an accelerating rate as a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 is approached.
  39. HumanityRules at 12:09 PM on 13 March 2011
    What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
    From Peru I thought some stuff from Joel Norris was quite interesting on the subject. The first presentation on this list I thought was easy to follow as a layman. It makes the point that clouds are a dynamic rather than thermodynamic problem although I'm not too clear on what that means :)
  40. The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
    Camburn @14, Wanner and Bütikoffer is the paper you linked @9. I am not sure why there is doubt about classifying the LIA as a Bond event, as it shows all the appropriate characteristics. Nor is the interval between it and the preceding Bond event the shortest. The interval between the Bond event of 9400 BP and that of 10300 BP is shorter. So, if we do consider the LIA to not be a "Bond event", then the claim of any of the Bond events to be one is also impeached. We then left with occasional coolings of the NH with not single causation, or periodic nature. In that case, talking about such an event being "due" is a form of the gambler's fallacy. Finally, the gradual drying of the Sahara over the period 5000 BP to 3000 BP seems well confirmed by a number of studies, including near the Nile (previously linked article) and near Lake Chad. This has been a consistent pattern recorded across 5 or so papers I have read on the subject. Interestingly, more southerly locations have a delayed onset of drying, as would be expected if the drying was a result of a shrinking of the northern Hadley cell, with a resulting shrink of the area of monsoonal rainfall, an expected consequence of a cooling climate. Further, models driven by reductions in NH summer insolation, or increased GHG forcing both show an increase in size of the Hadley cell, with a resulting moister Sahara; although there are subtle differences between the two cases. So, unless you can produce a contrary paper as evidence, I think we are wise to assume Saharan drying was not a consequence of Bond events.
  41. HumanityRules at 11:59 AM on 13 March 2011
    Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    61 Phila We humans are complex beasts. We can take on many roles simultaneously, some of them contradictory. Is it possible that Hansen can be both a scientist and an ideologue? His activism certainly suggests so. Just for clarity I'm not trying to be disparging about him here, I quiet like somebody to take a clear position on things even when I disagree with them. I just think it's too easy to draw the boundaries the way you do. You present it as a clear black and white issue, science on one side, ideology on another. That's surely too simplistic. It's not the way I perceive it anyway. The skeptic argument contains "ideologically motivated ankle-biting" and some of it shows up on WUWT but the argument doesn't end there. There is a basis for scepticism from within the science based on the uncertainty and interpretative nature of the science. (apologies for going OT here)
  42. HumanityRules at 11:23 AM on 13 March 2011
    Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    53 RickG Given that Hansen is answering one clear question with the answer to another question let's simplify this. RiskG do you think that the West Side Highway will be inundated by the sea in 2028? Does the evidence suggest it will?
  43. What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
    In my prevoius comments I wanted to talk about the opposite of a CO2-free Earth: a Super Greenhouse Earth, i.e. with CO2 concentrations similar to the concentration of O2(oxygen) in the present day atmosphere, (that is, CO2 over 10%). This happened in the snowball events aftermath and possibly before 3000 million years ago (O2 isotopes suggest a temperature of about 70ºC then). The huge warming (earth temperatures would be above 40ºC) will cause a huge evaporation leading to an extremely high water vapor content in the atmosphere. What the cloud cover would be like in that world? Could the Earth have been 100% cloud covered like today is the planet Venus? And what kind of clouds will be the more common, high altitude cirrus clouds(with a net warming effect), low altitude stratocumulus clouds (with a net cooling effect) or huge troposphere-wide cumulonimbus clouds (with nearly neutral temperature effect)?
  44. It's the sun
    johnd, I was responding to Muoncounter, and to a specific challenge by Inconvenient Sceptic. With regard to ENSO, you are neglecting the fact that ENSO involves a redistribution of heat over depth in the pacific ocean. In particular, the deep warm waters of the Pacific Warm Pool are redistributed across the surface of the tropical Pacific. Therefore, as regards to its primary nature, it balances out in terms of energy distribution. Of course, the ocean interacts with the atmosphere through the surface, so an increased warmth at the surface should show similar feedbacks whether the cause is a change in forcing, or a redistribution of heat from the depths. Therefore we should expect a significant additional warming from El Nino events, and a significant extra cooling from La Nina events; which is what we in fact see. This contradicts denier claims of a low climate sensitivity. This additional warming (or cooling), however, will not introduce a trend to global temperatures because the same feedbacks operating in reverse will remove the additional warmth (or cooling) from an ENSO fluctuation from the atmosphere.
  45. The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
    Tom: I thought I was very clear that the stimuli for the Bond events is not known but only suggested at. I don't have the paper at hand, and am only speaking from memory of the paper that showed a shift in hydrological trends in the Sahara that started while a Bond event was in place and continued on after that event was over. There is question that the LIA was an actual Bond type event. If it wasn't, then we are about due for another. I can't seem to find your Wanner and Buttikoffer paper.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Another Wanner and Bütikofer 2008 can be found here.
  46. It's the sun
    Tom Curtis at 08:57 AM , I agree with the idea that geography is a factor and have posted on it on some other threads. I have focused more on the cycles such as ENSO which some people feel balances out once a cycle is complete, ignoring that it is the geographic distribution that determines what conditions each phase brings to a region, and thus all things are not equal, or mirror images of one another. This should be taken into account when considering how this plays into the heating or the cooling of the oceans.
  47. The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
    Camburn, the paper you linked to @9 shows strong evidence of Bond events in the North Atlantic, but ambiguous evidence for it elsewhere in the globe. It also shows the correlation of Bond events to solar activity it hotly contested. I am not sure how it helps your case. @7 you make several claims, none of which you support with evidence. One at least, is very dubious. The wet conditions in the Sahara arrived suddenly with the warmer conditions following the Younger Dryas, and dissipated slowly in the period 5000 to 3000 before the present. As such, it shows no significant correlation with Bond events that I know of. If you have evidence of such a correlation, please show it. Otherwise it is most logically treated as a consequence of global warmth during the Holocene Climactic Optimum. Your claim that we are "about due" for a Bond event is certainly false. Quite apart from the fallacy of claiming that a recurring event with durations between events varying between 900 and 2300 years is "periodic" and can be "due"; the peaks of the Bond events are "... around 400, 1,400, 2,800, 4,300, 5,900, 8,100, 9,400, 10,300 and 11,100 cal years BP." (Wanner and Büttikoffer (2008)) Clearly the next Bond event will not be "due" for several hundred years at least, and probably not for another thousand years.
  48. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Angus @101, Aaah, the goal posts shift :) First, forgive me, but I am not going to take your posted Figure at face value. Given the choice between a practicing climate scientist and you, I choose Dr. Schmidt. Also, I note with interest that you are using HadCRUT-- but "skeptics" claim that the CRU folks fudged the data, despite what the numerous investigations found. And we know very well why HadCRUT has become the darling of "skeptics", despite those allegations-- it is because it runs cooler than NCDC and GISTEMP. Now I expect you to now claim why the GISTEMP cannot be trusted et cetera, but that would just amount to you dismissing the truth again. "I would appear that Mother Nature is putting the brakes on for us." As much as I would like for that to happen, Hansen et al's recent peer-reviewed paper published in Rev. Geophys. disagrees with your opinion. Specifically, referring to their Fig 21. (see hyperlink, used 5 and 11-yr running means to negate impacts of ENSO and the solar cycle) they conclude that: "On the contrary, we conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15°C–0.20°C per decade that began in the late 1970s" [Source NASA GISTEMP] So feel free to believe whatever you want the data to show you Angus, it does not change the reality or the science. Again, if asked to choose between your opinion and the hard facts and data presented by prominent climate scientists, I choose the scientists. I'll close with this graph from SkepticalScience which shows the primary global air temperature records--onwards and upwards: Some advice Angus, the next time you take your car in for a service and the technician informs you that your break pads urgently need replacing or your breaks need servicing, I do hope for the safety of you and your family that you listen. Now they could be wrong, it could be a conspiracy, but in all likelihood s/he is right and is looking out for you and your family.
  49. Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
    Camburn @45 and 49, "It disputes Mr. Zwiers assertion that the recent winters are tied to AGW in the US. First, this thread is about Christy (a "skeptic") recently misleading Congress and the public about the science of climate change. Now you might be OK with that, others are justifiably not. So please stop trying to detract from Christy's misconduct. Now regarding Dr. Zwiers. This is what he actually stated in his written testimony: "Recently we have seen a spate of extreme climate and weather events that have drawn intense media interest, including this winter’s intense storms affecting the US and Canadian eastern seaboard,....." Canada indeed experience some severe nor'easter events these past winter. If you do not believe me go and look at the media reports. Also from NCDC: December 2010: "Several large winter storms affected the U.S. during the month. According to data from the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the December snow cover extent was the seventh largest on record for the continuos US. Several cities across the Midwest and Northeast broke monthly snowfall records including Minneapolis, Minnesota and Syracuse, New York. January 2011: "Several winter storms impacted the northeastern U.S. during January, causing New York City and Hartford, Connecticut to break January snowfall records. The 57.0 inches (145 cm) which fell at Hartford's Bradley International Airport was the city's all-time snowiest month on record. The snowstorm that traversed the northern plains, Great Lakes and Northeast United States on January 9-13 ranked as a Category 3, or "Major" snowstorm, according to preliminary analysis on the Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS). The NESIS score of 5.31 was slightly greater than the "Christmas 2010" blizzard and slightly less than the storm of late February 2010." February 2011: "Several record breaking snowstorms caused the U.S. to have above average snow cover extent during February. The "Groundhog Day Blizzard" dropped at least 5 inches of snow in 22 states." Dr. Zwiers is correct, and you have misrepresented his statement.
  50. It's the sun
    muoncounter @795, I'm afraid you are showing a Northern Hemisphere bias. Perihelion is not winter, but winter in the Northern Hemisphere, while being summer in the Southern Hemisphere. The reverse is true of aphelion. And the interesting facts about solar radiation and outgoing radiation that you point to apply approximately to all temperate and polar locations, regardless of their location in either the Southern or Northern Hemisphere, so it is not in itself the explanation of the phenomenon. This is complicated by geography, which influences the rate at which heat is transferred from the tropics to the poles. London, sitting close to a branch of the Gulf Stream, for example, will show a smaller (more negative) net radiation because it is substantially warmed by that current. Seattle would show a larger (less negative) net radiation because of the cold current of its coast (I believe). Both of these cities would show a larger net radiation in summer than, for example Moswow which would have hotter summers and cooler winters because of its inland location. In fact, overall the NH would display less of the disreprancy you indicate because of its larger land mass. That means fewer of its locations are close to the coast. It is that fact which in fact accounts for the Earth being warmer at perihelion (the NH summer). Temperature variations are smaller in the SH because so little of its land is far from the ocean, and there is so much more ocean. The greater heat capacity results in a smaller overall seasonal fluctuation in temperature. That means the NH seasonal fluctuation dominates overall, resulting in greater warmth during the NH summer, which coincidentally is at the moment during aphelion.

Prev  1852  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  1862  1863  1864  1865  1866  1867  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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