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  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  Next

Comments 96001 to 96050:

  1. Newcomers, Start Here
    Daniel Bailey - Interestingly enough (thanks to the wonders of Google) it turns out that WUWT posted a retraction on Goddard's statement. The partial pressure of CO2 is a primary factor in the triple-point (solid-liquid-gas) relationship for CO2. And the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is far far too low - sublimation occurs much faster than deposition, and dry ice will not form with Earth atmospheric mixes and temperatures. It's nice to see that sometimes, on occasion, WUWT does post a correction. Perhaps that group isn't a total loss...
    Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks for the update (converted to link). Hadn't gone there since that original CO2post.
  2. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    A good article which reinforces predictions made by climate science to the effect that global warming will result in greater rainfall in the north of Australia and less in the south where drought conditions may become more prolonged. The global prediction is that extreme weather events will become more extreme and more numerous and, to use the vernacular, You Aint Seen Nothing Yet! This prognosis may well have led Sen. Milne and others to express their dismay at government axing of programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in order to fund repair of flood-damaged infrastructure. At the time PM Gillard offered the justification that the sacrificed programs, although highly visible, were an inefficient means of reducing emissions. A more efficient and effective method of curbing would be pursued. Julia Gillard is correct. Introduction of cap and trade system or ETS would be far more efficient and far more effective in reducing CO2-e emissions than any of the programs axed by her government. Whether she will introduce an ETS with appropriate safeguards preventing circumvention of its purpose and whether appropriate CO2 reduction targets will be adopted are matters which must be pursued. A further matter which must be pursued is the abject failure of government and property owners to learn from the past. In light of the above prognosis, will they yet again rebuild assets on sites prone to destructive flooding and winds without adequately protecting against those elements?
  3. It's Urban Heat Island effect
    Thanks #42, far less than geothermal (~0.08W/m^2)
  4. Same Ordinary Fool at 11:17 AM on 12 February 2011
    Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    Monckton's personal climate science is also being challenged by skeptics.
  5. Newcomers, Start Here
    The only reference I have found to CO2 ice in polar icecaps is from Mars, where the CO2 ice component of the polar caps is melting, revealing that the majority of the Martian icecaps are actually water ice. Hardly relevant to Earth, however, as surface temperatures here don't go low enough to freeze CO2 (Brrrr...).
  6. Newcomers, Start Here
    KR, I've searched for the argument that melting ice liberates CO2 but can't find a single reference for it. Stephen, where did you get this idea from? Do you have a link?
    Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) Closest I've heard is Goddard's post on CO2 snow in Antartica.
  7. Newcomers, Start Here
    Trueofvoice, I have to say, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that melting ice releases CO2. Unless it was dry ice - and since the poles aren't warming from below -57°C, that's definitely not the issue...
  8. Newcomers, Start Here
    KR, Your post is the third time the "warming oceans absorb more CO2" falsehood has been explained to him.
  9. It's Urban Heat Island effect
    JohnR - Or for a bit more wasted heat, the extremely long discussion (>350 comments, unfortunately mostly circular in topic) at Waste heat vs greenhouse warming. And, as muoncounter pointed out, about 1% of greenhouse gas warming, a forcing of ~0.028 W/m^2 waste heat compared to 2.9 W/m^2 greenhouse effect forcing.
  10. It's Urban Heat Island effect
    Would be interesting to find out what the total daily anthropogenic heat addition to the planet from power generation (incl nuclear), cars etc looks like in W/m2. Can anyone direct me to such a study - could not find one from a cursory look.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See the Waste heat thread. Short answer: 1% of greenhouse warming.
  11. Ten temperature records in a single graphic
    #127: "rather do this than use a plot that's wide open to criticism on to methodology." Many people question the validity of one temperature measure or another. Others fail to realize that there are different baselines in the different measures. It is extremely valuable to show that they are consistent, as Robert has done here. See also Assessing surface temperature reconstructions, which tells the same story. Most people feel that more data are preferable.
  12. CO2 lags temperature
    The key reference for length of current interglacial is Berger and Loutre 2002. In a nutshell, it the result of the particular orbital configuration at present.
  13. It's cooling
    #130: "Whatever mechanism is involved is not important with respect to the question, 'Is global warming still happening?'" The question to ask is not 'is global warming still happening?' -- that's been answered numerous times on SkS with a resounding yes. The mechanism is extremely important, if you want to understand what's going on -- which may lead to an understanding of what to do about it. But it appears that you've already got your mind made up, 'notsure'. "it has not been shown convincingly to me that anything that has occured climate wise is outside the normal range ... ." Have you looked at the relevant posts? Considering you seem to be in a position to learn a lot, it's very sad that you aren't willing to try. #133: "alarmists have the same aim, simply to alarm." That's just nonsense. If you want to have any credibility: substantiate, don't declare.
  14. Newcomers, Start Here
    stephenwv - I'm certain that I won't be the only person responding, but there seems to be little that is correct in your statements. - Melting ice doesn't release or absorb CO2. I have no idea why you would think that. It's relevant for ocean level and Earth albedo (water is darker than snow, less snow -> more warming). - Warmer water holds less CO2, not more: warming oceans will reduce the amounts absorbed (as a sink) by the ocean. Past glacial cycles show the oceans releasing CO2 as they warmed, which we're not seeing currently only because the CO2 atmospheric level is so much higher from our emissions than the temperature related ocean equilibrium solubility point. Our atmospheric CO2 is increasing at ~2ppm/year, while we put out emissions that would show as ~4ppm/year of rise. That means the oceans are absorbing CO2, not pumping it out! - Currently our 29GT/year (not 40GT total, by any means - that's less than three years!) is being about half absorbed by the oceans, acidifying them. Some of that is currently on it's way to the benthic ocean, which is by no means a source of CO2. It's a sink. So: Your questions do not appear to be addressed here because I've never seen them presented as arguments - they're simply not true. Melting ice doesn't release CO2, ocean circulation won't magically suck up extra CO2, thermohaline circulation is not pumping gobs of CO2 into the atmosphere. I suggest reading some of the links I've put into this post, this "Newcomers" page we're on, and from the Big Picture thread.
  15. Newcomers, Start Here
    "a simplistic sceptic question." should of course be a simplistic skeptic question.
  16. Newcomers, Start Here
    Hopefully someone can point me in the direction as to where on this sight I can get an answer, or create and respond to my question as I have been unable to find it addressed. As the elimination of the northern ice cap continues, which happened 120,000 years ago, the naturally resulting CO2 release that has been going on for 11,500, is decreasing, and will stop when the ice cap disappears. The resulting slowing of the thermohaline circulation will reduce the well up of massive amounts of CO2 from the ocean floor. The warming of the oceans will, however, increase the ability of ocean CO2 absorption. This reduction of CO2 emissions, coupled with increased CO2 absorption, will dwarf the 40 billion tons of man caused CO2 emissions. The ratio of natural emission to natural absorption as well as the rate of increase of absorption due to ocean warming and the rate of decrease in CO2 emissions due to reduction of ice to be melted, and a slowing of the thermohaline circulation and the resulting slowing of CO2 release needs to be considered. This has huge implications as to the temperature rise limitations and time frame to reach the turning point of what some might describe as the man caused extenuation of the Inter-glacial, glacial turning point. Because I am unable to find this addressed anywhere, I am having difficulty in formulating what you like to address: a simplistic sceptic question. Perhaps this is not a question that is skeptical of global warming but rather why these effects of global warming appear not to be address by those that would have us believe that they know the likely end result. I suppose no one will address this and this post will be deleted as it is "off topic" of being skeptical of global warming and is only skeptical of the results of global warming. But hopefully it has been effectively addressed and someone can show me where.
    Moderator Response: You are repeating the claim that warming oceans will increase CO2 absorption, after you were corrected. If you're going to post questions on this site, you need to read the answers.
  17. Ten temperature records in a single graphic
    Interesting, but I find there are two many data gaps for this combined gap to be statistically valid. But what does it really achieve? No-one is really questioning that we have been in a warming phase - it's the cuase that's questioned. I couldn't, in all conscience, use this graph because I believe the methodology isn't valid. Why would I need to - I can just use Hadcrut which goes back further than any other, and still shows warming. I'd rather do this than use a plot that's wide open to criticism on to methodology.
  18. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    They may have improved buty there's still a lot of the old crazy denialist rubbish and 'nit-pick-the-story-to death' lines like 'how do you define extreme events...', well you draw a line in the sand and say that those events that exceed it are extreme. If more events occur that are, by definition, extreme then the incidence of extreme events increases - seemples! The occurance of extreme events has been noted to have increased. It doesn't matter a damn how to define it, as long as you can make a reasonable statistical comparison between extreme and non-extremme situations.
  19. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    Good news, rockytom. Seems like he used some privacy concerns to back out before he embarrassed himself and your state any further. Well done. Good, also, to see THE GUARDIAN taking control of its Comments policy and not allowing so many of the same repetitive posts regurgitating all the same old wacky denial.
  20. CO2 lags temperature
    Re: Interglacials Just because the ice core records show an apparent periodicity and rhythm to the interglacials, it would be a mistake to assume that they are created equally. Milankovitch forcings do vary, as does solar output and a plethora of other variables. The most recent interglacial could also have been affected by mankind to some degree as well (Google Ruddiman's Hypothesis). Key takeaway: interglacials happen during a glacial epoch for known reasons, but each differ from the others as they are but a sum total of forcings and feedbacks that can individually differ over time. The Yooper
  21. It's cooling
    Notsure : This web site is an amazing resource for the non-scientist to get a grasp of what the science says about AGW. I say that as a non-scientist myself. If you are truly interested in the facts please avail yourself of the information here. When you do you will realize (as KR pointed out) that your concerns and doubts have been discussed here ad nauseum.
  22. It's cooling
    Notsure, The tone of your posts has become increasingly aggressive and arrogantly dimissive. Not only have you failed to discuss any specific objection to current understanding of climate science, you have rudely refused to follow up on any of the links provided for you by these good people in their desire to help educate you. You have also repeatedly labelled them as "alarmists" trying to "divert attention", essentially slapping the hand away each time one is extended to you. Please show some civility, and maybe even a little class.
  23. It's cooling
    Notsure, unfortunately you seem to be posting a stream of beliefs and opinions without any attempt at trying to back up those beliefs and opinions. Why are you ignoring all the information you have been provided with via this website ? Where are you getting your information from ? Until you start to show where your beliefs and opinions are coming from, they will be treated as unfounded and not credible.
  24. It's cooling
    Notsure - I hate to say this, but you are beginning to give the appearance of a Concern Troll. See the Climate's changed before thread, along with CO2 is not the only driver of climate - the climate has changed before, but we actually have a pretty good idea of how and why. Currently, extra CO2 forcings are the dominant (not the only) forcing in effect, causing the climate to warm rather than slowly cool over the last half century. From what I have seen of your postings, you are repeating some very well known skeptic myths and misconceptions, not looking at the large list of Skeptic Arguments discussing those, and failing to follow up on any of the links folks have presented to you as explanations as to why those skeptic arguments don't hold up. You certainly do not act like someone honestly in search of information. I may be wrong about that; I would enjoy being proven incorrect - by seeing you actually looking at and digesting some of the information you have been presented with.
  25. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    John, Your readers might like to know that we in New Mexico, USA just defeated our Republican governor's nomination of the denier and former astronaut Harrison Schmitt to be head of the NM office of the Environment and Natural Resources Department. I personally wrote two letters to the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper in support of the withdrawal of his nomination, as did many other New Mexicans. In order to not be off-topic, Australia's extreme weather is just a sample of what's to come in the not-too-distant future. We in the SW US just suffered from severe freezing temperatures because of warming at the poles forcing colder weather to the south. One day last week it was 2 degrees warmer at the North Pole than it was in southern New Mexico.
  26. It's cooling
    Ice age alarmists and global warming alarmists have the same aim, simply to alarm. This winter in the the USA has caused damage. It is weather not climate change. The global warming alarmists have diverted attention away from this type of weather. The climate has always changed, look back at history. Climate will always change. It is very dangerous to be complacent and assume we know where the climate is going. The alarmists will always point to any current weather event and imply its some kind of unatural occurence or some local record. Weather will turn up in its various guises the danger is to assume that it will only take one form. Look at what has happened to Australia. Did the global warming alarmists cause the authorities to forget the past floods. Was there assurances that flooding risk in that area was no more? That is a danger that we should all avoid. Alarmists, whether iceage or global warming are dangerous. Nature has a way of reminding us that we are not as in control as we like to think we a
    Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey] Not sure if I can make any difference here, but in case you are actually not of closed mind then read this. You have been given good advice from many others here: demonstrate you are here for the right reasons.
  27. It's cooling
    Notsure - I would encourage you to look at the science, look at the data. On this site there are some excellent references to some of your primary issues on the threads Evidence for global warming and The human fingerprint in global warming. This includes plenty of links to papers, data, and many items that point out (a) it's warming significantly over and above natural variations and cycles, and (b) we are responsible for it. Please read through these, and comment on specific issues you might see with them on those threads where it's appropriate.
  28. It's cooling
    Notsure (#130) "So far it has not been shown convincingly to me that anything that has occured climate wise is outside the normal range of climate change either in rate of change or degree of change." How about the 'why' of change? Climate scientists have a pretty good idea what caused previous climactic changes (orbit and solar output) but when those causes are used to explain current trends they fail to completely describe what is observed. GHGs do explain it. If there are other explanations then everyone would be glad to hear about it but so far no other answer has been found that explains the current observed trend. Saying it is natural only works if you can explain what natural event is behind it. I fear this has gone off topic though.
  29. It's cooling
    Muoncounter 'There is a huge difference between reflection and absorption/re-emission. Clouds, ice/snow, atmospheric dust, etc reflect a portion of the sun's energy back into space; this energy is then not available to heat the planet. On the other hand, energy that is absorbed at the earth's surface, to be re-emitted as infrared as the surface warms, is at the heart of greenhouse warming.' Warming occurs when more heat is received than lost. Cooling occurs when more heat is lost than received. Whatever mechanism is involved is not important with respect to the question, 'Is global warming still happening?' To me all that is important is to understand which way the heat is moving? When that is known then look into detail. Man made global warming is a recent happening, (over the last 50-100 years?) All the debate that I have seen so far revolves around the data for the last century. I look to the global warming supporters to prove that what has happened over the last century is unatural. So far it has not been shown convincingly to me that anything that has occured climate wise is outside the normal range of climate change either in rate of change or degree of change. I have not found any convincing argument or evidence that increasing CO2 levels do not cause warming. I hear debate on its degree of influence. I am not an expert and I am not qualified to point to any particular paper or theory. But I am entitled to try to understand and question. DSL 'Yet who do you trust? Climate scientists, who don't really roll in the dough and don't have a vested interest in a warming planet (other than having to live in it)? Or pundits and big oil-financed lobbyists whose interests are not scientific but simply in achieving legislative or political effects, whatever the means?' Its easy to acuse to put people on the defensive. I wonder if the big bad oil companies you refer to would really be happy if the global warming threat was removed. I suspect they do quite well out of the publics concern.
  30. CO2 lags temperature
    Muon, I believe he's referring Figure 1, where the peak of the current interglacial appears more extended along the x-axis than the previous interglacials, which look more like a sudden increase, and an equally sudden decrease. I assumed this was due to greater resolution the closer we got to the present.
  31. It's cooling
    127 Notsure, Its being defended because the full body of evidence supports AGW. Conversely, there are no supported studies demonstrating otherwise. Contrary to popular skeptic belief, natural causes are not being ignored. Please read the post on Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
  32. It's cooling
    Notsure (#127) This entire website is a "reasoned defensive debate" of the science behind AGW.
  33. They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
    I believe this article could be improved by adding an explanation of how scientists define the "Climate System" and that the acceleration of the greenhouse effect due to mankind's activites impacts all of the components of the "Climate System" not just the atmosphere.
  34. Climate's changed before
    While wild climate change has preserved a delicate balance of gasses called the atmosphere and has been very good for life on this planet, human caused climate change is new, and scientists agree it will soon upset that balance and have catastrophic consequences for human life.
  35. It's cooling
    DSL 'Climate science is receiving greater scrutiny than perhaps any other area of science' I hope so and so it should. True enquiring minds welcome scrutiny. However, whenever I see people defending global warming and especially mans influence on it, I fail to see reasoned defensive debate. Personal attacks and labeling them as deniers only stiffels debate.
  36. It's cooling
    JMurphy 'So far the sceptics seem to be more open''Do you have any examples you can give and link to' Prof Bob Carter James Cook University, Queensland. He has strong views on the subject that are worth listening to. From there you can search for many others. All come from different angles but unfortunatly if they dare to question global warming, even if they agree its happening they are labeled deniers. As far as cranks are concerned I have views and I will leave you to judge others.
    Moderator Response: Type "Bob Carter" without the quote marks into the Search field at the top left of this page.
  37. It's cooling
    'Remember: if we ignore this problem and it turns out the scientists are all wrong, then all this will be over within a decade, and heads will roll. Such a hoax couldn't last long with new generations of researchers coming on line. If scientists are right, and the observed warming continues, and we ignore it when we had a chance to do something about it, then we will and should be damned daily by our children and grandchildren.' I agree, however it is far more than the scientists reputations at stake (on both sides of the argument). If global warming is continuing and is caused by CO2 and poses a threat I agree we should take action. If not and global cooling increases in pace. (We are in a interglacial period within an iceage remember). This may be wasted effort. If we are heading for dangerous cooling instead of dangerous warming we may harm our ability to adapt by wasting precious time. I feel that we are not taking sufficient action to prevent global warming through our actions. Nor are we taking sufficient steps to check that understanding of climate change is correct. Labeling critics as deniers only builds barriers between the two sides of the argument. If you are convinced that warming is the only danger and have supported all available measures to reduce the risk then sleep well at night. If we ignore the posibility that we have misunderstood and have labeled CO2 as a danger and have damaged our ability to feed and warm ourselves we will pay the price. Whatever action we take we must test it on the way and be prepared to adapt or change course if we are in error.
    Moderator Response: We are not heading into a new ice age anytime soon. That is several tens of thousands of years away, as explained on the post "We’re heading into an ice age" and the comments there.
  38. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    #7: "a clear rise in these extreme weather events" Isn't it remarkable that the insurance industry is taking the lead in recognizing that things are changing? Similar observations made on the weird weather thread.
  39. Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
    #36: "no one addressed Maue's work" See #34 and links therein.
  40. CO2 lags temperature
    #277: "the apparent flattening of temperature for the past few thousand years" This statement has no obvious meaning to me. As I asked on Are we heading into an ice age?, please define what you mean - use that thread and provide some source for this notion. Off topic comments have a way of disappearing, especially after several attempts at re-direction.
  41. Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    barnErubble - The phrase "in the pipeline" has been an issue, because of the easy misinterpretation. See the terminology discussion on the Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic thread. There is warming that has occurred and the measurement thereof (Trenberth has been concerned about poor measurements of ocean temperatures, in particular deep ocean temps and calibration issues - while fairly recent, and with ongoing calibration issues, they don't match what we expect in all respects). It seems possible that much of the energy is in the deep ocean, but that's an issue of ongoing investigation. And there is unrealized warming; the warming that has to happen to remove the current radiative imbalance. The latter is what is normally referred to as "in the pipeline" - it's not heating that is hiding under a bush somewhere, but rather hasn't occurred yet but will unless the radiative imbalance is removed. It's heat accumulating in the rather large thermal inertia of the oceans - it takes a long time for a small imbalance to warm a large ocean. The Earth has to heat by a certain amount for IR leaving the atmosphere to equal the energy coming in. And of course, if we continue to increase the radiative imbalance with CO2, global warming will continue to play catch-up, and continue to rise.
  42. citizenschallenge at 04:29 AM on 12 February 2011
    Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
    regarding the graph @18 Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) according to Dr. Ryan N. Maue at the Florida State University: I was disappointed that no one addressed Maue's work and using Atlantic ocean stats does little to address his claim regarding Northern Hemisphere being at a 30 year ACE low. Any insights would be appreciated.
  43. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    RSVP, Do you have anything besides worthless wordplay to offer? Playing the victim does no benefit to your credibility. "The planet" is the surface temperature readings, while the stratosphere is the upper atmoshphere readings. Your apologies would be acceptable if there was any merit in them.
  44. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    Great article John, I had no idea that you ere doing that until I received me weekly email from the Guardian. yes, quite a few misguided comments, but when I last looked reason and science were persevering. I agree with authors that the improved moderation at The Guardian has helped in keeping the threads focussed and forcing people to speak to the science and not go on ideological rants. they should be commended for that-- because in the past, that is a loophole that the "skeptics" have taken advantage of. What people like Ken simply fail to understand is that their repeated claims that what we are witnessing is merely natural variability is a clever distraction, and misses the point. Yes, climate varies, we all know that, especially the climate scientists. But evidence has shown that even in the last 30 years or so the return period for severe events around the globe has been contracting and that there has been a discernible shift towards more extremes. We do not have to breaks records each and every year for there to be problems. What Ken et al. also forget is that 200-300 years ago there was practically no infrastructure and there were most definitely not even close to the number of people on the planet that there are today-- so even small shifts beyond what society has developed its infrastructure in can have marked consequences. Before, planning for a one-in hundred year event may have covered the bases, that is not going to be sufficient in the coming decades. And as for Australia I encourage people to please read this paper by Gallant and Karoly (2010, J. Climate) in which they conclude: "Australian extremes are examined starting from 1911, which is the first time a broad-scale assessment of Australian temperature extremes has been performed prior to 1957. Over the whole country, the results show an increase in the extent of hot and wet extremes and a decrease in the extent of cold and dry extremes annually and during all seasons from 1911 to 2008 at a rate of between 1% and 2% per decade. and "However, the trends from 1911 to 2008 and from 1957 to 2008 are not consistent with these relationships, providing evidence that the processes causing the interannual variations and those causing the longer-term trends are different." Yes, something very different is going on alright.
  45. CO2 lags temperature
    Thank you for the references. I have been frustrated in my attempts to find any real answers to my questions. Especially the apparent flattening of temperature for the past few thousand years as opposed to the normally rapid drop off; and the lack of the elimination of the northern ice cap as has occurred in past end of inter-glacial cycles. Hopefully there are answers here somewhere. Any suggestions?
  46. Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    RE: dorlomin "The 'in the pipeline' phrase is often misused to suggest it is stored in the oceans (well by the less well educated contrairians), . . ." I take it that you believe Kevin Trenberth to be among the, 'less well educated contrairians'? Or is it just the phrase, 'in the pipeline' that should not be used to define the theory of stored heat in the Oceans? And Kevin is talking about vast amounts of heat being stored in the Oceans (albeit yet to be detected/found). Kind Regards, -Peter
  47. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    #37 "the planet has warmed at +0.16 degrees per decade... at the same time as the stratosphere has cooled " The stratosphere is part of the planet, so here you are saying it has warmed and cooled in the same sentence. Based on the other things youve directed to me, I am clearly at fault for not undertanding what you really mean. Please accept my apologies.
    Moderator Response: RVSP, unless you want your posts deleted, stop this tedious word play immediately. There is no contradiction there, merely a slight ambiguity (#37 should have specified "surface temperatures" instead of "planet"), however the intended meaning was obvious to anyone at all familiar with the debate. Even if that were not the case, it is still possible for the planet to warm overall while some part cools, it just means that some other part was warming faster than the average. Your pedantry is of no value, so please desist.
  48. It's cooling
    Notsure: "Get it right because time and money is being spent." Climate science is receiving greater scrutiny than perhaps any other area of science, excepting evolution. There are massive lobbying dollars being spent in the U.S. to discredit the science--and this lobbying is not based on an alternative theory that explains the instrumental record. It is simply an attack to stop legislation that might help mitigate the developing problem, because the legislation will hurt particular industries. If you want to be convinced, then do the math yourself. If you can't or won't do the thinking, then you're always going to rely on people you think you should trust, and they're always going to have power over you. That's fine--it's necessary sometimes. Yet who do you trust? Climate scientists, who don't really roll in the dough and don't have a vested interest in a warming planet (other than having to live in it)? Or pundits and big oil-financed lobbyists whose interests are not scientific but simply in achieving legislative or political effects, whatever the means? At least try to understand the basic mechanisms involved. Go over to scienceofdoom.com and do some brain sweating. The comment "A little picky, rebounding, reflecting or absorbsion and re-emission" is custom made for a ticket to SoD. Remember: if we ignore this problem and it turns out the scientists are all wrong, then all this will be over within a decade, and heads will roll. Such a hoax couldn't last long with new generations of researchers coming on line. If scientists are right, and the observed warming continues, and we ignore it when we had a chance to do something about it, then we will and should be damned daily by our children and grandchildren.
  49. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak, why do you post part of an article (?) from the "Polish press" ? What do you think that adds ? It's certainly not connected to the link you do give, so it would be good if you could make clear what you are trying to get across. muoncounter, I think it is obvious by now that 'natural' and what can be attributed to 'natural' will be extended by the so-called skeptics as 'natural' becomes less and less 'natural' in the real world. As will the length of time we will supposedly have to wait before thinking about doing anything, just to make sure 'natural' is not possibly measured in hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. I can see it coming : "It could be a natural event on a million-year time-scale ! Prove 100% it isn't !!"
  50. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    #5: "we should recognize that we realy don't know the limits of what is 'natural' and what is not." KL actually makes a salient point despite his obvious intent. Here is a partial list of what passes for 'natural' these days: -- Heat wave in Europe (2010), following the heat waves in 2007, 2006, 2003; models show increasing frequency of future heat waves. -- Hundred year drought in the Amazon (2002-2005) followed by 2010's even more severe drought. -- Devastating flooding followed immediately by a cat 5 cyclone in Queensland: the largest tropical storm to strike Australia since Europeans first settled there. -- Four cat 5 and one cat 4 Atlantic hurricanes in 2005. -- Four cat 4 Atlantic hurricanes in 2008. -- Extreme precipitation events suggesting an increased frequency of the heaviest events with warming, several times larger than the expected Clausius–Clapeyron scaling That our global climate system is changing is undeniable; the limit of what is fast becoming the new natural is what we do not know.

Prev  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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