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  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  Next

Comments 96051 to 96100:

  1. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    Ken Lambert #5, insurance is a competetive industry and insurance companies have an interest in getting the risks right. If one company is claiming that climate change is increasing risk and so raise their premiums, another company, if they believe climate change is not occuring, will simply undercut these prices. Munich Re's database of weather-related loss events shows a clear rise in these extreme weather events, which they state cannot be explained fully without acknowledging climate change. Increasing population denisity and better reporting also increase the loss, but on their own this is not enough to explain the trend. The trend in non-weather-related losses, such as volcanic events, is not rising in line with weather-related loss.
  2. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:33 AM on 12 February 2011
    Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems
    „extreme denialist blog” - maybe you're right that it is "extreme denialist blog. " I hate extremists on both sides. But this blog in a focused, make absolutely basic knowledge about photosynthesis. Only part of the comments are too tendentious. “... CO2 intake is restricted by water loss ...” The increase in CO2 reduces the number of stomata and their opening times - reducing the consumption of water for plant growth. This is basic knowledge - I can not see the needs of citation of sources. Warming does not mean dry. In very warm Holocene optimum of the Sahara was flourishing oasis of greenery - is also a basic knowledge - I can not see the needs of citation of sources.
  3. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:12 AM on 12 February 2011
    Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    In the Polish press is given very bad information for Australia. Not citing sources, says that: "Australian scientists studying coral reefs - increases over the last 3000 years - they realized that long periods of peace are separated by a few-teenage periods of rapid change. Australia is likely to wait until a few years so violent natural disasters. " The fact that the reefs are an excellent "barometer" of climate change in the past, can be found here: Response of coral reefs to climate change: Expansion and demise of the southernmost Pacific coral reef, Woodroffe et al., 2010.
  4. It's cooling
    #119: "A little picky, rebounding, reflecting or absorbsion and re-emission. Technically it may be different but simplified its the same." 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. "Weather and climate are a result of mechanisms that no scientist fully understands" Not really. In the utmost simplification, weather is planet's local, temporary response to differential heating and moisture conditions. Climate is the long term average and trend of this response. "The global warming debate is driven by models. The sceptics seems to be driven by history." Most science is driven by models these days. Models make complicated systems easier to describe and understand. And models are driven by history, because they must include past behavior. What you call 'skeptics' (more likely to be what we call deniers) are driven by neither. You'll find they often just make things up, take items out of context and try to explain by gross over-simplification. Please do take advantage of the tremendous amount of information available here. Read the Newcomers Guide, the Big Picture and then start working your way through the Most Used Arguments. Put 'what you've heard' and 'what it seems to be' on hold, so you can learn from the science. As Bibliovermis suggests, find the appropriate threads for comments and questions.
  5. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    In all these discussions of weather disasters, we should recognize that we realy don't know the limits of what is 'natural' and what is not. In the Brisbane flood 2011, the hydrologist who oversaw the planning of Wivenhoe dam was quoted in the 'Australian' thus: "When John Oxley discovered Brisbane 180 years ago, the local Aboriginal people were very agitated about flooding and they showed him high water marks that would have been 12m". The 1893 floods were just over 8.0m and Brisbane 2011 was 4.5m - and 1974 flood 5.5m. Given there are many changes to the population and roads, roofs, surface vegetation since 1824 - however these probably worsen the runoff and increase flood heights. On a world wide scale - weather disasters are supposed to be getting worst according to sources like insurers. Well they would say that wouldn't they?? Bigger disaster - bigger premium next time. No doubt payouts are getting larger - because areas are more densely populated and properties are much more developed, expensive, complex and larger in advanced countries. More people have insurance due to the explosion in mortgage lending and compulsory insurance, and the documentation of disasters is far better due to satellite pictures, and better communications. Anyway - who is going to argue with Aboriginal history about the Brisbane river being naturally subject to a 12m flood? I bet not too many of you are game.
  6. Captain Pithart at 23:43 PM on 11 February 2011
    Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I would also include the 2005/2007/2010 Amazon droughts as examples.
  7. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    Enjoyed the article, John, and the recent change in Guardian moderation policy has improved the discussion to a large extent! Cheers - John
  8. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    Try this http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/09/australia-extreme-weather-flooding-drought Fixed link [muoncounter]
  9. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    the "click here to read the rest" link don't work
    Response: Oops, sorry, fixed!
  10. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I like the idea of this post, but the execution could be improved upon imo. The question "did A cause B" is not really answerable for a probabilty issue. The odds can increase. E.g. the question: "Were the devastating floods in Queensland caused by climate change? Quite possibly but not certainly." implies that the answer is either yes (possibly but not certainly) or no. But that's not true I think. The answer is probably that the odds of such an event have increased due to the increased climate forcing, but there's not yes or no answer to the posed question. See also here re extreme weather and climate change.
  11. Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/02/10/3135509.htm Australian researchers studying corals off the coast of Queensland have found the frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased over the past 100 years. just added that to the coments thread.
  12. It's cooling
    Notsure - so far the points you have made are show you are skeptical because you are uninformed as to what the data is and what is known or unknown. Now I agree with science being always skeptical - a constant search for errors and alternative explanations. However, real skepticism has be actually informed and climate pseudo-skeptics are mostly put down because they trot out long-debunked disinformation to support agendas not founded on data. Feel fdels, but theree to propose alternative mo
  13. It's cooling
    Notsure wrote : "Weather and climate are a result of mechanisms that no scientist fully understands or could ever fully explain." Does it matter ? Does any scientist fully understand the workings of Evolution or how the universe was created ? By the way, weather forecasts are invariably right these days, up to a certain number of days, so someone somewhere must know what they're doing. Notsure wrote : "The majority are sceptical because any sign of sceptism is put down by those promoting the theory of man made global warming." Can you give some reasonable examples, with regard to that "majority" and those being "put down" ? Notsure wrote : "The global warming debate is driven by models." No. I think you should have a look at a page on here that gives an outline of what we know and gives more links : The Big Picture Notsure wrote : "The sceptics seems to be driven by history." Do you have any examples you can give and link to ? Notsure wrote : "So far the sceptics seem to be more open (not the cranks, there there are many on both sides)." Do you have any examples you can give and link to ? Who would you class as the "cranks" on both sides ? You can give your answers on either of the links Bibliovermis gives, or find one of your own by searching this site.
  14. It's cooling
    Skepticism quickly becomes denial when the proper reasoned arguments are rejected on the basis that they conflict with preconceived notion. People's sense of "untruth" is based on emotion. If you truly are interested in learning about this scientific field, please read through this site & follow the primary source links for more reading material. Please respect the moderation of this site, which keeps it a civil place for discussing science. References to religion are not helpful. The global warming debate is driven by models. The sceptics seems to be driven by history. Please continue these discussions on the threads that already exist for these topics. They are both linked in the box at the top left corner titled "Most Used Skeptic Arguments". #5: Models are unreliable #2: Climate's changed before
  15. It's cooling
    A little picky, rebounding, reflecting or absorbsion and re-emission. Technically it may be different but simplified its the same. Weather and climate are a result of mechanisms that no scientist fully understands or could ever fully explain. All the references highlighted in the response have benn exhaustively shown unfortunatly there still remain sceptics. Science is forged on sceptism. Sceptics form science if no questions are posed no answers are found. The majority are sceptical because any sign of sceptism is put down by those promoting the theory of man made global warming. Unless proper reasoned arguments are given people will sense untruth. I hope i have an open mind. I hear non scientists but listen to scientists and expect reasoned argument. The global warming debate is driven by models. The sceptics seems to be driven by history. Where the conflict seems to come is where the history is questioned. So far the sceptics seem to be more open (not the cranks, there there are many on both sides) If the world is warming and we are heading for problems then understand the sceptical viewpoint and use them to refine the argument. To continue to put down critism smells of a shaky religion not confident of its facts. Get it right because time and money is being spent. If it is in the right areas then ok but if not then beware we are driving ourselves in the wrong direction. The planet is our responsibility at the moment which we hand to our children. Our children will judge us in turn.
  16. Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
    Thank you for this compilation. If I use this how should I refer to this? Anyway I'm not planning to publish anything based on this in a serious scientific journal so the WUWT style of reference (i.e. none credible) might be enough?
  17. Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    Good :) A thought came to me, and perhaps this is where he gets the 57% figure - about 1.4˚C is expected from a climate sensitivity of 3˚C and current CO2 levels, and 0.8˚C has been realized. Guess what 8/14 is?
  18. Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    I personally would be interested in knowing where Monckton came up with the 57% figure - the IPCC doesn't seem to use any numbers similar to that at all: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html Unless they cited such 'warming in the pipeline' figures in another section. They do discuss here though that even if 2000 levels were kept, we'd expect a temperature increase of ~0.3-0.9 (likely 0.6) degrees Celsius by 2100. Monckton's claim of 0.4˚C at most is barely defensible within that range - the 0.4˚C part at least, not the "at most." Good article Dana, as always; one error though, just grammatical: second to last paragraph, I think "fod" should be "for."
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text; thanks!
  19. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    #62: "Those who continue to question AGW ... are now victims of a "Climate Denial Machine???" No, the victims of the CDM will be those who've become the targets of US Republican-controlled Congressional committees. Starting with the EPA's efforts to regulate CO2.
  20. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    As a point of interest for those who may not know, Richard Lindzen, the MIT climate skeptic, has testified in court that the link between smoking and cancer is due to bad statistics. He is a very heavy smoker. Occasionally people note his belief that smoking does not cause cancer to show that his Climate opinions are not believable.
  21. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    "Furthermore, it does this with or without mankind's help, as it has for eons and eons, given that in reality it is a natural process...ironically." Oh, that old canard again, RSVP? Seriously, don't you get bored with this repetitive cut & paste approach? As has already been pointed out to you-ad infinitum-the existence of past, non-anthropogenic climate change, does not rule out the existence of anthropogenic climate change-any more than the existence of naturally occurring forest fires rules out the existence of arson. Comprende RSVP? When you & your fellow denialists can show us a *natural* mechanism for how the planet has warmed at +0.16 degrees per decade (the fastest rate in at *least* the last 10,000 years) over the last 30 years, in spite of declining TSI, at the same time as the stratosphere has cooled significantly, then maybe you'll be adding to the "sum of knowledge & learning". Recently, though, the only thing you've contributed to is the systematic dumbing down of this blogsphere-with your repetitive pseudo-scientific nonsense & your incessant persecution complex.
  22. Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    I used the term "in the pipeline" simply because it's a commonly-used phrase (but true that it's often misunderstood). It simply refers to the unrealized warming from the CO2 we've already emitted, and is unrealized because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. enSKog - good catch, I corrected the reference to Scenario B1.
  23. Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    Text just above the figure should refer to B1, not B2. The 'warming in the pipeline' idea always seemed to me too open to interpretation. It is the 'CO2' in the pipeline that is the problem.
  24. Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
    The 'in the pipeline' phrase is often misused to suggest it is stored in the oceans (well by the less well educated contrairians), curious to see Monckton effectively argue this as thermal inertia. I am also fairly sure part of the "in the pipeline" is assumed to be non CO2 positive forcings masked by atmospheric particles such as sulphates and the like, so in theory as we clean our emissions while we lose positive forcing from black carbon we decrease the negative forcing from particulate pollution (I am wandering a touch here to be fair)
  25. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    JohnR, Ah ha! moments of scientific revolution (unsettling settled science) come from presenting evidence, not from asking the same question a hundrededth time because the presenter didn't like the answer received the previous 99 times. Indignation is an emotional plea.
  26. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    JohnR wrote : "The science is never settled." Who said it was ?
  27. CO2 lags temperature
    stevenwv wrote : "What facts would you like verified?" Well, let's start with the first paragraph of that previous post of yours : "It is undeniable that we have yet to reach the 100,000 year interglacial temperature peaks." What figures/data can you link to, to show those "undeniable...100,000 year interglacial temperature peaks" ? You can reply on the following thread : Are we heading into a new ice age ? "CO2 is constantly absorbed and released from the oceans and is the obvious simultaneous prime emitter and absorber of CO2." What figures/data can you link to, to show the oceans currently being "the obvious simultaneous prime emitter and absorber of CO2" ? You can answer on : CO2 is coming from the ocean
    Moderator Response: Stephen, when JMurphy wrote "you can answer" on specific other threads, he/she really means you must, or your answer likely will be deleted from this thread, where your answer would be off topic.
  28. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Those who continue to question AGW, accepting full well that there is GW and A have played a part, are now victims of a "Climate Denial Machine???" (#59) This site is in danger of becoming Skeptical of Science and an enqiring mind. Please stick with the science, not the emotion. A quote from Lonnie Thompson, "It's amazing how science works: you labour and you labour and you learn things that don't fit and don't make sense, and suddenly you get a piece of information from some far corner of the world and it makes you say, 'Hey, your paradigm was wrong, you didn't understand how the system worked'". The science is never settled.
  29. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Jonathan Bagley wrote : "Also, why would the "deniers" invent the phrase "climate change"." "Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change "sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale." While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge. Luntz memo, 2003
  30. 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
    Typos in item 9: "stratophere" (twice) should be "stratosphere".
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed; thanks!
  31. It's cooling
    Notsure (#116) The moderator has beaten me to the reply button it seems so I will address a few other (perhaps off topic) points. "I have not heard an argument against the mechanism described by some of the sceptics. If someone understands why the variability of the suns magnetic shield has no influence on our climate then please explain." Would you provide some links to explain these mechanisms? It is up to the person making a claim to support there position before others can critique. "So far all the supporters of manmade global warming seem to do is try to shout down sceptics which only places doubt in my mind over their confidence in the theory." You have come to the right place then as that behavior is not tolerated here. Yours is the polar opposite to my own personal experience. In my discussions with Skeptics I have only ever been presented with incomplete hypotheses , conspiracy theories and (ultimately) insults. The supporters of the AGW theory have provided me with mountains of data and explanations.
  32. It's cooling
    Notsure, The influence of cosmic rays on temperature is covered in Could Cosmic Rays Be Causing Global Warming. The post addresses almost all the issues you have raised.
  33. It's cooling
    The ten indicators of global warming described all respond to the suns heating except ocean heat content which is related to stored heat. Few manmade GW sceptical scientists I know of disagree that CO2 causes warming. The argument seems to be about the level of CO2's influence. Climate change seems to be accepted by all only the degree of human influence is questioned. However there seems to be violent disagreement over the amount of energy reaching the planet. I understand CO2 traps the heat reflected from the planets surface driving the ten indicators and the manmade GW followers insist that the suns heat remains constant. While many of the sceptics insist that there is variability in the amount of heat reaching the planets surface. Those sceptics argue that the variability is due to sun influenced cloud cover while the MMGW folowers argue that the suns output is not varying. The global warming supporters only argument against the cosmic ray influence on cloud cover seems to be by issisting that the suns output is constant. I have not heard an argument against the mechanism described by some of the sceptics. If someone understands why the variability of the suns magnetic shield has no influence on our climate then please explain. So far all the supporters of manmade global warming seem to do is try to shout down sceptics which only places doubt in my mind over their confidence in the theory. Currently I sense the planet is cooling but I am told it is really warming. I hope it is warming because I am not convinced that a warmer future is more dangerous to my grandchildren that a colder world.
    Moderator Response: No, the energy being trapped by CO2 is not heat being "reflected" by the planet's surface, but the energy absorbed and then radiated; see "CO2 effect is weak." Nobody is "insisting" that "the Sun's heat remains constant"; see "It’s the sun." The evidence in favor of the role of cosmic rays is entirely unconvincing; see "It’s cosmic rays." Your "sense" that the planet is cooling is trumped by the empirical evidence; please read the post at the top of this page. Regarding warming not being bad, see "It’s not bad." And if you want to comment on any of those specific topics, please do so on the appropriate one of those threads. Off topic comments get deleted after a polite warning or two. Also, I strongly suggest that you read The Big Picture, which you can get to any time by clicking on its image at the top right of The Home Page.
  34. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    About a year ago I tried having a similar discussion with a climate "skeptic". The response that I got was that smoking causes cancer was just another great lie that the government was telling us, how could I be so gullible as to belive that smoking might cause cancer, cancer and smoking were totally unrelated! Sigh.
  35. We're heading into an ice age
    stephenwv, I responded to your claim that rising temperatures increase CO2 absorption, on the ocean acidification thread.
  36. We're heading into an ice age
    Stephen, There is no "normal" high temperature for an interglacial. They typically represent an increase in temperature of roughly 2-4 degrees C. What you have to keep in mind is that the change in temperature depends largely on how the planet's orbit and tilt coincide; they don't always act in synchronicity. Secondly, what studies are you referencing in regards to solar activity? As that activity has been roughly flat since the 1950's there is goof reason to conclude the current warming is not primarily due to the sun. As for a flattening of temperatures, I assume you are referring to the graph at the top of the post which outlines temperature fluctuations over the last five interglacials. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I am mistaken, but I would posit the "flattened" appearance of the current interglacial is due to greater paleoclimate resolution. In other words, it looks flattened because we have a more detail the closer we get to the present.
    Moderator Response: Any more conversation by and in response to Stephen about the Sun belongs on the thread It’s the sun.
  37. Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
    I found the data here! For October through December 2009 in the contiguous US, there were 325 new max temperature records (plus 197 ties) and 529 new min temperature records (plus 186 ties). Based on an assumption that the average number of records (max + min) per month for these 3 months (174 new records or 238 including ties) is the same for the previous 117 months, the new ratio of max to min for the 2000s is about 1.98:1. Because of the assumption, though, I cannot have 3 significant digits, so 2:1.
  38. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    We all know that the lineage of today's Climate Denial Machine can be traced to the Tobacco's industry campaign against science. I did not realize until a few minutes ago that the campaign against climate science began in the 1970s. "By the mid 1970s, conservative economic and ideological interests had joined forces to combat what they saw as mindless eco-radicalism. Establishing conservative think tanks and media outlets, they propagated sophisticated intellectual arguments and expert public-relations campaigns against government regulation for any purpose whatever. On global warming, it was naturally the fossil-fuel industries that took the lead. Backed up by some scientists, industry groups developed everything from elaborate studies to punchy advertisements, aiming to persuade the public that there was nothing to worry about." Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming
  39. We're heading into an ice age
    #230: "... we never reached the normal high temperatures of a normal interglacial period.... no explanation of this several thousand year flattening of temperatures." What are you referring to? I can't make any sense out of your comments; it would be helpful if you made specific reference to events on the temperature graph labeled Figure 1 on this post. As to the repeat of your CO2/oceans comments, you've already been directed to the appropriate threads. Solar comments should likewise go to the It's the sun thread, available as #1 on the Most Used Arguments.
  40. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I like the analogy used in this piece. Are there no famous Aussie's who smoked and died of lung cancer?
  41. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I think this is a good analogy in part because of the strong denial in the face of powerful scientific evidence that smoking tobacco causes cancer. Politicians, scientists and cigarette companies spent a fair amount of effort delaying action against smoking, certainly motivated by short-term economic self interest. Their frame allowed them to deny the fact that cigarette smoking increases the risk of cancer. A similar analogy could be made for asbestos/cancer or lead/neruologic damage (there was an organized opposition to the ban of lead in paint and gasoline despite clear scientific evidence of the public health danger. I don't know if these factors would cloud the issue, but we can see the repeated pattern.
  42. We're heading into an ice age
    stephenwv (#230) You make a number of assertions about Solar Activity and CO2 but do not provide any citations for them. Please include some links to back up your claims so that we can discuss their merits. Without data all we have is opinions.
  43. We're heading into an ice age
    #4 WASP You claim we recently came out of a glacial period, yet we never reached the normal high temperatures of a normal interglacial period. The relatively flat temperatures that one would have assumed would have reversed into a glacial cycle, began several thousand years ago, this lack of reversal has been in no way related to anything man caused. Studies have also shown that over the short term, temperature changes are much more closely correlated to sun activity than to CO2 levels. It has been shown else where on this site, that over time the CO2 released by the oceans during the warming trend, eventually slow and the rate of absorption of CO2 by the oceans reverse the trend of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. In fact "WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING DOING TO THE OCEANS? It's raising the oceans' temperatures ever so slowly, but also, it's making it easier for the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2). click here Thus the absorption of CO2 is not static and in fact increases as ocean CO2 emissions decrease and temperatures rise. I have seen no explanation of this several thousand year flattening of temperatures. I have seen no accounting for the decreasing emissions and increasing absorption by the ocean which would appear . Where are these statistics taken into account?
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Let me first thank you for being on-topic. However, one of the things to keep in mind from the Comments Policy is no all-caps. Lastly, user WASP has "gone silent", with their last post occurring on 30 July 2008. It might be a while before getting any reply.
  44. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Typo: "This paradox is at the heart of probabilistic causation. No single instant can ever be linked ..." should be "... No single instance ..."
  45. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    Tom Dayton (#54) Thank you for the clarification. The apparent incongruity had me at a loss.
  46. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    ratman123 wrote : "What you linked to are statistics for the last hundred years, which if we are going to go by the smoking argument is like giving statistics for a few hundred cancer victims." No, it is like giving statistics for a hundred years of cancer studies, encompassing far larger samples than are currently used to study cancer. Normally, people would call that a good thing. ratman123 wrote : "Secondly following the links within the links we get this text on the statistics......." And your point is ? And since you seem to have sourced that text from WIKIPEDIA without attribution (or do you have another source ?), perhaps I should add the final paragraph of that page : Despite the limitations reported above, some researchers have pointed to the recent increase in storm activity and similar changes in other basins as indicative of some significant form of climate change (Webster et al. 2005), and occuring in association with changes in sea surface temperatures (Emanuel 2005). However, it is not possible to definitatively attribute these change to global warming or any other factor. Models suggest that global warming will lead to a modest increase in storm intensity (Knutson and Tuleya 2004), but that scale of the changes expected as a result of warming in the 20th century would probably be impossible to detect with the existing records.
  47. CO2 lags temperature
    stephenwv, I've replied to your comment over on the ocean acidification thread. This is how we move conversations from inappropriate threads to appropriate ones without losing any readers along the way.
  48. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    This is my response to the comment by stephenwv on a different, inappropriate, thread. Stephen wrote "Then your statement 'As oceans warm CO2 is released, not absorbed.' totally ignores the second referenced statement from another scientific government web site. (see my links at #262.) One of those links, to an AGU public information page, does incorrectly imply that warming increases the ocean's absorption of CO2: "What is global warming doing to the oceans? It's raising the oceans' temperatures ever so slowly, but also, it's making it easier for the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2)." That is simply a misstatement. The correct phrasing should have been "What is the increase of atmospheric CO2 doing to our oceans?" The increased partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 eases the ocean's absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere. Warming has the opposite effect, but it is insufficient to offset the greater absorption from the increased partial pressure.
  49. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Just a small point on phrasing: You say, "Humphrey Bogart and most of the other victims would not have died their painful death if they hadn’t smoked." This is probably right, but (as you also say), any individual case of cancer in a smoker may not have been caused by smoking. It would be more precise to say, "Most smokers who die of lung cancer would not have died of lung cancer if they hadn't been smokers. In particular, Humphrey Bogart almost certainly would not have died the painful death he did if he hadn't smoked." This fits nicely with Hansen's recommended response re. extreme weather events: these almost certainly would not have happened without AGW...
  50. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    #35, #45: "with storm frequency we have......" There are several threads on hurricane frequency and intensity. It's a difficult problem, to be sure, as no one is even sure what metric to use. See What is the link between hurricanes and global warming? for starters, then use the search function to find the others.

Prev  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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