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  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  1931  1932  1933  1934  Next

Comments 96301 to 96350:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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 !!"
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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]
  20. 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!
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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?
  28. 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?
  29. 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!
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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)
  36. 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.
  37. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    JohnR wrote : "The science is never settled." Who said it was ?
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
    Typos in item 9: "stratophere" (twice) should be "stratosphere".
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed; thanks!
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. We're heading into an ice age
    stephenwv, I responded to your claim that rising temperatures increase CO2 absorption, on the ocean acidification thread.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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
  50. 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.

Prev  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  1931  1932  1933  1934  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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