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  1946  1947  1948  1949  1950  1951  1952  1953  1954  1955  1956  1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  Next

Comments 97651 to 97700:

  1. Eric (skeptic) at 12:30 PM on 23 January 2011
    Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    #20 muoncounter, it is a smaller area and it is the max extent and it ends before 2000, so obviously a lot less of a drop. You are correct that the AGW variations show up in the min extent more. The point of the chart is to show the natural variation. Here's the Russian data analyzed in a study http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/publications/mahoney/Mahoney_2008_JGR_20thC_RSI.pdf Unfortunately it only starts in 1933 and then only in summer (defined as Jul-Sep). Figure 8 it shows the summer ice extent dropping into the early 50's, then a slight rise to the early 80's and then dropping more steeply to the end of the study 2005/6. Once again a limited area so the drops are scaled correspondingly, about 1/2 million sq km from the 1930's to the 1950's and a bit more than that from the early 80's to 2005.
  2. A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
    Should be ...because of the massive difference between absorbed solar in winter vs. summer. Any further discussion will be in the ocean heating/cooling thread.
  3. A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
    "In effect, what's being claimed here is that the far smaller imbalance from CO2 will take way longer to reach equilibrium than the much larger seasonal imbalance from the Sun, and that doesn't add up." No one is claiming that. The fact that there are large seasonal temperature variations in no way contradicts a long equilibrium time. With seasons we are not talking about equilibrium time because, as Tom says, the hemispheres do not reach equilibrium with the max and min values of insolation and albedo. No where even close. The hemispheres don't need to reach equilibrium (or anywhere even close) for such large temperature variations to be observed because of the massive difference between absorbed solar in winter vs. solar. On a hypothetical Earth where we instantly doubled the CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm, the bulk of the temperature change would indeed be felt within the first few years, but full equilibrium is not reached for a century or longer according to climate commitment studies (try Meehl 2005). A larger forcing, like what is seen hemispherically with the seasons, will take even longer to equilibrate, with the initial temperature change over the first year being considerably larger than what is seen in the doubled CO2 case.
  4. Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    #19: "a natural decline in maximum extent prior to recent AGW-related declines" Eric, the scale of your max extent graph in #19 shows a drop (the curve labeled NS) of less than 1 million sq km. The scale on the graph in #2 has the winter curve at 15-16 million sq km. So the pre-AGW variations you're talking about would appear on the scale of the noise on the large scale graph. You should also be looking for minimum ice extents (usually September). There are reconstructed data sets available.
  5. A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
    Moderator, OK, we'll take it over there.
  6. A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
    Robert S. (RE: 45), "During the winter (in either hemisphere) oblique angles and less time above the horizon means far less solar energy absorbed at the surface for that hemisphere than in the summer. Very basic stuff. The difference between absorbed solar in the winter vs. summer is much larger than the 4 Wm-2 imbalance from doubled CO2, and so it requires much less time to see a given temperature change deltaT. The hemispheres are no where near equilibrium and they don't need to be to see a large change in temperature." I know. The point is the proportional amount of change that occurs over such a short period of time is way too large to support years or decades to reach equilibrium.
  7. Eric (skeptic) at 11:56 AM on 23 January 2011
    Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    #17 Albatross, Monckton is wrong and I don't think there's anything more to say about it. But michael sweet insisted on using data prior to 1980 and implied that it is flat. #16 nigelj, I posted above because I am "skeptical" that the current record lows are all AGW in origin. Certainly the drop since 1980 has been exacerbated with arctic warming and local feedback especially in recent years. Also, with certainty, earlier declines were natural particularly in max extent (April graph above) as there were less severe winters after the 1880's. The AGW effects show up more in min extent since extent doesn't take into account thickness. #18 dhogaza, I think flat linear is not a good fit at least for maximum ice extent (perhaps better for minimum) because of harsher winters up to the end of the Little Ice Age. The Nordic sea ice extent data in this study http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C0255%3AAATOSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2 shows a natural decline in maximum extent prior to recent AGW-related declines (post this chart from figure 2).

    This is local, not global, as I noted in #5. There is no accurate world wide data prior to the satellite era, just Nordic data and Russian data.
  8. A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
    Robert S. (RE: 45), "I think you're a tad confused. Tom is referencing the fact that a larger energy imbalance will lead to more dramatic temperature changes over a given amount of time than a smaller imbalance. Newton's law of cooling will teach you that; try sticking one cup of hot coffee in the freezer and another on the counter and wait ten minutes..." We are talking about equilibrium time. I'm well aware that a larger energy imbalance will lead to a larger temperature change over the same period of time than a smaller energy imbalance. That is not the issue. A better analogy is a large pot of water on the stove with the burner on low and the water temperature at equilibrium with the burner. If you turn up the burner from low to high, the equilibrium time is not accelerated as a result of the larger imbalance, though of course the final equilibrium temperature will be much higher. On the other hand, turning up the burner only a very small amount above low does not result in a longer equilibrium time, though of course the final equilibrium temperature will only be a little bit higher. In effect, what's being claimed here is that the far smaller imbalance from CO2 will take way longer to reach equilibrium than the much larger seasonal imbalance from the Sun, and that doesn't add up.
  9. It's freaking cold!
    Interesting, JMurphy. I read that article but have yet to look at the video. I find comments 15 and the last, 36, to be most cognizant without relying on character assassination which seems to make up the gamut of the rest of the comments. Appears the reason why he is still employed as he is relies on a reputation for largely having been correct in his analyses and predictions. Should we totally discount him for some mistakes when he has largely been proven correct? Regarding that last comment, #36, I use B99 in my truck and my Mercedes that is made from waste vegetable oil. I also ride my bike as much as possible for any short commutes. I am developing a wind mill that I think will bring the cost down as well as increase the areas that are feasible for reaping electricity from the wind. After all is said and done, me thinks actions speak louder than words. I have found that many cater to the idea that words speak louder than actions, incredible as it may seem.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Further off-topic excursions will be deleted.
  10. Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    "looking at the trend more closely year by year, your data shows a reasonable fit between declining sea ice which seems to start on average in roughly 1910 and rising temperaturs which also started significantly in around 1910." It does look as though a horizontal line would give a much better fit for the first 50 years or so of data on his graphs, especially the lower two which are June and August. If Eric wants to dispute this, maybe he'll run the regression for that period of time? Also, he's presenting data for three months for the nordic sea, only, and is presenting this as evidence of something ... global, apparently.
  11. Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    "Skeptics" on this thread seem to be missing the message and point here. It is really quite simple. This is what Monckton claimed: "[T]he global sea ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, because the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice." That statement has been shown by analysis of the data to be completely incorrect. So either you support Monckton's deceit and misinformation, or you support the facts. This is not an opportunity for "skeptics" to argue that sea ice decreased before or was lower before et cetera. Please take those arguments to the relevant threads.
  12. It's freaking cold!
    Well, Tom Loeber, I hope you now realise that it doesn't state what you thought it did ? More about Joe Bastardi from ClimateProgress.
  13. A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
    RW1, "We are talking about equilibrium response time - not rates of heating. Unless you want to argue that smaller increases in radiative forcing take longer to reach equilibrium than larger ones? If so, under what law of thermodynamics would this occur?" I think you're a tad confused. Tom is referencing the fact that a larger energy imbalance will lead to more dramatic temperature changes over a given amount of time than a smaller imbalance. Newton's law of cooling will teach you that; try sticking one cup of hot coffee in the freezer and another on the counter and wait ten minutes... During the winter (in either hemisphere) oblique angles and less time above the horizon means far less solar energy absorbed at the surface for that hemisphere than in the summer. Very basic stuff. The difference between absorbed solar in the winter vs. summer is much larger than the 4 Wm-2 imbalance from doubled CO2, and so it requires much less time to see a given temperature change deltaT. The hemispheres are no where near equilibrium and they don't need to be to see a large change in temperature. I apologize to the mods for continuing this off topic conversation. Great post though, Dana.
  14. It's freaking cold!
    Thanks for linking to the paper JMurphy. I just read it "Our discovery of an ecologically sudden demise and back-stepping signature in reef-crest deposits from the Yucatan is therefore compelling evidence for a sea-level jump with a similar rise rate during the late stages of the last interglacial. This jump implies that an episode of ice-sheet instability, characterized by rapid ice loss, occurred late during an interglaciation that was warmer than present." Wanted to see that video, Michael. Perhaps you could just post a direct link to it? I don't know. Watched that video Truevoice and I don't see how your and the article's conclusions match the evidence.
  15. The Climate Show #5: Green roofs and Brisbane floods
    Camburn, I think you underestimate the satellite-derived precipitation data. Please read more about the SSM/I data and there validation. I'm afraid to tell you that rain gauge and radar (especially C-band) data are also fraught with problems, they are not the panacea that some think them to be-- I have worked with both platforms and can attest to the fact that they have issues. Yet, I do not dismiss the research done using them simply b/c they provide inconvenient or uncomfortable results. Regardless, I pretty coherent, robust and substantive picture is beginning to emerge with time using data from multiple, independent precipitation observation platforms. Further, the observations suggest that the models are likely underestimating the increase in precipitation intensity (see the papers by Zhang et al. and Wentz et al above). Please apply your "skepticism" properly and not uni-directionally.
  16. It's freaking cold!
    Sorry my link has been deleted. Apparently Accuweather does not like it when they are transparently stupid. Today Bastardi is showing a temperature chart of January over the USA and claiming that it shows the globe has cooled.
  17. It's freaking cold!
    Let's also not forget Bastardi's inability to recognize a temperature anomaly map early last year. Typing from an iPad, so I'll have to link the hard way: http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/24/accuweather-joe-bastardi-anti-science-meteorologist-sea-ice/
  18. A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
    Tom (RE: 33), "RW1 @29, you seem to alleging that because a seasonal cycle which results in a 200+ w/m^2 variation in insolation at mid latitudes causes an appreciable change in temperature within a year, that therefore an approximately 4 w/m^2 forcing will heat the ocean to the equilibrium temperatue in less than a year." Not quite. I'm simply saying that the amount of ocean temperature change that occurs every year in each hemisphere would be impossible if the equilibrium response time to increases in radiative forcing were on the scale of years or decades. "You allege this despite the fact that the lower the difference between net energy in and out, the lower the rate of heating;" We are talking about equilibrium response time - not rates of heating. Unless you want to argue that smaller increases in radiative forcing take longer to reach equilibrium than larger ones? If so, under what law of thermodynamics would this occur? "and you allege this despite the fact that even for seasonal variations the ocean never reach the equilibrium temperatures associated with the maximum and minimum of insolation." I'm well aware the seasonal variations of the oceans never reach equilibrium; however, the rate and amount of heating that occurs is way too fast to be years or decades.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Further discussion of ocean heating must go to the appropriate thread. Further discussion of laws of thermodynamics must to to that thread.
  19. It's freaking cold!
    Check out this video of Joe Bastardi to see how "accurate" he is. In it he criticizes the NSIDC for inaccurate graphs of the sea ice, compared to several other graphs. The actual issue is that Bastardi cannot read the graphs and is completely wrong. Bastardi also calls the ice area "close to average" when in fact it is close to the record lowest level. The NSIDC corrected him and he apologized. Anyone who cites Bastardi as a reliable source needs to learn how to read graphs.
  20. Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    Eric the Sceptic #5 Your graphs shows a decline in sea ice from around 1850 to the present, represented as a simple dashed straight line fit to the curve. A temperature or CO2 increase over the same period would show the same straight line fit as a rising trend. So what are you being sceptical about? Your data doesnt go back quite far enough, but looking at the trend more closely year by year, your data shows a reasonable fit between declining sea ice which seems to start on average in roughly 1910 and rising temperaturs which also started significantly in around 1910. Ice core data shows CO2 rising significantly from around 1880. Solar activity was also strong around 1900 to mid century and likely an influence. So I cant see why you being sceptical or what your point is.
  21. It's freaking cold!
    Tom Loeber, as already noted, your link (and the actual paper) does not back-up your interpretation. As Sphaerica writes, the melting mentioned in the paper is not stated as causing a rapid cooling, therefore your statement that "recent evidence that melting of the caps immediately preceeded major swings of the climate into major ice age conditions is another thing suggesting that warming leads to cooling" is not true. Not only is the "evidence" not recent (the paper being nearly two years old), it merely shows that ice-sheets melt when temperatures rise, leading to a rise in sea-level. And you don't need to read the paper to know that glaciations follow inter-glacials at regular intervals.
  22. It's freaking cold!
    The Eemian interglacial period began about 130K ago and ended 114K ago. 121K is almost dead smack in the middle of that. The article was about sea level rise. If you go find the paper, I'm sure that you'll find it was about sea level rise. You are choosing to infer some correlation between ice melt, sea level rise and the onset of a glacial period. No such correlation is stated by either the article or the study in question, so it fails to support your position that the earth is going to start cooling.
  23. It's freaking cold!
    Sphaerica, thank you for at least partially admitting your error. I do wonder though at the idea that 121,000 years ago was " seven thousand years before the earth had descended into the next glacial period." Without referencing, that appears to contradict what I recall the quite well established record suggests.
  24. Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    Jonathan @ 10: The graph I linked in number 1 shows the ice extent. The graph that you see first on Cyrosphere Today shows sea ice area. The extent is the amount of sea covered by more that 15% ice. The area is the total amount of ice only, so it is smaller. I think you are comparing the 2010 ice area to the ice extent in 1980. The NSIDC likes to graph sea ice extent (IJIS also graphs extent). Cryosphere Today likes to graph area. The two data sets are very similar in trends, but you have to be careful not to directly compare them.
  25. It's freaking cold!
    Tom, 98. In looking back into the numbers (121K ago), they look like they were referring to what amounts to the last half of the interglacial as the "terminal phase." That said, this fell at the midpoint (the high point) of the interglacial. [I was confused because "terminal phase" is a term commonly used for the abrupt and extreme warming which marks the very beginning of an interglacial, but the end of a glacial period.] But the period discussed in the article was still seven thousand years before the earth had descended into the next glacial period. The melt was not the cause of the coming glacial, nor was it even a sign of an impending descent into a glacial period. It merely came at the point of peak temperatures, which also marks the beginning of the decline (which is triggered by changes in the earth's orbit, axial tilt, etc.), so the person quoted described it as a terminal period. You're interpretation of what was said is still incorrect. Melting Arctic ice is neither a cause nor a sign of impending cooling.
  26. It's freaking cold!
    Tom, Sphaerica knows exaxtly what he's talking about, your own comprehension is what is in question. An interglacial is a period during an ice age in which ice does not dominate the planet. This means the interglacial itself is a "terminal phase" of glacial dominance. You don't understand ice ages, you don't understand the terminology and you seem to be unaware of the difference between a newspaper and a scientific publication. Grab a copy of "The Physics of Glaciers", read it, then come back and we can discuss your difficulties.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] This thread is about cold weather as an aspect of or objection to global warming. Further discussion of ice ages belongs on We're heading into an ice age.
  27. It's freaking cold!
    Tom, So you didn't read it. Good to know. You still haven't responded to the fact at hand: you linked to an article which you claimed provided evidence of polar ice melt being linked to rapid cooling, when in actuality the article discussed melting due to warming during the previous interglacial. Your own link stands in complete contradiction to your assertion. At this point I can no longer tell if you simply don't understand the science, or are being deliberately obtuse.
  28. It's freaking cold!
    Sphaerica "during the terminal phase of the last interglacial period." You interpret that to not mean what it says?
  29. It's freaking cold!
    The article is reporting of a scientific publication. Even the publication itself is an article. "Did you even bother to read it? Trueofvoice, could you lay off of the ad hominem please? I don't think it adds to your credibility.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] A simple question does not constitute an ad hominem. If you think it does, you should perhaps look the phrase up.
  30. It's freaking cold!
    Tom, 94, You have completely misunderstood this quote from that article, and the context of the article.
    "We constrain this jump to have occurred 121,000 years ago and conclude it supports an episode of ice-sheet instability during the terminal phase of the last interglacial period."
    "The terminal phase" is the period immediately following a glacial period, i.e. a period where temperatures suddenly and abruptly warm, taking the planet out of (not into) a glacial period. "Terminal" refers to the end of the glacial period, not the end of the interglacial period. The article is discussing the rapid and large sea level changes which can occur during those termination events. That is completely the opposite of your interpretation:
    "I think the recent evidence that melting of the caps immediately preceeded major swings of the climate into major ice age conditions is another thing suggesting that warming leads to cooling."
  31. It's freaking cold!
    Tom, Your link is to a newspaper article, not a scientific publication. More importantly, the article is regarding rapid sea level rise during the previous interglacial. It says nothing about melting ice caps initiating an ice age. Did you even bother to read it?
  32. It's freaking cold!
    Hi JMurphy. "We constrain this jump to have occurred 121,000 years ago and conclude it supports an episode of ice-sheet instability during the terminal phase of the last interglacial period."
  33. Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    MikeCoombes @13, here is the graph of global sea ice area Tamino reproduces in the update linked in the main article: By eyeballing the graph, I estimate the annual average sea ice area is around 19-20 million square kilometers. The sea ice area anomaly over the last few years has averaged (by eyeball) around -1 million square kilometers, which represents a 5% decline. The sea ice extent anomaly seems to be of similar magnitude, ie, around a 5% decline. Given that, are you inclined to agree with Monckton, or James Wright and Tamino?
  34. It's freaking cold!
    Tom, 91,
    all of that last post of yours appears to be an attempt to deride my character
    Not your character, I am deriding the quality of the information you post and the debate tactics that you use to present it.
    ...you wont look at Bastardi's presentation of satellite data...
    Something written, yes. Video blogs, no. If you make a claim, and someone requests a cite, you are obliged to comply or else your statement must be dismissed as unsupported by evidence. So far, several people have asked you for cites, and you have not complied once.
    ...you claim to know his stance exactly.
    I never made any such claim. He is a well known AGW denier. I've seen any number of false and misleading statements by him. I have never seen a truthful or well reasoned statement by him. There are any number of people who have achieved the status of untrustworthy in the subject of climate science, and for me he's one of them. I will not waste my time looking at his claims until he succeeds in publishing a paper in a peer reviewed journal. Until then, it's just another guy coming up with crazy theories based on an incomplete and incoherent background in science. But so far, what you've presented is that you like his statements, and to you they seem true, so everyone else should accept that. My position is that you have presented only (1) his claims and (2) false statements, or (3) true statements which either fail to actually support his position or else simply confuse the reader. You're going to have to do better than this if you want to succeed in making a valid point.
  35. It's freaking cold!
    Tom, "So, cooling of the stratosphere and the mesosphere proves global warming". Proofs occur in mathematics, not science. This, however is clearly not the least of your confusion. 1) CO2 gets pulled out of the air by ocean aborption and rock weathering. Biomass doesn't have the capacity to draw down sufficient CO2 to cause an ice age. 2) more moisture in the air means more heat, because water vapor is a greenhouse gas. 3) More snow in Antarctica won't reflect more sunlight into space because the whole freakin' thing is already white! 4) Your repeated references to scientists and the goverment "spinning" and "spending" in favor of Milankovitch Cycles is really, really weak. The fact that you resort to making political statements ruins any credibility you may have had. 5). If Joe Bastardi has a serious analysis indicating major negative feedbacks, let him publish them in a peer-reviewed journal. His videos are assertions, nothing more. 6) "Do you agree that I don't agree with AGW"? What does that even mean?
  36. It's freaking cold!
    Sphaerica, all of that last post of yours appears to be an attempt to deride my character. You suggest that you wont look at Bastardi's presentation of satellite data and yet you claim to know his stance exactly.
  37. It's freaking cold!
    Tom Loeber wrote : "I think the recent evidence that melting of the caps immediately preceeded major swings of the climate into major ice age conditions is another thing suggesting that warming leads to cooling." I'd be interested in reading about that. Got any references/links ?
  38. It's freaking cold!
    Tom Loeber, #87,
    ...the data is in his video blogs that prove you mistaken a number of times in your characterization of Bastardi.
    I think not. As requested, please provide a cite rather than a vague reference to statements buried somewhere in his video blogs (which I promise you I will never waste my time watching).
    But does it prove that the climate will only continue linearly to warm?
    Strawman distraction. Other evidence proves warming. My statement merely proves that your reference to the mesosphere cooling as evidence of a coming cooling period is silly.
    I understand Italy recorded...
    Yes, yes, yes, and it still snows in the winter etc. etc. etc. This is all covered elsewhere and is evidence of and an argument for nothing. Global mean temperatures are rising. Anecdotal evidence of places and times with low temperatures are meaningless.
    I am attempting to look at the evidence myself ...
    No, you're not, your spreading a great amount of disinformation under the guise of scientific statements and (according to you) reputable sources. Little of what you've posted is true, but it looks just erudite enough to confuse the unwary.
    ...you are deluded.
    But at least I'm educated, I understand everything you wrote and every place that it wanders from merely false into laughably silly. My position, whether or not you think it is a delusion, is based on reason, science, observation, and understanding. You, and anyone who is reading your posts and nodding in agreement, would be well advised to hit the books. Reaching a false conclusion based on the best possible evidence and effort is one thing. Reaching a false conclusion because one refuses to learn, study, or reasonably try, or because one has a predetermined conclusion which they are desparate to support... that's self-delusion.
  39. It's freaking cold!
    Tom Loeber, #85, Whoa, that's quite a great example of gish-gallop. The number of false statements, misinterpretations, innuendos, leaps of logic and unjustified conclusions, not to mention the subtle back-handed pleas to try to make yourself seem reasonable ("Hmmm, I see that the concept of it being natural is considered contemptible by some") are too numerous to take the time (and space!) to debunk. It's quite a collection. Your understanding of ice ages, glacial ice formation and the like is extremely weak. You need to study that a lot more before making your proclamations. When you get to this:
    I think you are just continuing with the misinformation.
    Wow. Just wow.
  40. It's freaking cold!
    Sphaerica, the data is in his video blogs that prove you mistaken a number of times in your characterization of Bastardi. So, cooling of the stratosphere and the mesosphere proves global warming. I don't doubt it. But does it prove that the climate will only continue linearly to warm? I understand Italy recorded an all time record low something like yesterday. I think Florida just recorded record lows for at least the lower half of the state. I'm not trusting any one, actually. I am attempting to look at the evidence myself and formulate an on-going subject to change opinion. Again, I suggest if you think that you KNOW exactly what is going to happen, whether or not it is your own opinion or taking the opinion of others, you are deluded.
  41. It's freaking cold!
    Tom Loeber, Um... I'm not sure how you can present Joe Bastardi as in any way reasonable. He is very much the opposite. It looks very much like you're simply trying to build him up as reasonable and scientific to get people to keep reading, only to reach his personal punchline, which is that AGW is a hoax.
    I know some folks find anything that is alarming should be met with much skepticism.
    That was your tag line to make it seem like you're on the AGW side of the fence.
    Bastardi seems to base his understanding only on quite substantially verified evidence.
    Um, sorry, no, he bases it on the same, old, tired denial arguments that this site exists to debunk.
    I learned he doesn't appear to totally discount the idea that our influences on the planet might somehow be involved.
    Um, sorry, no, he is in complete denial about AGW, and there's no way of arguing otherwise (if you honestly think you can prove otherwise, please provide a cite).
    ...he states the need to go green or carbon neutral is more necessary to avoid greater destruction by cooling than by warming...
    Funny how quickly we flipped from AGW to AGC, while making him seem like a reasonable chap because you claim he wants to "go green" and "carbon neutral"... again, a cite to this would be nice.
    He appears to be ... valuing honesty and openness as well as have an understanding of basic logic and sound theorizing
    No, no, and no. He uses the same dishonest denial positions that are used elsewhere. Casting him as valuing honesty is itself dishonest.
    ...that seems to fit in with Bastardi's observations and predictions, on-going global cooling for the foreseeable future...
    And this is where you start running wildly, totally off the rails with jibberish.
    There is a recent finding that the mesosphere within the last couple of months was measured as having reached the lowest temperature ever recorded.
    This is a beauty. This actually is evidence of GHG induced global warming. The mesosphere is a vast area above the stratosphere. GHG theory predicts that CO2 will warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere. Observations support that this is in fact what is happening. The mesosphere is only warmed by the stratosphere, so if the mesosphere is cooling, it is further evidence that the stratosphere is cooling, which is further evidence in support that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. Here's a tip: Don't get your climate science from meteorologists, whether they be named Bastardi or Watts. Trust climate scientists, not snake oil salesmen.
  42. Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    The sentence at the end of third paragraph (see below in italics) does not provide the reader with the information to agree or disagree. You would need to provide the total area or state what percentage decline that is. If it is a 0.10% decrease most would agree with Monckton; if it 10% most would agree with you. The net result is a statistically significant global decrease of more than a million km2 – would you agree with Monckton that this is “virtually no change”? Keep up the good work!
  43. It's freaking cold!
    Hmmm, I see that the concept of it being natural is considered contemptible by some. I think the evidence that remineralizing soils greatly increases the amount of carbon dioxide sequestering biomass is probably a part of the cycle. I wonder as to the use of the term "natural" and suppose it only holds to something that is not man-made though I think we can argue that humans are a natural phenomenon and their actions on the planet consequentially natural but, seeing ourselves as somehow separate from the equation, isn't that what the deniers are claiming? I think the recent evidence that melting of the caps immediately preceeded major swings of the climate into major ice age conditions is another thing suggesting that warming leads to cooling. Think about it. What provides the energy to put great amounts of the planet's water onto the land masses in mile thick glaciers? Are ice ages where there is more biomass tying up carbon dioxide or might they be the result of more green house gases in the atmosphere, more moisture driven into the atmosphere that leads to more turbulence driving moisture so high and more methane release as to create those noctilucents? I think the Milankovitch cycles are less damning of humanity's actions and why there is evidence that money was spent to spin the evidence in their favor, absolving human activities of any influence. How about that hit piece on noctilucents? Should I go dig up the pdf linked to earlier by another so you could take a closer look at it? i suppose you are aware that much money has been spent to provide research favorable to discounting humanity's influence on climate and weather. I think I could dig up the references to the analysies that suggest millions of dollars have been spent meant to keep us nonchalant and discounting of AGCC, read that as Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. Trueofvoice, I was with you until you presented not understanding what Mr. Bastardi published, with reference to possible cause but at the same time he stated he did not buy into the sun's output lessening himself as being the cause. He did offer that though counter to your claim. As far as referring to Riccardo and Daniel arguing from sound scientific principles, I think you are just continuing with the misinformation. Do you agree that I don't agree with AGW? I mean, it is quite obvious that was not a scientific conjecture of any plausibility and just a simplistic straw-man argument approach. I don't know. It's too bad only those who seem to cater to the idea that there is more than just theory seem to have the temerity to post here. I do hold that us humans as relatively recent biological systems are quite naive and we tend to lend credibility to our organization experiments beyond any sense or reason even to the extent of considering this message board as beyond error, beyond censoring or bias. I know that is not truth though many have countered that it is not so.
  44. Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    My drinking buddy, Morde Lockton, insists that it is all cosmic rays. He read that scientists in India studied and measured increased Galactic Cosmic Rays. http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/newdelhi/Ramesh-backed-paper-questions-another-IPCC-claim/Article1-652754.aspx So it must be.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] They measure GCRs in other places on earth as well, so maybe they are secretly a Martian genetic engineering weapon (see HG Wells). However, they are off-topic for this thread. Go to Its cosmic rays for further discussion of fiction vs. non-fiction.
  45. It's freaking cold!
    Tom, Actually it would be great if you would elaborate. Exactly how will global warming reverse itself into a cooling trend? What negative feedbacks are powerful enough to accomplish this? If Mr. Bastardi is aware of such a mechanism, why hasn't he published his findings? Daniel and Riccardo are arguing from sound scientific principles, while your working assertion that climatologists can't see past averages and surface temperatures is utterly false. You're going to have to do better than that.
  46. It's freaking cold!
    Tom Loeber it's really hard for me to understand how you can think I don't like observing the data. It's also hard to understand how you can think he proved anything wrong when he just threw a few insignificant facts, claiming they're conclusive. As for the "grand over-all reaching theory" I don't understant what you're referring to, I don't know any. It may just reflect your perception of the knowledge in climate science accumulated for over two centuries.
  47. Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    Ron #6 - we'll be discussing Flanner et al. 2011 in an upcoming post, probably early next week. I'll also touch on it in Monckton Myth #7 (regarding snow cover), which is also in the works.
  48. Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    #67: "7-8 years of Argo is hardly a short period" Seven-eight years is a short period in any climate context. The length of the data record doesn't change that.
  49. Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    What is visually most striking in this post is the fact that the summer sea ice extent in 1980 is the same as the winter extent in 2010.
  50. It's freaking cold!
    #81: "staying open with questions as to the possibility of AGW leading to AGC is so much of a no-no" An idea is only a 'no-no' if you can't support it with some credible evidence. Do you have any for 'AGW leads to AGC'? Or is that a natural cycle?

Prev  1946  1947  1948  1949  1950  1951  1952  1953  1954  1955  1956  1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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