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  1964  1965  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  Next

Comments 98551 to 98600:

  1. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    I knew that I had seen something about coral bleaching in AR4 :) Box 6.1. Environmental thresholds and observed coral bleaching 6.2.1 Natural coastal systems
  2. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "We do not know (even tentative) what was the pH of the ocean - as varied - from 420 thousand. years (when it was probably similar to that now) - for this you just have to admit." Luckily, some people are and have been trying to do just that : Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years Paul N. Pearson & Martin R. Palmer Data here HumanityRules, the IPCC was set up "...by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) as an effort by the United Nations to provide the governments of the world with a clear scientific view of what is happening to the world's climate." The fact that so-called skeptics or deniers don't like the answers, is the only reason for such 'binary discussion' under 'post-normal conditions' - whatever that latter means.
  3. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Arkadiusz, Glassman already rejects the CO2 increase to be anthropogenic. His argumentation is completely obscure, so why should we put any merit in his other ideas? You know what, I challenge YOU to find errors (or major questionmarks) in his work. It's not that hard. You can start with thinking about the TSI reconstruction he uses. Also keep in mind the way he frames his own 'discoveries' compared to prior literature. Try to be a skeptic yourself, and then come back. You will learn from that experience. One thing you will learn is why 'we' so rapidly dismiss blog posts like those of Jeffrey Glassman.
  4. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:21 AM on 14 January 2011
    Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    @JMurphy Your link is mainly about the recovery of reefs around Indonesia after the tsunami of 2004, not about how 'well' reefs in general are doing under AGW conditions. Of course it is! I did it intentionally. The tsunami destroyed some of the reefs in 99% the years (I mean the living components). I have not heard that until such damages have "bleaching" of the 1997/8 and 2005. So if the reef quickly recover after the Tsunami ...
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please refrain from being intentionally off-topic. Thanks!
  5. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    #17 "We do not know (even tentative) what was the pH of the ocean" e.g. Foraminiferal boron isotope ratios as a proxy for surface ocean pH over the past 21 Myr Nature 363, 149 - 151 (13 May 1993); doi:10.1038/363149a0 or Evidence for a higher pH in the glacial ocean from boron isotopes in foraminifera Nature 373, 234 - 236 (19 January 1995); doi:10.1038/373234a0 :)
  6. apiratelooksat50 at 01:20 AM on 14 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Phila @ 75: Yes, I really am an environmental science teacher. Yes, I've talked to my colleagues both at the high school level, and at the collegiate level where I will soon be working as an adjunct instructor. Yes, I've gone to the library. Within my high school science department numbering 10, every teacher has at least one Master's degree, and 2 of them have PhD's. During our last departmental meeting, the subject of AGW came up. Of the 10, 1 person was pro-AGW, 2 were lukewarm, and 7 were strongly anti-AGW. The pro-AGW teacher has multiple degrees in Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering, but his answer to why he was pro-AGW was, "With all the CO2 we've put in the atmosphere, there has to be something going on." I don't quote that to trivialize him, we are actually very good friends and collaborate on numerous projects and I value his insight, but he "wants to believe". I would love to post a link to a project my class did with his help, but the possible actions of some extremists worry me (I've actually received death threats on another site that isn't moderated!). To the Moderator: is there anyway I can get a Powerpoint presentation posted on here without linking to a school website? A friend of mine who recently graduated with a Master's degree in Environmental Systems Engineering, to go along with his Master's degree in Biology, is now a professor at a small college. Not one single person in the science separtment at his college buys into the AGW theory. However, to be fair, virtually everyone in the science department at the university where he received his degree were supporters of AGW. ( -edit- ).
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You were almost done and then you make insinuations in violation of the Coments Policy. Accusations of deception and dishonesty, even implied in comments like yours, are quite insulting. Also, please ponder on the difference between a hypothesis and theory. AGW is a theory, and as such is regarded by the National Academies as being more than 90% responsible for the warming of the globe, which they regard as settled fact.
  7. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:06 AM on 14 January 2011
    Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    I think we will wait to talk to the new work - papers. The basic flaw of most (if not all) current work - the pros and cons - if it comes to the impact of CO2, temperature on the coral - it is too short a period of research, experiment (lack of repeatability - the results). We do not know (even tentative) what was the pH of the ocean - as varied - from 420 thousand. years (when it was probably similar to that now) - for this you just have to admit. ... and writes about it often, eg, Professor J. Gattusso - a great supporter of the negative effects of decline in calcification of the ocean - for the corals - as a result of emissions ACO2 - so we can probably believe him. In addition, You remember about this that: coral reefs: „While initial surveys immediately following the tsunami showed patchy (albeit devastating) damage to coral reefs in the region, surveys in 2005 indicated that many of the dead reefs in the study area had actually succumbed long ago to destructive fishing practices such as the use of dynamite and cyanide to catch fish. It is also possible that the crown of thorns starfish—a marine predator—had caused widespread coral mortality.” And with that - first of all - we should fight.
  8. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    12 JMurphy I'm not sure it's just the skeptics that have turned this into a binary discussion. It could be argued that the existence of the IPCC has generated the post-normal conditions. Ifyoudon't believe this is an adverserial process by both sides look at Rob Painting use of language in #10. "Rebuttal" is that the normal way forward in science? Arkadiusz Semczyszak posted a link to a paper in #9 in fact you can get it as a PDF which contains a comment and reply to the comment. The discussion obviously is health. McNeil et al 2004, comment and reply
  9. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    #12 an excellent Gavin's RealClimate article: Unsettled Science seems to be particularly relevant
  10. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    A few video presentations for anyone interested in Corals and their future in a warming, polluted and acidifying ocean. Charlie Veron at the Royal Society Rob Dunbar at TED Jeremy Jackson at TED Note, among other things, Charlie Veron saying that coral bleeching occurred only occasionally and very localized before 1980.
  11. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak, could you provide some of Glassman's peer-reviewed papers on the subject of 'solar variety' and what qualification he has that lead you to treat him as an expert that you highlight above others ?
  12. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    What's the chance the present floods in Queensland are going to impact the Great Barrier Reef? I know in the past great influxes of fresh water have caused bleaching events.
  13. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote on Could global warming be caused by natural cycles? : "About these facts there is nothing in the article commented by me - only the corals are dying as a result of warming and the decline in calcification of the ocean. Well ... I can not help that the world of science is so divided - in terms of impact of the reduced calcification and warming of the oceans on the corals." Your link is mainly about the recovery of reefs around Indonesia after the tsunami of 2004, not about how 'well' reefs in general are doing under AGW conditions. A quote within the link states : These findings provide new insights into coral recovery processes that can help us manage coral reefs in the face of climate change. And, as Mila shows, there is plenty to discuss (and being discussed) among the relevant experts but I would hardly call them 'divided'. I realise so-called skeptics like to proclaim that there are two sides to AGW (the science and the so-called skeptics/those in denial), in the same way that Creationists do about evolution, but the reality is far, far different. As one of the studies referred to by Mila states : However, reefs will change rather than disappear entirely, with some species already showing far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others.
  14. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    #8 in my opinion anything which provides facts about the situation from reliable sources from variable perspectives is very helpful in communicating to public :) I personally consider the coral situation as a case of great concern and knowledge of possible natural responses as a key part to understanding of the phenomena.
  15. The Queensland floods
    Original Post It seems that a hot spot of climate science interest is located here in Queensland (John Cook et al..) Having been occupied in successfully sandbagging my business in the last 48 hours to see the flood peak pass at the Port Office at 4.5m at 4.00am this morning, I was prompted to look for the 1974 flood (pre-Wivenhoe dam) information; The official BOM report is here: http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_reports/brisbane_jan1974.pdf A relevant quotation: "Meteorological studies suggest that rainfalls well in excess of those recorded in the floods of 1893 and 1974 are possible. Therefore it seems certain that unless major flood mitigation schemes, such as the proposed Wivenhoe Dam, are implemented, floods even greater than those of 1974 will again be experienced in Brisbane." 1974 flood peak was 6.6m and in 1893 there were two floods at 9.51 and 9.24m. Now there are changes to the hydrology of the river since those dates - but the magnitude of those events (particularly 1893) still far exceeds those of the current event in Brisbane. As you all know, AGW officially started around 1975-80, so the 1974 and 1893 events (and those back to 1841) were free of CO2GHG induced extreme event effects. I guess the history lesson here is that big floods in Brisbane (and elsewhere in Queensland) might just be 'natural variation' in the climate system. If this applies to Brisbane and Queensland - one fails to see why this conclusion would not apply generally.
  16. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:32 PM on 13 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Website is called the “Skeptical Science” - "skeptical" to analyze the variability of solar activity by Glassman - should be subject to criticism-here shown any errors.
  17. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Arkadiusz - working on the coral calcification rebuttal at the moment. Let's just say the study is seriously flawed - the authors ignoring the effects of bleaching on coral in warmer water doesn't really get them off to a good start does it?. We can discuss it when the appropriate rebuttal is out, if you wish. Might be a week or so.
  18. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:13 PM on 13 January 2011
    Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming. McNeil, Matear and Barnes, 2004.: Sorry for the sentence in Polish in the middle - it should be like this: “Our analysis suggests that annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by about 35% by 2100. Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and does not support previous suggestions of large and potentially catastrophic decreases in the future.”
  19. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Mila, I don't consider coral scientists discussing "resilience" is particularly helpful in communicating to the public, how serious a problem this is.
  20. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:03 PM on 13 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    ... Oh, no - sorry : it's actually about corals ... Please read carefully all the work I have cited: 4 Years After Tsunami Corals Stage Comeback, 2008.: „While initial surveys immediately following the tsunami showed patchy (albeit devastating) damage to coral reefs in the region, surveys in 2005 indicated that many of the dead reefs in the study area had actually succumbed long ago to destructive fishing practices such as the use of dynamite and cyanide to catch fish. It is also possible that the crown of thorns starfish—a marine predator—had caused widespread coral mortality.” About these facts there is nothing in the article commented by me - only the corals are dying as a result of warming and the decline in calcification of the ocean. Well ... I can not help that the world of science is so divided - in terms of impact of the reduced calcification and warming of the oceans on the corals.
  21. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    A few years ago IUCN published report: Coral Reef Resilience and Resistance to Bleaching http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2006-042.pdf in Web of Science: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF99078.htm (doi: 10.1071/MF99078 - free access ) and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;301/5635/929 ( http://myweb.dal.ca/br238551/scienceandcorals.pdf for a free copy) doi: 10.1126/science.1085046 have the highest citation count (in hundreds)
  22. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:44 PM on 13 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    @dhogaza, JMurphy 1. But let's focus on scientific argumentation. As there is no argument - these are the “biographies”? 2. Why quoted F.S., whose argument is a lot worse - than the R.S.? 2. Link to the second and the Guardian is so well known in the world of science ... - or say - show - an untruth? Conclusion: Too little is known that the high probability of greater influence of natural cycles (than currently estimated, eg IPCC) to exclude.
  23. Czech translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    How dare you cenzor the discussion? Is the debate over?
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Your deleted comments contained material in violation of the Comments Policy. Specifically, being off-topic, and containing accusations of fraud and abusive profanity. Future comments deemed in violation of the Comments Policy will be similarly deleted. By posting comments here, you implicitly agree to abide by the Comments Policy, as do all who comment here (the number one reason for moderation is to keep threads on-topic). This commenting is a privilege, not a right. Thanks in advance for your understanding and compliance in this manner.
  24. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    dhogaza wrote : "Arkadiusz Semczyszak, your link in your #2 covers just about every denialist meme from the Oregon Petition Project to "Al Gore is fat"." Does that refer to the link to a Jeffrey Glassman (PhD, of course - mustn't forget that : makes him sound more important) ? I'm always constantly amazed at how so-called skeptics will reference the strangest of theories by the wildest of so-called experts, and expect to be taken seriously. Generally, though, I'm not sure what point that poster is trying to make ? I realise English is not his first language, but it just appears to be a stream of individual studies and reports, which only appears to suggest that because everything is not 100% settled (or because some pepple have different conclusions, not necessarily against AGW, though) AGW must be false and something else (anything else, in fact) is responsible for the warming climate. Having said that, however, the next posting from this person will probably be trying to suggest that the temperatures aren't rising because...to be followed by a long list of reports, papers and oddities which have very little in common but that they are not 100% pro-AGW. (Oh, no - sorry : it's actually about corals not really suffering at all, with the obligatory oddity from CO2SCIENCE this time)
  25. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak, your link in your #2 covers just about every denialist meme from the Oregon Petition Project to "Al Gore is fat". Surely by now you understand that you have to cite credible sources if you're going to get any love around here? Please get real ...
  26. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Corals are my favorite topic Yup, rate highly with me too. Having dived the Great Barrier Reef and some in the South Pacific, their decline bothers me greatly.
  27. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    "A few remarks. 1. While discussing the natural cycles need to refer primarily to the work of R.W. Spencer and J.R. Christy." Why? They're satellite data interpretation geeks, and not that great at it, as outsiders have had to correct their homework for them on about three occasions before they finally got it more or less right. They've done very little work on how climate works, and Spencer's is mostly grasping-at-straws stuff trying to do everything possible to throw doubt on the mainstream climate science explanations of how stuff works. Including how natural variations work. If Spencer's right, then the work of everyone who's worked on explaining how the planet enters and leave ice ages, and many other aspects of past climate that were indeed entirely driven by natural variation (if, by that, you mean "everything other than people injecting CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels"). Spencer being right would be as startling as that iron sun guy being right and the mainstream science explanation of how the composition, structure, and energy-production fusion reactions of the sun work being wrong.
  28. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Yooper @ 1 - Not shaping up too good just yet, we'll have to wait and see. February is when the waters around these parts really warm up:
  29. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
  30. The Queensland floods
    HR: "It strikes me that "net increase in atmospheric water vapour" is a prediction of a warmer world not specifically AGW." So HR now - and forever in the future one hopes - accepts that the water vapor feedback is real and positive? Cool. "Many AGW critics don't deny we've seen a recent warming trend." Many, however, do. "It seems to be the attribution of that warming world that's crucial." Unless you deny the basic physics of how CO2 traps long-wave infrared radiation, there's no way to do so. If you accept that ... and since you now quite clearly accept the fact that the water vapor feedback is positive and real ... you're already right in the 2.0-4.5C sensitivity to CO2 doubling range cited by the IPCC in AR4.
  31. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:04 PM on 13 January 2011
    Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    sorry ... PS 80-54: A tipping point for coral symbiosis: Non-linear response to environmental change may drive a rapid shift in coral symbionts, Oliver , Arrigo and Palumbi., 2009.: “Multiple linear regression models
  32. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:02 PM on 13 January 2011
    Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Corals are my favorite topic. Do volcanic eruptions enhance or diminish net primary production? Krakauer and Randerson, 2003. : “Up to decadal-scale ocean cooling tentatively linked to volcanic eruptions has also been found in a study of south Pacific coral [ Crowley et al. , 1997]. Nevertheless, it appears puzzling that the maximum growth reduction seen in this study lags by several years the period of maximum eruption cooling.” Robecknew, 2003.: “It was so cold that winter that Jerusalem experienced rare snowfall and coral at the bottom of the Red Sea died, because the water at the surface cooled and convectively mixed the entire depth of the water [ Genin et al. , 1995]. The resulting enhanced supply of nutrients produced huge algal and phytoplankton blooms, which smothered the coral. This coral death had only happened before in winters following large volcanic eruptions [ Genin et al. , 1995].” Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming. McNeil, Matear and Barnes, 2004.: “Our analysis suggests that annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by about 35% by 2100. Nasza analiza wskazuje, że średnia roczna stopa koral rafa zwapnienie wzrośnie z przyszłego ocieplenia ocean, a ostatecznie przekracza sprzed rewolucji przemysłowej, stawki o około 35% do roku 2100. Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and does not support previous suggestions of large and potentially catastrophic decreases in the future.” Coral adaptation in the face of climate change. Baird and Maynard, 2008., speaks of the rapid adaptation of corals to climate change. 4 Years After Tsunami Corals Stage Comeback, 2008.: “ A team of scientists from the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has reported a rapid recovery of coral reefs in areas of Indonesia, following the tsunami that devastated coastal regions throughout the Indian Ocean four years ago today. The team, which has surveyed the region's coral reefs since the December 26, 2004 tsunami, looked at 60 sites along 800 kilometers (497 miles) of coastline in Aceh, Indonesia. The researchers attribute the recovery to natural colonization by resilient coral species, along with the reduction of destructive fishing practices by local communities.” : “Multiple linear regression models show that high mean sea surface temperatures, high acidity, and low frequencies of high temperature anomalies account for 45% of the variation in proportion of Clade D at all examined sites. Models of future Indo-Pacific climate predict that areas now unsuitable for Clade D will rapidly change to favor Clade D dominance: the front of Clade D suitability is predicted to move across the subtropical South Pacific at rates of 20-49 km per year. Many of these areas currently host low levels of Symbiodinium D, raising the concern that environmental change will sweep over areas faster than dispersal and population growth can add Clade D symbionts to reefs.” CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future . Idso, 2009.: “Lough and Barnes (1997) found that "the 20th century has witnessed the second highest period of above average calcification in the past 237 years." Currently, however: “The study shows that the biggest and most robust Porites corals on Australia's Great Barrier Reef have slowed their growth by more than 14 percent since the "tipping point" year of 1990.” "The data suggest that this severe and sudden decline in calcification is unprecedented in at least 400 years," Lough: "It is cause for extreme concern that such changes are already evident, with the RELATIVELY MODEST CLIMATE CHANGES observed to date, in the world's best protected and managed coral reef ecosystem," ... however: "The causes of this sharp decline remain UNKNOWN, but our study suggests that the combination of increasing temperature stress and ocean acidification may be diminishing the ability of Great Barrier Reef corals to deposit calcium carbonate," Dr Lough said there had been some concern that coral growth has been declining in recent times. "However, data from density bands place these results into a larger context. Density bands show that coral growth and calcification on the Great Barrier Reef vary considerably over time.” "Coral records show that there have been several major increases and decreases over the past several centuries. “ Generally Conclusion: “the CURRENT DECLINE appears to be a RETURN TO MORE NORMAL GROWTH CONDITIONS from high growth rates earlier this century".
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Arkadiusz, please stop using all-caps. Posts containing all-caps will be deleted, per the Comments Policy. Thanks for the compliance.
  33. Not So Cool Predictions
    By the way, the programme above is only viewable until Sunday 16 Jan 11 on the BBC iPlayer. After that, I don't know.
  34. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:09 PM on 13 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    A few remarks. 1. While discussing the natural cycles need to refer primarily to the work of R.W. Spencer and J.R. Christy. On the "incentive" I would recommend this graph R.S.. 2. Stratospheric temperature decreased after each volcanic eruption and then very slowly growing. Of changes in water vapor in the stratosphere - from an unknown (to end) reasons (falling since 2000 - research by S. Solomon) - You can not "isolate" sufficiently closely the possible impact of GHG troposphere - on temperature of the stratosphere. 3. Superposition of cycles, cycles of simple summation of phases = cycles of unknown origin (eg, millennium cycle) - this field of knowledge which is at the beginning of "way of knowing. " 2. Warming is forever GHG. Natural cycles - the sun - the temperature increase - followed the water vapor content and CO2, CH4 (respiration, deep ocean ventilation) in the atmosphere - the dominance of marine circulation - usually western circulation (especially in Europe, Antarctica) = the natural greenhouse effect. ... and a sea climate - winter and the nights are always warmer than the continental climate - the minimum temperature is growing faster - than the maximum temperature. Eg. Africa - Middle East. 13C and 18O of wood from the Roman siege rampart in Masada, Israel (Ad 70–73): Evidence for a less arid climate for the region, Yakir et al., 1994.: “The ancient tamarix cellulose is depleted in both 13 C and 18 O compared to cellulose from trees growing in the Masada region today. Similar trends were observed on comparing modern tamarix trees growing in the Negev Desert with those growing in the temperate climate of central Israel. Considering the factors that can contribute to the observed changes in isotopic composition, we conclude that the ancient trees enjoyed less arid environmental conditions during their growth compared to contemporary trees in this desert region.” Climatic effects on the δ 18 O and δ 13 C of cellulose in the desert tree Tamarix jordanis, Lipp et al., 1996.: “Since the Roman period, RH at Masada decreased by about 17% [!], while the δ 18 O value of local groundwater remained similar to present-day values, suggesting that changing atmospheric circulation has played a role in climate change in the Middle East over the past two millennia.” Stable isotopes of a subfossil Tamarix tree from the Dead Sea region, Israel, and their implications for the Intermediate Bronze Age, Frumkin, 2009.: “The Sedom Tamarix demonstrates a few hundred years of 13 C and 15 N isotopic enrichment, culminating in extremely high δ 13 C and δ 15 N values. Calibration using modern Tamarix stable isotopes in various climatic settings in Israel shows direct relationship between isotopic enrichment and climate deterioration, particularly rainfall decrease.” “This was apparently the most severe long-term historical drought that affected the region in the mid-late Holocene.” The latest version of the report being prepared IPCC I would agree only with those conclusions: “It is very likely that glacial-interglacial CO2 variations have strongly amplified climate variations, but it is unlikely that CO2 variations have triggered the end of glacial periods. Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations.” 3. Tropical - solar cycle - fingerprint looks like this: Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing, Mheel et al., 2009.: “One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system response to variations in solar output is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific associated with such solar variability.” 4. Using relevant filters, we find a much larger (0.07% TSI) and the cyclical variation in TSI over the past 250 years. Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD 5. High solar activity cycle such as 6 thousand. years - volcanic eruptions - the XIX - XX-cycle - a decrease of ozone - a decrease of phytoplankton - the weaker “damping” of EN(LN)SO (comment 35) - more frequent and more rapid changes in the EN-LN - and for example a great floods ...
  35. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    @co2isnotevil: for an example of a clearly-made, compelling case, check out the link to hfranzen's website at the end of the main article.
  36. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    @co2isnotevil: heh. I can see I struck a nerve. I'm not a climate scientist, however I know enough to see when someone is trying to obfuscate their questionable theories behind a wall of barely understandable arguments. It is clear what you and RW1 are trying to do here, i.e. keep pushing the same flimsy theory over and over again, while complaining that the peer-reviewed system prevents your "brillant" insight from getting the recognition it deserves. Good scientists can make clear arguments and don't to regurgitate walls of numbers and convoluted logic in order to make their point. There are many here who excel at communicating the science. Then, there are those who believe that they merely need to *sound* smart in order to convince others - or at least trap them into endless looping arguments where the same erroneous reasoning is endlessly recycled. Seriously, state your case clearly and concisely, or keep it to yourself. A comments section is not the place to spam the output of your prized atmospheric simulator.
  37. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Nice post, Rob (love the title)! Maybe it's in the post & I missed it, but how's the Great Barrier Reef faring in the elevated SST's of this strong (potentially the strongest ever) La Nina? The Yooper
  38. The Queensland floods
    44 sout There's the possibility for the impacts of ENSO to be modulated by natural processes. One interesting relationship is between PDO and ENSO. Here's the first paper I've mangaged to have a look at. While it concentrates on East Asia the introduction suggests other researcher have made similar observations in areas affected by ENSO, including Australia. This paper makes the observation that the impact of La Nina or El Nino may be affected by which phase PDO is in. The interesting fact is that we may have recently entered a new negative phase of PDO in the past few years.
  39. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    RW1, The absorption overlap is a little more than twice as much, however, additional overlap occurs as condensed water vapor in the cloud is a broad band, nearly saturated, absorber of IR energy.
  40. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    archiesteel, Go ahead. Check this. You must have a 3-d atmospheric simulator you can use, don't you? If not, I suggest you get or build one so you can see this for yourself. BTW, make sure you understand the differences between Planck distributions in the wavelength, frequency and wavenumber domain. There are some subtleties here that I've seen many people trip over. For example, I've seen attempts to convert the emitted power per unit solid angle per unit frequency of a Planck distribution of frequency into the emitted power per unit solid angle per unit wavelength of a Planck distribution of wavelength by scaling by the speed of light. Look up Planck's Law in a wiki or somewhere to see why this won't work.
  41. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    co2isnotevil, "So while the lesser overlap is true for the nominally clear sky, the overlap for cloudy sky conditions is larger." About how much larger for the cloudy sky?
  42. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    hfranzen, re 66 Not exactly, but close. I also misstated something. I went back and looked at the code and the amount attributed to each gas is accurate when lines overlap. What I said before represented an earlier version of the code. What this does say is that under nominal conditions, there's little overlap of saturated water vapor lines and saturated CO2 lines and that there's not a lot of overlap where the resulting sum becomes or remains saturated. If you examine the spectral response, the saturated CO2 lines around 15u overlap nominally weak water vapor lines, although when passing through clouds, these weak lines become much stronger. So while the lesser overlap is true for the nominally clear sky, the overlap for cloudy sky conditions is larger.
  43. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    hfranzen (RE: 66), "If I am reading these numbers correctly I conclude that the absorption of IR by CO2 is almost independent of the presence of H2O and that there is, therefore, at the level of accuracy of GWPPT6, a negligible amount of line overlap of H2O and CO2 absorption lines." How do you figure? With the inclusion of H2O, the total absorbed power from 2xCO2 is nearly 3 W/m^2 less (62.7645 - 59.9992 = 2.7653 W/m^2). The total increase is about 3.6 W/m^2 (188.5290 - 184.8995 = 3.6295 W/m^2). If only half of the increase affects the surface, the net perturbation is about 1.85 W/m^2 from 2xCO2.
  44. watchingthedeniers at 15:38 PM on 13 January 2011
    The Queensland floods
    John, so glad to hear that you and the family are OK. I live in Melbourne, but all of us are thinking of Queensland. Mike @ WtD
  45. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    @RW1: "Point me to source and/or documentation that says the total absorbed power is 7.4 W/m^2 and that only 3.7 W/m^2 affects the surface because only half of the 7.4 W/m^2 absorbed is re-radiated downward." Please prove these numbers are inaccurate. People have been very patient with you, but now it's time to present actual evidence that supports you case. Thanks. @co2isnotevil: When in doubt, just throw a bunch of numbers around. Oops - doesn't work when actual scientists are there to double-check, it seems!
  46. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    @pirate: "First, of course I care about my children and grandchildren, so please don't bring that tired and offensive arguement out." I'm sorry, but Gordon never claimed that you didn't care about your children and grandchildren. He talked about *his* children and grandchildren. The problem is that, of both of you, he is the one taking the cautious stance, i.e. that AGW is real, something that is corroborated by a vast amount of evidence. You, on the other hand, are taking a gamble. You're gambling that 97% of published Climate Scientists are wrong, you're gambling that all of the current evidence is flawed, and you're gambling that shoddy scientists who have no problem claiming that tobacco is harmless are right, even though they do not have any evidence to support their claims. "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is the best survival strategy. It's certainly a lot better than believing nearly every expert on the subject is wrong, and choosing to follow political skeptics with poor credentials and nothing to support their claim.
  47. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Response to #65. Thank you! If I am reading these numbers correctly I conclude that the absorption of IR by CO2 is almost independent of the presence of H2O and that there is, therefore, at the level of accuracy of GWPPT6, a negligible amount of line overlap of H2O and CO2 absorption lines. I hope I am reading these numbers correctly for, if I am, this means that GWPPT6 is better than I have any right to expect.
  48. Seawater Equilibria
    Re: hfranzen (78) So you're basically saying CCS is an idea doomed to failure & we're all screwed by the CO2 we're emitting. Nice. Unsettling even to one who's studied this for a long time. Sigh. Thanks for the honesty and the insights, Dr. Franzen. Time for a beer... The Yooper
  49. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 14:59 PM on 13 January 2011
    The Queensland floods
    In regard to the strength of La Nina, there is a article by Prof Nicholls (link below) that postulates that this is likely to end up being the strongest or second strongest La Nina ever recorded so far. The article does not attribute the strength of La Nina to climate change. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42858.html I should probably be more careful myself in choosing words and not confuse strong with wet :) We know AGW results in more actual water in the atmosphere. It would be useful to read an article on how the strength of La Nina and El Nino might change with AGW, or if it will. Or if it's more about strong ENSO events having an even greater impact (wet or dry) as we heat up the earth.
  50. Seawater Equilibria
    I have missed out on a lot of the discussion above and as I now read it I see that much of it has to do with the deep ocean which is not a discussion to which I can contribute. However I did see one important question about which I can make a comment in terms of my model of the surface ocean. That question has to do with what happens when we (if we ever do) start to decrease the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. No matter what the temperature does the primary vapor-solution interaction will be governed by Henry's Law. This law states that at equilibrium the molality of the dissolved CO2 (that is molecular CO2 itself dissolved in the ocean) is proportional to the partial pressure in the atmosphere The proportionality constant, called the Henry's Law constant, does depend upon temperature but if the average temperature of the ocean warmed by 4 degrees the total solubility of CO2 (as CO2, bicarbonate, and carbonate) would drop by only 1.4% at constant ppm (but given the size of the ocean that will be a lot of CO2. On the other hand, if the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere (the one variable over which we might still have control) were decreased at constant temperature the ocean. in accordance with Henry's Law, would start releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. If the quantity of dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean that equilibrates with the atmosphre were very large relative to the quantity in the atmosphere the ppm would simply rise back to the value it had before our attempt to decrease it until the amount in the ocean dropped to a value closer to that in the atmosphere.. The actual situation will depend upon quantities like diffusion rates and bulk mixing rates in the ocean i.e. an important factor is the fraction of the ocean that will equilibrate with the atmosphere in the relevant time scale. It therefore is not possible (at least for me) to predict what the ultimate result of a serious attempt to cut our emmissions will be, but I can say with certainty that we are likely to be disppointed because attempts to decrease the ppm by curbing our use of fossil fuels will bring about exactly what the deniers are claiming now, namely the ocean will become a major source of atmospheric CO2. This simple law (Henry's) tells the tale - right now the partial pressure of CO2 (the ppm) is increasing so the surface oceans are a net sink for CO2. When we try to cut back it will become a net source and our efforts will be frustrated by the large amount of CO2 in the oceans. As stated above, this frustration will be augmented by increases in the temperature of the surface ocean that will occur as a result of GW.

Prev  1964  1965  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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