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  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  Next

Comments 99451 to 99500:

  1. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Original Post #keithpickering You should have a look at the excellent chart by fydijkstra #18. It puts your charts with dodgy scales and simplistic linear fits in the shade. The time integral of the net forcing from all sources (CO2GHG, Solar, S-B, Cloud cooling etc)is the energy applied to warming the planet - I would like to see this plotted against the temperature response.
  2. What's in a Name?
    Using Google scholar and searching for Svante Arrhenius gives a number of references, including 'Worlds in the Making'.
  3. What's in a Name?
    @13 and spike. I haven't investigated but maybe this is an explanation: 1896 was the year that Svante Arrhenius proposed the theory of greenhouse gases and climate change. One would expect some activity around then. In 1900 Knut Ångström launched a critique and in 1901 Arrhenius replied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
  4. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    66, gallopingcamel,
    While correlation does not imply causation it is clear that CO2 is not driving temperature changes on Vostok timescales. Does CO2 affect temperature at other timescales? I have no doubt that it does through all kinds of mechanisms
    Okay, at this point you are purposely simply ignoring the OP and the logic of the whole situation to blow smoke and present inaccurate information, while trying to make your position seem palatable and reasoned with faux skepticism. Go back and read the post, and think about it enough to understand it. There is a perfectly logical reason why CO2 would affect temperatures on long time scales, and also be influenced by temperatures on long time scales (feedback loop). Trumpeting one effect while ignoring the other is either using childishly simplistic thinking, or else presenting such childishly simplistic thinking in an effort to score points with the gullible that can't be bothered to think it through themselves to that degree. There are also perfectly good, obvious, and difficult to refute reasons (without just making stuff up, or purposely ignoring facts and logic) why CO2 is currently driving temperatures to unheard of levels at an unheard of rate. Saying "I'm reasonable, but..." followed by a lie and misrepresentation is still lying.
  5. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    56, Lurgee,
    I have taken time to read comments and papers published by the experts you refer to. They bear out what I said - that interpreting ice core data is fraught
    No, actually, they don't. They detail all of the considerations, how they should be handled, and what the margins of error are. You're simply choosing to interpret and portray it as such for your own purposes.
    Can you point to a paper published by someone with suitable credentials, stating...
    Clearly I can't, because you say you've already read the papers, and you're willfully choosing to misinterpret and misrepresent what you've read. If I give you a paper, you'll just come back and say you've read it, and that black is white.
    ...my doubt about the wisdom of relying on a single core...
    If you compare different ice cores, you'll see significant variation between them.
    Um... which is it? I thought you said there was only one? Obviously you know enough to know that there are different cores from different sites, in both the Antarctic and Greenland -- even though you seem to like implying otherwise (to fool the casual reader?). But that getting such cores is a very expensive operation, so there still aren't many. What makes you think people look at one to the exclusion of others?
    ...or trying to 'refudiate' AGW on the basis of CO2 lagging temperature on the way down.
    But that's not the issue. It makes sense that CO2 would lag temperature in that situation. It should. The problem with that argument against AGW isn't that CO2 doesn't or wouldn't or shouldn't lag temperature. The problem is that the mechanisms and interplay of events means it's comparing apples to oranges. It's like saying that you've always seen bullfighters kill bulls, so there's no way that a bull could ever kill a bullfighter. Sorry, but the ice cores are exactly what they are. They aren't perfect, but their imperfections are well understood and recognized, and they are perfectly acceptable and accurate proxies for CO2 levels and temperatures on the timescales in question. Saying anything else, with so much hand waving and "I've read..." is just blowing smoke to try to make skeptic arguments seem viable.
  6. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    The ultimate problem with the climate zombies and their beliefs, is that we can end up stating : "Alright, you're not convinced and no-one can ever convince you if you are not prepared to accept the vast number of scientific studies available, but would rather cling to the very few contrary reports that exist or would rather take a 'wait and see' attitude. So, why not let the scientists give their advice to governments and let the decisions be made based on what the science says." The response from them varies from "I'm not letting my tax dollars be 'wasted' on blah, blah, blah" to "Let's have a big debate and then the public can decide" to "I don't trust the government" to "It's all a big left-wing, green, elitist, UN conspiracy anyway !" Rationality can make little headway against irrationality, especially when the latter is basically naked ideology searching for even the tiniest fig leaf of (usually pseudo-)scientific cover.
  7. What's in a Name?

    Hiding the Spike!

    I notice that the above Ngrams only start in 1979. Looking at the full scale I found a spike at round 1900! Now that's clearly before the industrial revolution and this must prove that both GW and CC and not caused by CO2.

    warmists might try to look at the books at the books in this selection and will probably suggest that it's largely a glitch in the google but wouldn't this just prove that science is unreliable?

    I've looked at some of the book and notice that many entries are due to sentences like: "be subjected to wet and cold, change of climate, change in occupation, increased or decreased work"... now "climate, change" happens quite often in this spike... to often to be coincidence... this, I believe, is the work of aliens, or the New World Order, or aliens working with the NWO...

    Apologies, I'm feeling quite flippant these days, please feel free to delete this post as being off-hominem.

  8. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    #18: "To say that the CO2 is coming from nature involves you inventing a magical way for 30 billion tons of human CO2 to disappear... " Magic seems to be the basis of Miekol's (and others) 'arguments': 'CO2 is coming from nature' - source unknown, so presto! 'Oceans giving up CO2 as earth warms' - yet oceans are acidifying, so presto! It must be a magic trick that ~50% of fossil fuel CO2 emissions consistently equates to the observed annual atmospheric CO2 concentration change. A magic trick that cities have peaks in CO2 concentration that match daily, weekly and seasonal traffic patterns. The actual magic is that they can cling to the hope that as long as 'it might be anything else', then it can't be AGW.
  9. What's in a Name?
    Jim Simpson - that's the whole point surely, that in the scientific literature both terms are old (in fact 'climate change' is older), and both have a specific meaning. Skeptics have indeed twisted the meaning by suggesting that there has been a deliberate change, but there has not been such a change. "Global Warming" applies very nicely to graphs of global or hemispheric temperatures, but not to very much else predicted to happen within a warmer world - floods, droughts, sea level rise, ocean acidification, unusual winter weather patterns etc. Actually, I prefer terms such as global climate disruption/destabilisation, as they begin to get across the concept of unusual and perhaps destructive weather patterns and weather events that are the inevitable result of more energy and water vapour in the atmosphere. Politically at least, "warming" was fine for what happened in the '80s and '90s, but it doesn't cover what is happening now, which includes both warming and the emergence of consequent events. As long as the general public only think it's about 'warming' they have the wrong idea about what is happening and is going to happen. As a result, in Britain, very few connections are being made between unusual winter weather and warming, and some talk of poor summers indicating cooling - of course the global picture is unmistakeable, but the local expression may be a different form of climate disruption than rising temperatures. Many in Britain would like 'warming', but they naively don't comprehend what comes with it, and even worse when the global warming isn't expressed across the British Isles!
  10. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    I'll add my agreement to the emerging consensus here about the difficulties when trying to discuss science with the Zombies. The different ways the data are presented here is excellent. And the analysis has been great. Yes, there are issues to deal with which makes this, like every other branch of natural science, imperfect. The chart with the correlation coefficient r = .89 is a persuasive tool. The author is correct in pointing out the imperfections of this -- it's not appropriate for prime time in a peer-reviewed journal -- but it does make a compelling visual. But when a Zombie comes along as says "I'm not convinced," the natural inclination of the scientific community is to move deeper. We make a good faith effort to convince him/her. I.e., we say, read this and this and this and so on. We stick with the science and attempt to build on the knowledge. But the Zombie typically just repeats "I'm not convinced." At this point, it would be enough to say we're just not getting through to you. Unfortunately, the Zombies typically apply a double standard. Zombie sites like WUWT regularly put up flawed analyses and the Zombies are silent on all the errors that are easy to spot up there. If the Zombies were genuine in applying their "I'm not convinced" statement to science, they'd be all over a site like WUWT pointing out the flaws. But they're not. I'd like to hear them explain why not.
  11. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    sorry Keith, your name isn't 'The Numerate Historian'! major oops...
  12. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Nice graphs TNH! I'll repeat what others have mentioned, that your numbers come in at the low end of climate sensitivity, because you are estimating the transient sensitivity, rather than the equilibrium sensitivity, which will be a bit higher (maybe a lot higher). The Zombie Wars are an annoying place. Having been a scientist for 10 years, you get used to having (mostly) reasonable and rational discussions with colleagues, in places where evidence has a great deal of value. These concersations can be quite strong, and the disagreements can be significant, but evidence is respected. There's a reason why no respected climate scientist doubt that the Earth is warming by a significant amount as a consequence of human GHG emissions - because the weight of evidence is so strong that alternative positions are untenable. Debates about the finer points of coutse carry on, say exactly how the ice sheets are responding, how to monitor them, the value of equilibrium forcing, and numerous other detailed and challenging questions. Zombies just don't get that, because they do not have the ability to weigh up the evidence in an impartial scientific manner. Many times I've said to a climate zombie "I wish your argument was right". Most scientists wish the premise of the zombie arguments was right, and of course would give anything to be the first to publish that result with research-quality evidence - sadly that evidence appears not to exist, and we are forced to accept the unhappy alternative, our reality. But zombies are not scientists, or if they claim to be, they are not applying their scientific training to this problem.
  13. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    David Horton @21, I am afraid you are right (Sigh).
  14. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    perseus #5 A few months ago I tried to find emission inventories or at least the total emissions of CO2e from each country, including land use emissions. No success. Those are indeed very difficult data to find. Do they exist somewhere?
  15. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    I've had my days of naively engaging in such Zombie Wars. It can be rather frustrating. Like others above, I've seen people declare themselves as "humble truth seekers", while actively tried to stay away from any explanation of the physics, just to move on to the next denier blog claim. Denier blogs, btw, are parroted without any questioning, while any evidence is dismissed as faulty, fraudulent, or just ignored for lack of understanding. I wonder how much of this attitude is responsible for the present mitigation policy paralysis. Is it important or just a loud stubborn ignorance of a few?
  16. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Looks like two major up-legs with two minor down-legs to me - with perhaps a third down-leg beginning. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/CO2.png
  17. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:36 PM on 6 January 2011
    Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Sorry, it should read 'This doesn't mean that CO2 cannot be responsible for current warming'.
  18. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Tobyjoyce Miekol answers your question "I remain waiting to be convinced either way as regards whether or not CO2 produced by man is a problem. " You say "even the legendary Doubting Thomas had a bottom line. What is yours? " For deniers there is no bottom line. There is no evidence. No facts. No data. No physics. There is simply endless denial, because it bears no relationship to scientific enquiry. "Being a contrarian cannot be just an article of faith"? Being a contrarian is simply an article of faith.
  19. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:22 PM on 6 January 2011
    Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    gallopingcamel If you read my post again, you will see that the first sentence of the final paragraph states that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials during the past 400,000 years. This does not mean that CO2 isn't responsible for current warming. Scientists are looking at current data and observations to draw their conclusions, not what may have happened in the past.
  20. macwithoutfries at 21:59 PM on 6 January 2011
    Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Very good stuff explained in very simple terms! Regarding the estimate on climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing - the resulting numbers have a better than 90% chance to be (far) too low - since the formula assumes that we have already reached the equilibrium point for the current forcing, but that is absolutely certain not the case and if today we would stop increasing CO2 we would still have 20-50 years before reaching the equilibrium point and at that point the calculated sensitivity could potentially be 2-3 times bigger!
  21. Bart Verheggen at 21:53 PM on 6 January 2011
    Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Althought the logarithmic relationship indeed doesn't impact this analysis very strongly, there are other issues with it: - Temperature responds to the net forcing, which is not necessarily equal to 'just' the CO2 forcing. The net climate forcing is only poorly known because of large uncertainties in aerosol forcing. (Aerosol forcing is close, but opposite in sign, to that of the other greenhouse gases, so accidentally the net forcing is close to the CO2 forcing, though with a very large uncertainty dominated by the aerosol effects.) - The climate hasn’t fully responded to the current climate forcing yet, as it takes time to equilibrate (mainly due to ocean thermal inertia). This reflects the warming in the pipeline. This means that the true sensitivity is very likely larger than the estimate you arrive at. Tom Fuller made a similar analysis a while ago (which he also presented at WUWT). See also http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/moving-the-debate-forward-tom-fullers-league-of-2-5/
  22. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    @gallopingcamel #66 I hope your comment (original #24) will come back once is acknowledged that "how they say it" is as important as "what they (apparently) say", at least, in the social, educational and moral aspects. Bearing the last in mind I think the deletion of your post may be a lost. Then, speaking of fuzziness but back to the topic, your "other timescales" suggests you are speaking of past eons. But, could you be precise about the last couple of centuries? Are you trying other people to infer you are suggesting that '"subtle" rather than dominant' is the effect of CO2 additions nowadays? Provided the answer is yes, could you back such an assertion with proper quotations, links and sound science?
  23. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    #14 miekol: please read the SkS article on human CO2. The single dominating fact is that humans are pumping out ~30 bn tons/year and the amount in the atmosphere is going up by about ~15 bn tons/year (actually, by an average of 45% of human emissions rate, see Knorr's paper on atmospheric fraction). To say that the CO2 is coming from nature involves you inventing a magical way for 30 billion tons of human CO2 to disappear and nature to somehow pump out 15 bn tons on top of that. And we know that the oceans are absorbing CO2 since their pH is falling; and that's the main mechanism for CO2's shorter term temperature response... That the rise in CO2 is human caused is so close to certain that I can't understand how anyone who's had the time to check the evidence could conclude otherwise.
  24. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    miekol at 14. #12 answers your question. Maybe you had not seen it when you posted. Your choice now is to thank Scaddenp for clearing up your problem, answer the question in that post or give a reasoned explanation of why it is unsatisfactory. To other posters: I have noticed that a common ploy among deniers is to pose as serious seekers of wisdom -"I genuinely would like to have such and such explained". But once that is done they revert to type, accusing others of not being scientific, denying what they have said elsewhere or opening up peripheral questions about the dictionary meaning of words. Far be it from me to assume that meikol is like this but, if he or she is not prepared to take up the options above, I would think future posts could be safely ignored
  25. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    miekol, I have engaged in several on-line debates with people who have issued the challenge: "Ok, go on! Convince me about global warming! I'm open minded." In the end, I have realised that it really is a futile exercise. The discussions were an interminable "Well, what about ....?" or different versions of "Go fetch another rock". In the end, I realise the best we can do is to iterate and re-iterate the evidence. In the end, a person can only really convince themselves. If you are sincere, it is you who should be assimilating and evaluating the scientific consensus for your own benefit. Where is your own bottom line? Where do you see weaknesses in the case, and what will it mean if the global temperature anomaly rises for 1, 2, 3, 4 .... years more, Arctic sea ice extent continues to decline, glaciers continue to retreat ... etc. Most people who have trapped me into "debates" have just continued to iterate "Well, I'm not convinced!" at each presentation of new evidence. But, being a contrarian cannot be just an article of faith. If you are acquainted with the Bible, you know that even the legendary Doubting Thomas had a bottom line. What is yours?
  26. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    If we accept that CO2 is a significant GHG, then it follows that increasing its atmospheric concentrations to levels not seen in the last 400K years (or whatever) is likely to be a problem. If you're going to argue that CO2 isn't a significant GHG, then you have to do some pretty nimble scientific footwork, to explain how it behaves differently from other non-homogenous diatomic molecules.
  27. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Blibliovermis This is a science site, Which means accuracy in statements,as John would point out. I've not kept count of my posts but it probably numbers no more than 10 to 15, certainly not 100s. Also I have never used sarcasm, at least not as defined in an English dictionary. Unfortunately unwise but very clever people often credit me with knowledge and cleverness that I simply do not poses. I simply say it as I see it, but it gets interpreted as my being a smart ass. Just as its likely you will interpret this post as a 'smart ass,' retort. Its not, and its not meant be. I remain waiting to be convinced either way as regards whether or not CO2 produced by man is a problem.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Actually, you have posted here more than 40 times since July 29, 2010. You have continually expressed doubt about CO2 being a greenhouse gas and that it cannot be certain that CO2 plays a role in controlling temperatures in any way. The in-line responses to you have provided numerous links to allay your concerns; that you are still maintaining this fiction means that you have not read the links (done your homework) or you simply choose to continue to unbelieve. That is your choice. Do not, however, maintain that no one has tried to help you.
  28. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    I made similar calculations last year. Using the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and warming I estimated the climate sensitivity at 1.8±0.25 °C. See this graph. I do not speculate on positive or negative feedbacks, that might alter the shape of the curve. This picture also shows that the present halting of the warming still falls within the confidence limits of the trend. Only if the 1998 record will not be broken at a CO2-level of 440 ppm (probably in 2036) the relationship will be falsified, or if before 2020 the temperature drops below the 2008 level. There is still hope for humanity!
  29. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    meikol - the isotopic signature of the CO2 being added to the atmosphere shows it is from fossil sources whereas as the SLOW feedbacks from temperature rise would be biogenic. (eg the change in CO2 during glacial cycle as shown from isotopes in ice core gas bubbles). Can you postulate some physically reasonable mechanism by which temperature rise could increase fossil CO2 in atmosphere? I don't think there is any question that increased CO2 is anthropogenic - skeptic arguments have to hang off decreasing the effect of this.
  30. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    I don't feel the need to interfere in this discussion. Just a point to support tobyjoyce: Excel is very well able to use two Y-axis. You even don't need Excel 2007. My 2003 version does it perfectly, and as far as I remember, also the earlier versions.
  31. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Keith, Just a point on Excel. "Ideally, I would like to put two vertical scales in place so that each line could be scaled separately. But Excel won’t allow that" In Excel 2007, you can plot some of your series on a secondary axis for any chart type - that was only available before on a special chart. Would Excel 2007 have the application you were looking for?
  32. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Warming Power of CO2: Correlations Hi, Keith, could you take a quick look at this paper and give an opinion. A friend sent it to me ... it got a fuss made over it on Anthony Watts' site. The gist of it is (more or less): "A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 cap-ture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface." Another effort to disprove the greenhouse effect through statistics.
  33. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    It has been possible to prove that the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is anthropogenic since Hans Suess conducted his research on carbon isotopes in 1955. wiki: Suess effect
  34. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Keith, Very good. I think Apple Numbers allows a double scale as well. I have started responding to certain myth claims on twitter with the link to the appropriate post on Skeptical Science. Saves a lot of time. Dan
  35. Not So Cool Predictions
    The same empirical evidence that shows that it's anthropogenic. Please refer to argument #33. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
  36. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Miekol, Please refer to argument #26, both beginner & intermediate. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions Then move on to argument #33. There's no empirical evidence A quick search shows hundreds of comments over the past nine months asking the same questions or simply posting sarcasm. This belies your claim of being "willing to be convinced".
  37. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    How bizarre! I've also been through exactly the same procedure with GISS a few months ago, paartiually to combat the zombies you mention. It makes no difference. I have been reluctant to publish it in full since we really should be using CO2e rather than CO2 which includes the other greenhouse gases. It is rather more difficult to obtain these figures despite repeated requests to various institutions, so if anyone can provide me with a source please post the URL.
  38. Klaus Flemløse at 18:45 PM on 6 January 2011
    Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Very good. Thanks.
  39. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    All very nice, but all I see is a graph showing a rise in CO2 between 1850 and 2010 of 280 to 380 ppm, and a temperature anomaly from -0.4 to 0.4 during the same period. Is the temperature rising because C02 ppm is increasing on a global scale or is CO2 ppm increasing because the temperature is rising on a global scale? That's the crux of the debate isn't? Global warmers cannot prove with certainty that its the increase in CO2, man made or not, that's causing the increase in global temperature and the sceptics cannot prove that its an increase in global temperature that's causing CO2 to increase, or have I missed something? You don't have to explain it here. Just give me links to both sides of the argument. I'm willing to be convinced either way.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] See Bibliovermis' response to you at Comment #6 below and read the linked discussions there. Thanks!
  40. Not So Cool Predictions
    @HR: where's your evidence that natural variability has been driving the current warming? Oh, right, you don't have any. I'll stick with the evidence we have rather than your imaginary science.
  41. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    @GC: "With regard to the first point in (#25), they show temperature leading CO2 concentration. While correlation does not imply causation it is clear that CO2 is not driving temperature changes on Vostok timescales." Yeah, that's pretty much the point of this article. Glad to see you're finally coming around to reason: CO2 has most often been a feedback, not a forcing. This time, of course, things are different: anthropogenic CO2 is a forcing, not a feedback. CO2's effect, however, is anything but subtle. Observations confirm a 2.5 to 4C increase for a doubling of CO2.
  42. Not So Cool Predictions
    Bibliovermis What exactly is the empirical evidence for little-to-no natural variability affecting temperature trend over the past 3 decades or so? At best it's interpretive analysis.
  43. gallopingcamel at 18:12 PM on 6 January 2011
    Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    As frequently happens on this blog, one of my comments (@24) was deleted after some of you had responded. Thank you, Ann-Marie Blackburn, Phila and others for your responses. Yes, my comment about the "New Lysenkoism" was off topic, so I will keep that argument for another day. I spent a dozen years feeding at the trough of federal research dollars, putting project proposals together, so I understand pretty well how researchers "sing for their suppers". Ice cores show all kinds of interesting things and the list keeps growing as our analytical techniques improve. With regard to the first point in (#25), they show temperature leading CO2 concentration. While correlation does not imply causation it is clear that CO2 is not driving temperature changes on Vostok timescales. Does CO2 affect temperature at other timescales? I have no doubt that it does through all kinds of mechanisms including radiative heat transfer, the weathering of rocks, the decomposition of carbonates subducted in plate tectonic processes and so on. However, the effect of CO2 is subtle rather than dominant.
  44. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Apologies for interrupting the discussion, but some of the usual nonsense has distorted some points:- 1. In a continuous system, cause and effect is misleading, and even useless. Contribution rise and fall is more relevant, and more accurate. 2. CH4 records outline the same pattern as CO2 records but not the identical measurements:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg CH4 is more volatile, less persistent, and more indicative of ... swamps. 3. The levels of glaciation illustrates the weak basic solar influence, not the dominance:- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Milankovitch_Variations.png The sun isn't a variation driver - it's the constant light-bulb that promotes stability. Only the gyroscopic motions of the earth give it a place in the cycles. 4. Dust levels may strongly influence the shape of glacial/interglacial turnaround (stronger dust levels during the last and the current interglacial): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png 5. The attempt to remove CO2 influence from glacial oscillations needs to show that the Greenhouse Effect does not exist. The anomaly that it is being artificially force-fed is critical to differentiating between natural behavior and AGW. Most pro-pollution arguments demand a 'cause and effect' with 'prove it' discussion - an attempted semantic victory over scientific reality. Anyone attacking the Greenhouse Effect with the 'not the historic warming cause' gambit, has a pro-pollution agenda. No one ever claimed it was the driver of inter-glacials or return to glaciation. 6. There is one parallel to the current extended warming - the Hoxnian Interglacial (425kya-370kya). 'If' there is a common factor, it's may be the 'flood' event of Lake Agassiz emptying into Hudson Bay. Scablands to the west, the Mississippi basin south, and the Great Lakes carving east, all show geologic markers as flood-event basins. But the current stability (which is now being overturned by AGW) may relate to the anomaly of a Hudson's Bay drainage.
  45. Not So Cool Predictions
    @KL: "Figure 1 keeps getting trotted out in these threads despite plenty of discussion in other OHC content threads to show that the OHC jumps and spikes of Fig 1 are impossible." The fact that contrarians have claimed in other threads that the OHC increase is impossible doesn't make it so. Funny how "unskeptical" some people get when assessing claims that happen to agree with their opinion...
  46. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    Nice one Keith. In fact, Excel does allow different y-axis scales - you have to choose their XY plot to access that rather than their Line plot.
  47. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 17:19 PM on 6 January 2011
    Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    I assumed in my post that Bill Peddie #58 would twig to the fact that more water evaporates as it gets hotter (it's getting hotter because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere), which means there is now more water vapour in the atmosphere, which, because water vapour is a greenhouse gas, makes things warm up even more. On re-reading his post, it seems that he may not have made that fairly obvious connection between more CO2 and more water vapour. Where more CO2 is giving rise to more heat, which is giving rise to more water vapour, which is giving rise to even more heat. And he might not have twigged to the fact that rain is the effect of water vapour condensing into liquid water, which puts a cap on the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere at certain temperatures and humidity levels. Sometimes it's easy to miss the obvious, or pretend to do so.
  48. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Bill Peddie, you'd be well advised to watch this lecture video before you post another message here: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
  49. Graphs from the Zombie Wars
    and here is some more... http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/12/statistical-proof-of-anthropogenic.html
  50. Not So Cool Predictions
    Original Post dana1981 Figure 1 keeps getting trotted out in these threads despite plenty of discussion in other OHC content threads to show that the OHC jumps and spikes of Fig 1 are impossible. With a steady purported CO2GHG forcing summing with other heating and cooling forcings to a positive forcing of 0.9W/sq.m (Trenberth 2009) rising continuously (if not steadily) for at least 100 years, the dramatic spikes, declines and jumps in the chart on a global scale are simply inconsistent with the forcing history. For those who wish to suggest that cycles such as ENSO, La Nina, AMO etc are responsible for these responses, then consider that these cycles are supposed to be re-distributing heat within the system and are not 'external' forcings - so should have little or no effect on 'global' ocean and land heat content. If ENSO, La Nina etc are responsible for these global OHC variations, then we have a new set of 'external' forcings - able to drive gains and losses of heat to space. In such case - that is contrary to current understanding of the external forcings at play, and would change the whole AGW story. The more likely explanation is that pre-Argo measurements of OHC are not worth a crumpet - in which case Fig 1 should come with disclaimer 'probably not reliable before 2003'.

Prev  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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