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  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  Next

Comments 99501 to 99550:

  1. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    villabolo #116, and muoncounter #117, That's roughly what I meant: "colder and snowier winters for Europe, Asia and parts of North America", And they thought they'd never see snow again in England... Climate is hard to predict.
  2. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    archiesteel, #102: "Contrarians started with the cherry-picking, the only reason people gave counter-examples was to illustrate that cherry-picking. Don't lie in our faces and expect us to believe you." I have gone through the history of this thread, and the first uses of cherry-picking temperatures that I can find, are from dhogaza (#24 and #32). After that I gave some counter-examples.
  3. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric (skeptic) - A question of clarification, if you please. Do you mean that monthly averages over large areas are (a) insufficient information to determine radiative balances, or (b) we are incapable of measuring such averages? I thought we were doing a decent job of measuring the averages, through satellite observations and confirmatory surface back-radiation measurements. And I cannot understand arguing that long term regional averages are inappropriate to measure long term climate.
  4. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault - When you wrote "The atmosphere does not "heat" the oceans. Not by radiative forcing nor by any other method. The oceans "heat" the atmosphere." you are quite correct. If when you mean "Heat" you mean net transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the ocean. The actual net (summed) flow is sunlight->ocean->atmosphere->space, or in more detail: Heat Transfer (net energy flow) sunlight->ocean and atmosphere ocean->atmosphere and space atmosphere->space The rate of any of these is dependent on the difference in temperatures between them. The thing is, a warm IR absorbing/radiating atmosphere reduces the effective temperature difference between the ocean and space (the final destination for the energy from sunlight). And hence it's harder for the ocean to dump energy at any particular temperature - it accumulates and warms the ocean. Radiant energy scales with T^4, so this isn't open-ended warming. These are pretty much greenhouse basics, memoryvault - I suggest you take a look at Has the greenhouse effect been falsified for an overview of the mechanics.
  5. A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    I dont think the CRU team were blameless in the FOI requests. I think its shades of gray. That being said the in the febrile atmosphere of climate gate I dont think there was a lot of space for nuance. Stuff like 'hide the decline' were in many ways spectacular own goals by the contrairians as they were easily shown up as being overhyped. They polarised the debate and motivated the more vocal sceptics but I strongly think that it made scepticism appear to be hyperbolic and politically motivated, precisely what people accuse mainstream climate science of being to the lay public. It was amplified by the surge to the right in the UK and US politically and the cold winters, but in the long run served to make sceptics sound shrill by giving the loudest voices to the least capable of making a scientific case for low climate sensitivity. The real damage of climategate was the press seeking to sell a controvesy rather than explain science. Amist one of the three strongest la Ninas for the past 60 years and very low solar activity we are still smaking straight into the 30 year average on the UAH dataset http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ (as a measure of mid troposphere temps UAH and RSS tend to show a bigger swing through ENSO cycles) By the peak of the next el Nino, in all likleyhood any loss of public confidence will have been reveresed as the data continues to pile in. I strongly suspect that pressure on governments from the public, the scientific comunity and increasingly business (who will see that they need to understand how governments will tackle CO2 levels so they can make long term planning decisions) will break in the favour of taking action as the data piles in. My personal hunch is that the trend for 2011 will see political comentators and bloggers making it clear they were always luke warmers and never disputed sensitivities of up to 2C (perhaps even 3C). McKintyre has been on this for a while (and he is one of the sharpest of the contrarians).
  6. actually thoughtful at 04:11 AM on 3 January 2011
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Memory Vault When you say Angstrom's "discredited" Arrhenius's theory - do you mean the experiment where Angstrom used faulty methodology? The end result being only Angstrom's work was discredited? Is that the incident you are referring to? It appears that as far back as 1900 the only way to "discredit" AGW was through bad science (just to tie this back to the original post). I bring all this up to yes, score debating points - but also because there is a sense that somehow AGW is a new, specially tailored theory that Al Gore dreamed up right after he invented the Internet. But the reality is that AGW is climate science. It is physics and it is chemistry and any other related science. If you understand the science you are a proponent of AGW (or at worst an informed skeptic). So the task for skeptics such as yourself is first to understand enough so you see why my statement is true. Otherwise you just spark the ire of folks who have walked people through this 100s of times before and know you will either get it (unlikely due to human nature, not climate science) or walk away thinking those folks at skepticalscience are irrational (sadly the more likely outcome). Once you understand the basic truth that AGW is physics and is climate science you are ready to be a skeptic and figure out how the core science is wrong. At that point you will have the undying gratitude of millions (plus quite a bit of money from entrenched energy companies that want nothing more than the right to pollute and profit in peace). Finally, if you don't mind me asking - what is your source of information? You said it was a high school education in the 1960s, then you said Arrhenius was discredited until he was dusted off in the 70s (presumably after you graduated from high school). And yet you not only know Arrhenius but you know about Angstrom's inept assistant and the bungled "discrediting"; and you are here on skepticalscience looking for answers - so it seems likely you have an additional current source of (perhaps faulty) information. Thanks.
  7. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    I feel compelled to counter at least ad hominem memoryvault threw onto this thread about Arrhenius. I hope moderators allow it, because I've seen this comment show up elsewhere, too. Yes, Arrhenius was a board member of the State Institute for Racial Hygeine. Yes, he was involved in studying eugenics. But to link Arrhenius to the forced sterilisation programme of the Swedish government is downright evil. Evil, because that started in 1934, seven years after Arrhenius had died. Then again, I guess these same people think Newton's law are complete nonsense, considering he also dabbled in alchemy.
  8. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #117: "Winters will be shortened, perhaps warmer and even more severe" Some interesting observations from Jun 2010. There really is a consistent theme, as also reported here: Polar heat pushing jet stream south, bringing harder winters for U.S./Europe/Japan Climate change has warmed the entire Arctic region, melting 2.5 million square kilometres of sea ice, and that, paradoxically, is producing colder and snowier winters for Europe, Asia and parts of North America. This huge mass of warmer air over the Arctic in the late fall not only generates more wind and snow locally, ... altered normal wind patterns, pushing the jet stream further south and bringing arctic cold to much of Eurasia and Japan. In eastern North America, the same conditions of 2007-8 produced increased precipitation and colder temperatures in the winter.
  9. A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    More than anything else, the so-called "climategate" emails proved that climate-scientists can get very angry when journal papers containing freshman C-student errors are used as political weapons against them.
  10. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    I have an early submission for the 2011 award. While listening to of all things, an organic gardening show on the radio. This guy (call-in) tells the host that he is having trouble with his tomato plants, which he believes is due to "aluminum". When ask why he thought the cause was due to aluminum, he said, "well, I don't want to get into conspiracy theories, but they have been putting aluminum oxide in the atmosphere and that's what's causing global warming".
  11. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 03:00 AM on 3 January 2011
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Berényi Péter All this tells me is that there is variability within the system, as expected. What it doesn't tell me is how the cycles memoryvault refers to are responsible for the ongoing, long-term rise in temperatures. This is the point I was trying to get to (eventually) with regards to memoryvault's assertions that ocean cycles can explain recent temperature trends.
  12. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus, #114: "Thanks for the link to the British climate prediction (snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past), written some ten years ago! Little did they know. Parts of it were hilarious read, in the light of this winter." They would be wrong, as a short term prediction (i.e. temporarily), not because their general concept of Global Warming is wrong, but because they were unaware of what the severe NAOs would do and, of course, to the uneducated public's general perception that their backyard is the whole world. There is nothing 'hilarious' in the longer term; still within the lifetime of children 10 years ago; when the Arctic Ice Cap meltdown gets to the point where the Artic will be mostly open water during the summer*. Winters will be shortened, perhaps warmer and even more severe (If Super NAOs become a semipermanent feature.). Summers will be worse still with the Arctic Ocean's drastically changed albedo boosting water temps by 3-5C. It will then become obvious to even 'skeptics' that the climate will be that of extremes (I'm sure that their rationalization 'du joure' would be 'Natural Global Warming' with a revisionist history of "we told you all along".). There will be nothing hilarious to the children of ten years ago, or their children, as they get repeatedly flooded with rains and buried in warm wet snow year after dreary year. Briefly put, Argus, is that; little do you know; parts of this thread will, in the future, make a hilarious read in light of the next [winter] 20 winters. * Predictions are that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer anytime from 2020 to 2030; for a few days at first, then weeks and months in subsequent years. These predictions do not take into account the effect of NAOs diminishing winter ice build up. That, of course, will accelerate summer ice loss. This makes NAO another feed back loop that has not been taken into account. 2020 to 2030 for ice free summers may actually be 2016 to 2020.
  13. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    @Berényi Péter #50 "It's here. Between third quarter of 2009 and third quarter of 2010 the upper 700 m of oceans lost 1.015×1022 J. That's equivalent to a continuous net radiative heat loss at TOA (Top of Atmosphere) of 0.63 W/m2 averaged over the entire year." Is 0-700m "the ocean"? What about 700 or more (about 75-80% of all)? Why if "ocean" cooled, sea level continued to grow? Thermal expansion of sea water is about a half of sea level rise. Aren't you copying the structure of the "travesty"? If you thought that by "ocean cooling" Anne-Marie wasn't asking for general trends, why don't you answer that in this very moment -and any moment- about half of the ocean and half of the emerging lands are cooling much more than 0.63W/m2. If we are going to divide our subjects to make an argument I will tell that half of the ocean is more than 0-700m. It looks to me like your argument is just an exploit of the gap between the availability of different sets of recent data and the delayed publication of peer reviewed comprehensive analysis. After all, much of the claim for easy availability of raw data "to check it" had purposes like that, hadn't it?
  14. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    #44: Anyone spot the contradiction(s)? a. "Stratospheric cooling and decreased IR emissions into space could simply be the result of the planet cooling off." b. "A warmer planetary surface system ... will ALWAYS have higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere." c. "the oceans have been acting as a "thermal blanket", trading heat with the atmosphere. Now the loss of heat energy is becoming measurable and the oceans are cooling." So: c. Oceans cool and atmosphere warms as they 'trade heat'. Except that a. planet is cooling, yet b. planet surface must be warmer as CO2 remains high. The only possible reply to that is: I see said the blind man to his deaf daughter, as he picked up his hammer and saw.
  15. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Hi, michael sweet (#96): "Argus, I am still waiting for your to produce data on a location that is colder than average. Hot locations support my position that it is still warming." I am not sure of what this dispute is about. I still maintain that it has been unusually cold in most of Europe, most of Siberia, in Alaska (and Eastern U.S.). See the map in #51! That's a lot of locations. Or do you just mean Greenland? I certainly agree that, at the same time, it has been an unusually mild December on the south-eastern coast of Greenland, especially. What I wanted to oppose was the erroneous picture of Greenland having +14 C every day. When I looked, the daily highs on that coast were about -5 to +5. Also, I do not trust your German maps that show "a high of 13C for Greenland". First, it is just in one isolated spot. Second, these numbers of joy do not agree with the Danish/Greenland weather site. (see: http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/) I still think that December will show to be cold.
  16. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #111: "parts of the globe where monthly average temperatures were high above normal, ... (almost) no one lives." But this is bizarre; a kind of reverse UHI? If it matters, here's a place where 1.22M people live. San Diego: December was wetter, warmer than normal Isn't arguing about how one month's weather was 'perceived' completely irrelevant? The broader pattern remains intact: an anomalously warm year ending an anomalously warm decade. Whether you think December where you lived was warmer or cooler than usual, it certainly was wet (including snow). And there is ample reason, consistent with a warming environment, for more atmospheric moisture in the early winter. See: lake effect snow.
  17. Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
    "While the inquiry did criticize the individual graph mentioned in the "trick" email, it found no evidence of CRU manipulating tree ring data or downplaying the uncertainties." So what does 'hide the decline' mean in scientific terms then?? We know what 'the decline' is. It is the decline in tree ring proxy temperatures after about 1960. So why would anyone want to hide that fact which is supposedly well discussed in the specialist literature? So what would a reasonably intelligent layman make of these facts? Well how about this: CRU's Jones used the word 'hide' in a private communication because that was his intent - to hide the awkward bit of data which did not fit the upward trajectory of the warming chart. "But this was one isolated instance that occurred more than a decade ago." [snipped]
  18. Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
    "The “trick” was a way of presenting the data in this one particular graph, namely to truncate the tree ring data at the point when it diverged." This is incorrect. It's "Mike's Nature trick". Mike (=Michael Mann) did not truncate any tree ring data in his publications (not specifically in his infamous 1998 Nature paper). Instead the "trick" is to add instrumental temperature series to the end of the reconstruction (to the truncated reconstruction in the case of Briffa's series) prior to smoothing. This should be clear as the sentence continues "of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s". Finally, the effect of this "trick" is to turn the end of the smoothed series upwards (instead of downwards as they would without adding in the instrumental series), and thus "to hide the decline".
  19. How much did aerosols contribute to mid-20th century cooling?
    THANK YOU, YOOPER!!!!
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You're welcome!
  20. Berényi Péter at 00:26 AM on 3 January 2011
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    #49 Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:09 PM on 2 January, 2011 Where is the data that shows ocean cooling? It's here. Between third quarter of 2009 and third quarter of 2010 the upper 700 m of oceans lost 1.015×1022 J. That's equivalent to a continuous net radiative heat loss at TOA (Top of Atmosphere) of 0.63 W/m2 averaged over the entire year. It is definitely not increasing since third quarter of 2003. Prior to that date it was not measured properly. Trenberth's missing heat can only be found in the past.
  21. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Berényi Péter, #95, Thanks for the link to the British climate prediction (snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past), written some ten years ago! Little did they know. Parts of it were hilarious read, in the light of this winter. Some quotes: - According to Dr David Viner, ... within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". - "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. - Professor Jarich Oosten ... says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important. - David Parker ... says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.
  22. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @Berényi Péter #111 "It explains the general perception of the last month of last year being one of the coldest on record." General perception where? London and NYC, I presume. Define "general". Why don't you let Kamchatka aside and link the other 23 megacities in the world? We are 450 million people living there. Crowded enough? You'll be surprised.
  23. Eric (skeptic) at 23:39 PM on 2 January 2011
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #108 KR, the radiation balance (see daily global average temperatures: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/) changes sign every few days down to one or two times a month. The problem is we cannot look at the system from a "sufficient distance" (e.g. monthly averages balances) yet see the changes that matter. For example, November brought us negative NAO which caused two things: the redistribution of heat and (part of the) net global cooling. December had several smaller episodes with no net effect (or was offset by other areas of the globe). Redistribution may not change the balance much, but the cooling that follows does. La Nina also had an impact on November temperatures but it is not a correct assumption that all the variation in GAT came from La Nina. For one thing La Nina doesn't change that often. In this particular case our La Nina leveled off in November after an initial steep drop. We're not in super La Nina territory by any stretch http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml The bottom line is that the short term cooling had a weather component along with La Nina. #109 dhogaza, which observations? Weather partly saved us in November and December. The albedo increased (snow in Europe and N. America, low clouds over the Atlantic), OLR increased (arctic warmth, more low clouds). Right now weather is not saving us (zonal flow with none or less of the above). One of the theories of AGW is that weather won't save us because CO2 will warm the arctic more and lower the amount of meridional circulation which is a positive feedback. The recent blocking negated that effect. #110 muoncounter, yes, no sun, no albedo, I was thinking beyond the Arctic.
  24. Berényi Péter at 23:16 PM on 2 January 2011
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #99 dhogaza at 07:06 AM on 2 January, 2011 Yesterday was 6 degrees warmer than average in NY City, and a couple of days ago it was well above average in London. Obviously he's never been to NYC or London, or else he wouldn't make the outrageous claim that "no one lives there". We are talking about December, 2010, don't we? For most of this month temperatures ran well below average in both NYC & London, you can check it. And yes, in those parts of the globe where monthly average temperatures were high above normal, that is, Northern Canada, South Eastern Greenland & Eastern Siberia, including Kamchatka (almost) no one lives. It explains the general perception of the last month of last year being one of the coldest on record. And now... meet your strawman. BTW, I happened to live in both cities you've mentioned and noticed crowds there. A Happy New Year!
  25. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:09 PM on 2 January 2011
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault Could you describe the mechanism(s) by which a cooling planet can explain changes in outgoing radiation precisely at those wavelengths at which greenhouse gases absorb energy? How does a cooling planet explain the increase in downward longwave radiation? Is there any data that supports this hypothesis? Or even better, scientific papers? Where is the data that shows ocean cooling?
  26. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    MV @ 44 - Yes, Mars has a lower gravity, yes it has a thin atmosphere, and yes it is further from the sun. And no oceans of water. And greater orbital eccentricity than Earth. And no clouds of composed of water vapor. And no plate tectonics. And a higher atmosphere. So there should be "some" degree of radiative forcing causing "some" level of warming. Yes, earlier in its' history Mars may have had clouds made of CO2 which warmed it enough to allow water to form on its' surface. Well that's according to some of those atmospheric physicists anyway. But what do we find - zilch. Nada, nothing. By "we" I take it you mean you. Next time look harder. Mars does indeed have a very small Greenhouse Effect, about 2 degrees C according to early work by Carl Sagan.
  27. Antarctica is gaining ice
    @vank #66 There are now at least two antipodal points in the Earth with the same temperature and pressure. That's absolutely true. And? Say whatever you want, and I will tell you there still are two antipodal points ... It makes no sense? Why? You were making the same kind of argumentation with your 1950/minusquartermillion reference. Let me rephrase your idea "in 1950 C02 levels were the same as in 234116BC without industrial revolution the same way there were no atomic weapons when women had not right to vote" We can safely infer important conclusions from those facts.
  28. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    You are right, memoryvault. A lot of dialectical techniques we see here daily are just plain manipulative tactics. Such techniques should be described and confronted avoiding names. Calling someone "denialist" deviates attention from the arguments and even ennobles the person as a brave soldier of some worthy crusade. As this site is duplicating traffic each eight months -and this causes people who don't deserve the d-word to become threefolded- the problem is locating and citing the comments from a person in a way it is evident what is he or she doing. For instance, someone wrote recently "MemoryVault's five fallacies 1)That balance means one page for lies to balance one page of truth. Rather balance means understanding that all stories have..." but I found it using Google and I am unable to locate the proper page to see the discussion. Can anyone tell me where is located?
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] That quote came from here.
  29. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Low incoming solar radiation + very few CO2 molecules to capture outgoing infrared radiation = VERY COLD PLANET. Its not rocket science, MV, though clearly its well beyond your understanding. As to your claims re: the planet cooling off. What complete & utter bunkum. Did you fail to grasp the part where I pointed out how, in geological time, the Sun is getting brighter-not dimmer. So how exactly is the planet meant to "cool down"? If it were somehow "cooling down", then that should be causing the stratosphere to warm-not cool-& we should also be seeing an increase in IR radiation escaping the atmosphere. So you see, MV, that your claims are contradicted by observed reality-as always. Similarly, your claims of a cooling ocean are also not backed by observation. The total heat content of the oceans are continuing to rise-not fall as you claim. I've already debunked your ludicrous claims of a "25-30 year cycle", using *actual data* (data seems to be a concept people like yourself are unfamiliar with), data which shows we've been in a warming phase for the better part of 100 years-with the first 50 years being explainable by increased solar input, but the second 50 years running contrary to decreasing solar input. Indeed, in spite of decreasing solar input, the warming of the last 30 years has been the fastest ever recorded (including the Holocene Optimum, the Roman Warm Period & the Medieval Warm Period-all of which occurred over the space of *centuries*-not decades as we're currently seeing). Your claims regarding climate in the distant past are equally pseudo-scientific. The Sun was significantly cooler than today, so where was all this heat needed to get CO2 into the atmosphere? The CO2, as any primary school student could tell you, was as a result of long-term (multi millions of years worth) volcanism. That CO2 then trapped the radiation of the much dimmer sun to give significantly warmer temperatures than today. So you've really got your cause & effect back to front. So really, not a single one of your claims has any basis in *reality*, & are just more of the same pseudo-scientific bunkum you've been spouting since the start of this thread. All I can say then is, given your complete lack of knowledge in this area, I can only pray you "stick to your day-job" in future.
  30. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    The ol Mars should have lots more heat trick.. So how do deniers explain Venus ??
  31. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Vank - So..... 1950 levels are equal to 1/4 of a million years ago with no industrial revolution.. See my comment @ 57. It's Milankovitch cycles. The previous interglacial cycles were warmer because the timing/variation of Earth's orbit/tilt/wobbles lead to greater solar radiation at the surface (insolation). No such confluence of factors exist during this interglacial. In fact we have already seen the natural high point of this interglacial during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, about 6000 years ago. The warming we are experiencing now is not natural, in fact we should be on our way to "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation". Variations in the Earth's Orbit - Pacemaker of the Ice Ages Hope this helps clear this up for you. Also: sorry to hear about your solar panels, but even decades from now, when it's globally much, much warmer, there will still be snow in winter.
  32. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Marcus - and Rob Painting Yes, Mars has a lower gravity, yes it has a thin atmosphere, and yes it is further from the sun. Nonetheless, it does have an atmosphere, and that atmosphere does have CO2. So there should be "some" degree of radiative forcing causing "some" level of warming. But what do we find - zilch. Nada, nothing. Marcus As to the other points you wish me to debunk, let's see: Stratospheric cooling and decreased IR emissions into space could simply be the result of the planet cooling off. Note I said "planet", not "atmosphere". In the larger scheme of things the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere is piddling compared to other sources. The warmer climate hundreds of millions of years ago when CO2 levels were ten times higher than today? A warmer planetary surface system (atmosphere + oceans + land surface will ALWAYS have higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is fully in accordance with Henry's Gas Law - one of the Noble Gas Laws which, along with the Laws of Thermodynamics are obviously no longer taught in high schools today. The fact that temperatures are (or at least have been) rising despite a decline in solar activity. Simple. All energy comes from the sun (well most of it anyway). A large amount of it ends up stored in the oceans. The oceans have what is erroneously described on this website as "low thermal inertia", but we'll stick with the term for now since everybody here knows what it is meant to mean. Put simply, the oceans have been acting as a "thermal blanket", trading heat with the atmosphere. Now the loss of heat energy is becoming measurable and the oceans are cooling. So too will the atmosphere. It goes in roughly 25 -30 year cycles. Has done since the last glacial. Almost like the planet breathing. Which is about where I came in.
  33. Antarctica is gaining ice
    So..... 1950 levels are equal to 1/4 of a million years ago with no industrial revolution.... Thanks for answering my question by spending your precious time. Good Night, and Good Luck PS Im not in denial.... maybe u are. I did spend 40000 € 4 years ago for solar panels on my roof (did u?)to produce clean, CO2 free electric power and i m cleaning now the snow of almost on a daily basis.... so spare me the "denial" article
  34. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    MV @ 42 You tell me why Mars IS an iceball? Low gravity, thin atmosphere, further from the sun. That rebuttal is on the "to do" list I think.
  35. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    First of all, Mars is much further away than Earth. Second-but most importantly of all-the air pressure of Mars is much lower than Earth. So even though CO2 is a large proportion of the Martian Atmosphere, the atmosphere is simply too thin to retain much heat. Look at Venus, though, with its very thick CO2 rich atmosphere. Its also worth noting that Mars once had a thicker atmosphere-warm enough to support liquid water-abut the same time water was beginning to appear on Earth-so clearly the rich CO2 of a thicker Martian Atmosphere was able to compensate for its greater distance from the Sun. So yet again your counter-argument is totally weak & unsubstantiated. I'm of course still waiting for you to provide evidence to debunk my other points with regards to CO2-namely stratospheric cooling, the decrease of IR emissions into space, the warmer climate of hundreds of millions of years ago (when CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today), the fact that temperatures are warming despite a decline in solar activity. Come on, I'm waiting.
  36. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Marcus "The fact is that the ability of CO2 to absorb Infrared Radiation has been proven-time & again-in the laboratory. Tell us, if the Greenhouse Effect isn't real, then why isn't our planet an ice-ball? You tell me why Mars IS an iceball? Much higher proportion of CO2 in it's atmosphere than here on earth - so obviously enough for a bit of radiative forcing. And yet it remains largely a frozen ball. And I never claimed atmospheric gases don't hold a certain amount of heat energy. I wrote that the transfer of heat energy is from the oceans to the atmosphere, not the other way around. Or are you now claiming that the atmosphere holds more heat energy than the oceans? And no, I didn't get my "established physics" from "Denialist propaganda sites". I got it from a good high school education followed by a degree in mechanical engineering, followed by 35 years working in the field - quite often in areas associated with heat energy transfer - you know, thermodynamics. Where did you get yours from? And for the record, I'm downunder here OZ and I don't get cable - I've never seen the Fox News Network.
  37. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    If your take on the laws of thermodynamics were true, memoryvault, then our planet would be an uninhabited Ice-Ball of a planet. It is the ability of Greenhouse gases to trap infrared radiation that gives our planet the comfortable average temperature of roughly 16 degrees C, rather than -18 degrees C. The problem is that you get your "established physics" from Denialist Propaganda sites.
  38. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Ah, memoryvault-when faced with an argument you can't win, you resort to the tried-&-true denialist tactic of character assassination. The fact is that the ability of CO2 to absorb Infrared Radiation has been proven-time & again-in the laboratory. Tell us, if the Greenhouse Effect isn't real, then why isn't our planet an ice-ball? If CO2 isn't a significant Greenhouse Gas, then why were temperatures several degrees warmer about half a billion years ago-in spite of a much dimmer sun? If CO2 isn't the cause of current global warming, then why is there a decreasing correlation between solar activity & global temperatures? If Tropospheric CO2 concentrations are not the key cause of global warming, then why is there a decline in outgoing IR radiation into space? Why is there a decrease in stratospheric temperatures over the period of 1979-2010? Seriously, your arguments are getting increasingly infantile, & its abundantly clear that you have nothing intelligent to add to these discussions-& never did.
  39. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    KR "Air has very little thermal mass, water has a lot by comparison, and it takes some time to respond to the radiative imbalance. I don't understand what your issue is with it." Temperature is not heat. The atmosphere does not "heat" the oceans. Not by radiative forcing nor by any other method. The oceans "heat" the atmosphere. Observable proof - evaporation which leads to our precipitation. There is more "heat energy" in the top 10 feet of the oceans than in the entire atmosphere, and there's a couple of miles of ocean under that, all containing heat energy. Our Laws of Thermodynamics clearly hold that heat energy will always flow to maximise entropy - or in simple terms from systems of high heat energy to systems of low heat energy. Or in this case, from the oceans to the atmosphere. All of this is very well-established physics, KR - at least in my universe - and has very little to do with VW's pulling trailers.
  40. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Ken Lambert #31, I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. I just don’t see its relevance. If one adds a continuous forcing, the climate system does reach equilibrium with that specific forcing. If one adds more forcing on top of the earlier one while the system is still adjusting to the earlier forcing and one keeps doing this, the system will never reach full equilibrium. This is true but it has incorporated the earlier forcings at some point by getting warmer in small steps. Equilibrium with a specific forcing is what’s relevant to observing the results of the standard CO2 radiation forcing formula. This is becoming way too complicated for most readers who are not climate scientists, including me. I will leave further discussion for the scientists.
  41. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Actually Thoughtfull "the world is warming, and it is warming precisely due to CO2 - as we have known since Arrhenius's work in 1896. That is 114 years of time tested science." You mean Arrhenius' work that was discredited by Angstrom within a couple of years of its publication, and languished in obscurity for for nearly seventy years until it was dusted off to give support to the CO2 AGW theory. Hardly 114 years of "time tested science". By the way, would that be the Arrhenius who was a lifetime member of the Swedish Society of Racial Hygiene, and board member of the The Swedish Institute for Racial Biology that was at the forefront in sterilising tens of thousands of "mental defectives"? Yet another climate scientist who supports global warming and dabbles in population control as a hobby - seems uncommonly common.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Further comments containing ad hominems such as yours will be deleted - and all comments replying to them. Keep it clean. Final warning.
  42. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault - If you have particular issues with what you perceive as conflicts between thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect, please say what they are. Note there are several threads appropriate for the "greenhouse effect", "2nd law of thermodynamics", and "ocean heat content", which you can find using the search box. Thermal inertia - if you hook a VW bug to a small trailer, and floor it, it's going to accelerate to highway speeds pretty quickly. On the other hand, if you use the same VW to tow a tractor-trailer, it's going to take a lot longer to get up to speed. Air has very little thermal mass, water has a lot by comparison, and it takes some time to respond to the radiative imbalance. I don't understand what your issue is with it. As to cycles - checking back (using a great number of tools) on various forcings of the climate, it's evident that solar changes, pollution albedo, El Nino, volcanos, and other things have had an effect on the climate - CO2 is not the only driver of climate. But if you look at the last 150 years, it's clear that only CO2 heating can explain the current temperature trends - nothing else correlates. In particular, look at the moderator response to posting #2 on that thread. All of this is very well-established physics, memoryvault. There are definitely uncertainties, such as just how much the climate will respond to a particular forcing, and how cloud cover will respond. But the overall picture is quite solid.
  43. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault, I again ask you to check your facts. If you break the planet's climate for the last 120 years into neat, 30 year "cycles", then you get the following. 1890-1920 -0.007 degrees per decade (effectively no warming or cooling); 1920-1950 (a period dominated by significant increases in solar output-peaking around the mid-1940's) +0.096 degrees per decade; 1950-1980 (a period where solar output remained relatively stable) +0.014 degrees per decade. Finally 1980-2010 (a period dominated by falling solar output) +0.16 degrees per decade. So please do tell us where these natural 25-30 year cycles are, because the evidence isn't backed by observed temperature trends. The other problem is, of course, if the current warming was natural, irrespective of the actual cause, we'd be seeing a warming evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere-but instead its limited to the troposphere, whilst the stratosphere is cooling. I also note you've brought up *another* zombie meme-namely the claim that scientists were predicting an Ice Age. In fact, 90% of all scientific literature of the day was predicting either no change or warming-the "Global Cooling" hypothesis was a minority view, even then. The rest of your post is, yet again, the typical ad-hominem attacks that are used as a substitute for actual proof. The fact that you've not "seen anything" to suggest anything different is just because of your own selective blindness, not the result of a lack of evidence. Unless you're prepared to provide evidence, contrary to what we've supplied you, to back up your increasingly infantile claims, then there really is no point in continuing this discussion with you.
  44. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Bibliovermis #32 I think you are confusing the totals with the differences. If the total energy flux entering the biosphere is 240.9W/sq.m and the total leaving is 240W/sq.m then the Forcing is positive (+0.9W/sq.m). Temperatures will rise in response to the +0.9W/sq.m over time. 'Forcing' is usually the nomenclature applied to this difference. For a new equilibirum temperature to be reached the outgoing energy flux has to rise to 240.9W/sq.m - hence the 'Forcing' is reduced to zero. The biosphere ceases to gain more energy than it loses.
  45. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    muoncounter Back in the Sixties we were taught in high school about the 25 - 30 year cyclical nature of climate, within a larger 600 year cycle of warming and cooling. We were taught this because it had already been observed and noted for a long time. To date I've not seen anything, anywhere, including this site, to suggest anything different is happening now. In the mid-Seventies however I did see all of this same "end of the world because man is evil" claptrap. Only then we were all going to die because evil man was causing the planet to cool down. The fact was we were simply transitioning from a 25 - 30 year cooling period into the current warming period. I have no doubt in 25 - 30 years there will be a similar period of mass-hysteria, though I doubt anybody will make the sort of money that's being creamed off this latest insanity. Since I am saying nothing untoward is happening that hasn't happened in the past and won't happen again in the future, and you people are claiming something entirely different is happening - "just this once", then the burden of proof lies squarely at your feet, not mine.
  46. actually thoughtful at 17:32 PM on 2 January 2011
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Memoryvault - your posts remind me of a frog in water warming to a boil. For some reason you are not noticing that the earth is warmer this year than last, and taken at a decade level -we haven't had a decade colder than the last since the 70s were cooler than the 60s. So we are at 30-40 years of your 60 year cycle. It better start getting cold and quick! More likely the research of thousands of scientists, individually verifying the same data but through different methods and techniques, are in fact correct and the world is warming, and it is warming precisely due to CO2 - as we have known since Arrhenius's work in 1896. That is 114 years of time tested science. Basically eternity for science. Good luck disproving the A in AGW - it is very well understood - unless the person doing the understanding has an ideological ax to grind.
  47. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    KR I tried, KR, I really did. I followed the links and I read it all, including the sub-links all the way until I got to the "Humans are causing this warming" and the link to "How do we know CO2 is causing this warming". Then I read through all the stuff about "positive radiative forcing" which hasn't even been established as fact yet, but decided to accept it for the moment in the interests of "getting educated". But then I got to the bit about this allegedly CO2-heated atmosphere "taking a long time to heat up the oceans because of their thermal inertia" and I realised our problem here is we are in parallel universes, you and I. In my universe we have something called the Four Laws of Thermodynamics. These obviously don't apply in your universe.
  48. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    #27: "disproved by observable fact." Interesting point from someone who has yet to offer any substantiated facts.
  49. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #107: "Outgoing LW is obviously higher in BP's scenario that you linked." Doesn't that mean the 'scenario' is incorrect? Read the comment, look at the data. "Albedo is not as clear" Albedo? In the Arctic, in winter? It's dark; there's nothing to reflect.
  50. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric: "KR, it is not complex at all. If weather on average creates a more uneven distribution of water vapor, then amplification of CO2 warming will be low or even nonexistent. The distribution of water vapor is what matters, not the average amount, whether Arctic or not" Actually, it's observations that shoot the "weather will save us" hypothesis down. Too bad, eh?

Prev  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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