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  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  Next

Comments 101251 to 101300:

  1. It's the sun
    TheCaz, Specifically figure 2 panel c appears to be what you are looking for.
  2. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    muoncounter we have T^4 ∝ S ∝ r^2 where S is the solar constant and r the distance from the sun, currently 1 AU; so T ∝ r^1/2. Let call A the constant of proportionality, so T=A*r^1/2. We currently have T=288 K and r=1 AU from which we know that A=288 K/AU. Taking the first derivative with respect to t (time) and noting that dT/dt=0.5 K/century we can easily obtain dr/dt=3.5*10^-3 AU/century. If Venus orbit doesn't change, we'll be there in 80 centuries (8 Kyrs). Forget about the next ice age (and much more!). But ... the IPCC is wrong and in the next century we'll get just another 0.5 °C of warming. Mission accomplished.
  3. It's the sun
    TheCaz, Daniel gave you an example of solar reconstructions for the Holocene in his link to Beer et al, 2006.
  4. It's the sun
    Perhaps what you are trying to say is 'we do not know whether solar activity and surface temps were uncoupled prior to the 1800s because the ability to measure solar activity is not able to be calculated prior to that time.' OK. So that is an answer. But repeating the CO2 data is not what I asked.
  5. It's the sun
    Your new post still does not answer the question. I do not see solar activity represented at all, except for the graph in the main article which covers only the past few hundred years. I understand temps and CO2 are uncoupled, but I was asking about solar activity and surface temps. Is the recent uncoupling unique in the holocene? I do not have the data myself. That is why I am asking the question.
  6. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    @damorbel: "I think the albedo is also to be found in both the IR and UV bands." Not really. Albedo concerns visible light. I think at this point it's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about, and that your credibility is shot. Time to use another username!
  7. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    @HR: that is not circular reasoning, but the affirmation that, indeed, many lines of reasoning support AGW. It is not in itself evidence, but rather a declaration that the evidence exists, and that it is plentiful. If you think that is circular logic, that might explain why you seem to have such a hard time grasping the relatively simple aspects of AGW theory...
  8. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Quokka, You are chery picking your renewable energy numbers. According to Wikipedia, in 2009 there was over 9,000 MW of wind installed, more than coal. As the technology ramps up there will be even more installed. Why do you pick an energy source that is not very developed to compare to? This type of cherry picking weakens your whole argument. How should I know when to believe what you post? Since no pilot modular reactors have been built yet (are there plans for one to be built?), it is very unlikely that they would be ready in less than 15 years and more likely 20 or more. They will have to build a pilot plant, run it for several years to test it and then build the real plants. It currently takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant on existing designs. Your 7-10 year projection is not realistic- more propaganda. They will be lucky to have the pilot plant built in 10 years. And who wants the waste in their backyard? Nuclear will probably be part of the solution, but propaganda does not advance the argument here.
  9. It's the sun
    Re: TheCaz (751) Since the Daleks took my time machine back to rescue the Morlocks from the Eloi, from Beer et al, 2006:
    "To date, the only proxy providing information about the solar variability on millennial time scales are cosmogenic radionuclides stored in natural archives such as ice cores."
    Perusual of the various versions of this post, plus the graphs I showed you in My Previous Comment #749 reveal the tight relationship between solar variability, CO2 and temperatures (with temperatures being merely the composite sum of forcings and feedbacks) in the paleo record. The unusual climatic stability of the Holocene: So my questions to you, TheCaz: looking at the record of CO2 over the past 400,000 years or so (here, I'll help with a visual): When did atmospheric concentration jump 40% (which it has over the pre-industrial levels)? At any point? Do you see any uncouplings? Keep in mind that CO2 in the paleo record acted as a lagged feedback to orbital factors and solar irradiance changes. And that it is now acting as a forcing. Or do you have a source for solar activity over the paleo record that materially differs from the information presented in the various iterations of this post, my comments and linked sources? If so, what source is that? Can you furnish a link? The Yooper
  10. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    #27: "If it is due to the orbital decay, it cannot be a new phenomenon, " Ha! Now someone has to work out the orbital decay rate that provides the appropriate increase in radiative forcing -- and project that forward to see how much time we have left.
  11. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    The slowdown noted in Murray et al (2010) is for the years 2006-2008 versus 2005 in southeast Greenland. The speedup in this region had a short term peak in 2005. Given the shortness of the data sets not too much can be made of this. In looking at the west coast of Greeland the same trend is not evident. The Jakobshavn was faster in 2006 than 2005. The sppedup indciated for western Greenland had a much greater extent into the ice sheet and in the number of glaciers then in southeast Greeland as noted in the nice colored images of Joughin et (2010) noted in the article above.
  12. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    "I measure the progression of earth's decaying orbit by the surface temperature" He is taking the temperature decrease as a proxy for the orbital decay. More than circular reasoning this is simply a faulty assumption. But let's assume it is correct. In the last century we experienced a rate of warming of about 0.5 °C/century. If it is due to the orbital decay, it cannot be a new phenomenon, it has been going on for millennia. A thousand years ago, then, it was 5 °C colder than now, i.e. we were in the middle of an ice age, the famous Medieval Ice Age. Going a thousand more years back, it was 0 °C on average; here you can clearly see the origin of the iconic snow covered Christmas trees in Palestina. :)
  13. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    This all kind of goes back to what I was saying in the article I did on Why Does Anthony Watts Drive an Electric Car? The more solid the evidence for climate change becomes the more extreme and outside the realm of science the challenges will be. You see that here with the silly claim that the Earth's orbit is degrading. And I think we increasingly see it with people like Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts. Same with Spencer, Michaels and others. Watts' recent irrational post over the difference in the anomaly between UAH and GISS is a perfect example. He's so intent upon finding a problem, because his whole world view is based on AGW being wrong, that he skips very basic, utterly elemental steps, like adjusting for differing base lines. (Sorry, I know that's OT.) And worse, when it's pointed out, rather than saying "whoops, sorry that was a silly mistake on my part" he goes overboard trying to defend his mistake. I think the climate change issue is rising to a new level lately. The science is even more solid than ever. That means there is probably going to be an equal and opposite reaction the likes of responses like these. I predict a whole new series of denier issues are going to start coming to the forefront soon.
  14. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    If the Earths orbit has been decaying and this is causing warming .. wouldn't we expect the Mesozoic to be colder than now ? That would have been tough for the dinosaurs...
  15. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    e wrote: Water vapor has a very short residence time in the atmosphere (about 9 days). This means that any feedback generated during the summer is not going to have a long term impact into the winter. Instead, the feedback will follow proportionally along with the initial warming. Since the solar impact during the winter is greatly reduced, the GHG feedback that goes along with it will also be reduced. The opposite would be true for CO2. Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is the very point that Michael Sweet made back in post 24 and that I tried to re-iterate at 68 and 93. I am very pleased to have it expressed so eloquently.
  16. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    I'm originally from Texas. I'd be mad at you if you weren't... well, sort of right.
  17. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    Length of year came to my mind, too. But this dude's from Texas, so you have to put it in terms he can understand. If he were right, they'd be playing high school football in the morning, and his houston texans would start games in the middle of the night, by now. If you can't explain it with football, people from Texas will *not* understand you.
  18. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    Excellent way of distracting the deniers. Lets have more of these.
  19. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    This is clearly wrong, because another, often ignored theory is right. Given the upcoming holiday season, I think it's time that everyone face the fact that global warming is caused by Eurasian Leprechaun Farts (ELFs). The evidence is indisputable. The greatest warming is at the north pole (home to the jolly old ELF himself, and his vast army of worker ELFs). It began coincident with two known changes in ELF behavior, a dramatic increase in population, and a switch in diet to coprolite consumption (which itself may have caused the population explosion -- a very deadly positive feedback). Different camps argue fiercely over which of these is the true, underlying cause, but the fact of the matter is that ELFs are deadly. The scientific impacts of ELFs on the earth's atmosphere as SBD gases (silent but deadly) was proven hundreds of years ago by Arse-nius, and is not really subject to rational dispute. Those who emphatically profess otherwise are merely, so to speak, cutting the cheese. Of course, the nefarious fossil food industry is expending vast sums of money to keep this hushed up. And when they can't keep it up, they try to confuse the common man by recasting the debate in emotional terms as a War on Christmas! Whether it is the increase in Eurasian leprechaun population or the newly found leprechaun delight for their products, the fact remains that any proper solution -- a reduction in coprolite sales and consumption -- will hurt their recent huge upswing in profits from coprolite mining and distribution. Their entire financial empire will crumble if the problem is addressed, as it must be if we are to save civilization as we know it. People need to wake up to this! Admit that ELFs are the problem and curtail the fossil food industry now, before it's too late!
  20. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    HR, Your question is, if GHG feedbacks are a portion of any solar warming, how do we determine whether the fingerprint in question is a fingerprint of CO2 warming and not of the feedback portion of a hypothetical solar warming. Did I understand that correctly? The answer is that this is what the simulations predict. With solar warming, summers should get warmer faster than winters, and vice versa with CO2 driven warming, all feedbacks included. The same goes for all the other fingerprints mentioned. The precise nature of the fingerprint is derived from the models, and observations have been consistent with those predictions. Does that answer your question? If you dislike invoking models, here are a couple things to consider that illustrate why your "40-60% GHG component" calculation is too simplistic for predicting the nature of the fingerprints: Water vapor has a very short residence time in the atmosphere (about 9 days). This means that any feedback generated during the summer is not going to have a long term impact into the winter. Instead, the feedback will follow proportionally along with the initial warming. Since the solar impact during the winter is greatly reduced, the GHG feedback that goes along with it will also be reduced. The opposite would be true for CO2. For the day/night signature, remember that the entirety of the solar influence is exerted during the day, while the GHG feedback effect is spread out somewhat over the full 24 hour cycle. It would take a very strong discrepancy in GHG effect from night to day in order to cancel out the solar fingerprint.
  21. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    But if feels to me like the years are getting shorter. ;-)
  22. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    This argument seems to be similar to another I ran across, that it was space debris causing the warming. Though i don't remember the exact reason they said it was causing the warming. Friction as it entered the atmosphere? Adding mass to the Earth causing the days or orbit to change? Whichever it was there was nothing that could shake them from that belief.
  23. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    #17: "... but there are big questions" I'm not sure of the overall value of this small forest of linked papers towards the topic of this thread. At least Murray et al 2010 confirm a period of accelerated ice loss, as shown in this thread's Figure 1: Synchronous acceleration and thinning of southeast (SE) Greenland glaciers during the early 2000s was the main contributor that resulted in the doubling of annual discharge from the ice sheet. We show that this acceleration was followed by a synchronized and widespread slowdown of the same glaciers, in many cases associated with a decrease in thinning rates ... Since the overall trend (again referring to Figure 1 above) is sharply down, can we not interpret the 'widespread slowdown' and 'decrease in thinning rates' as minor contributors to the trend? Some of the other papers linked in #17 refer to accumulation, which is not at all the question discussed here.
  24. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    #17: Mike, there is some friction in outer space. You can disperse energy by collisions with objects, by tidal heating or, most consistently we are slowed slightly by the light pressure from the Sun. Because we're going around the Sun, sunlight actually strikes us at a slight angle to our trajectory at any point in time. In effect, there is a tiny component of the light motion that is opposite to our direction. This transfers momentum to the Earth, slowing us down. There is also the small light force from the Sun pushing us directly outwards, but that is technically not friction since it doesn't depend on our velocity, but on our position...
  25. It's the sun
    Sorry, but it does not. The question was whether solar activity and surface temperatures were always coupled in the holocene, or whether there were other periods of uncoupling. Your graphs do not contain any data of solar energy output at all. So the question was not addressed in your response. I understand you have preented data comparing CO2 to surface temps, but that is not what I asked.
  26. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
    It is less important to explain "how it is", but the more important, "why it is so". And to just heard the important role of the vertical circulation and where be the begin of vertical circulation. (see #233 and #234).
  27. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:42 AM on 18 December 2010
    Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    ”The mass loss of Greenland’s outlet glaciers is not only expected to continue but to increase their acceleration as well.” ... but there are big questions, how? Greenland Ice Sheet model parameters constrained using simulations of the Eemian, Robinson, Calov, and Ganopolski, 2010.: “The most“realistic” simulations of the modern GIS (less volume and surface area) were obtained in the experiments that produced completely unrealistic simulations of the Eemian GIS (ALMOST COMPLETE MELTING [!?]).” “Finally, in spite of limitations of the model used and remaining uncertainties, our work indicates that using past and present constraints together, it is possible to rule out both too sensitive and too insensitive model versions, which enhances the credibility of modeling the stability of the GIS under global warming scenarios.” “... enhances the credibility of modeling the stability ...” - Is that enough? I recently watched the entire "scientific achievements" Edward Hanna (and citation of his papers) - an outstanding scientist, whom I really appreciate. Here are some interesting results: Observed and Modeled Greenland Ice Sheet Snow Accumulation, 1958–2003, and Links with Regional Climate Forcing, Hanna et al., 2006.: “Unusually high accumulation in southeast Greenland in 2002/03 leads the authors to study meteorological synoptic forcing patterns and comment on the prospect of enhanced climate variability leading to more such events as a result of global warming.” A spatially calibrated model of annual accumulation rate on the Greenland Ice Sheet (1958–2007), Burgess et al., 2010.: “The only statistically significant temporal change in total ice sheet accumulation in the 1958–2007 period occurred between 1960 and 1972, when a simultaneous accumulation increase and decrease occurred in west and east Greenland, respectively. No statistically significant uniform change in ice sheet-wide accumulation is evident after 1972. However, regional changes do occur, including an accumulation increase on the west coast post-1992. The high accumulation rates of 2002–2003 appear to be confined to the southeast.” Ocean regulation hypothesis for glacier dynamics in southeast Greenland and implications for ice sheet mass changes, Murray et al., 2010.: “We argue that this warming and subsequent cooling of the coastal waters was the cause of the glaciers' dynamic changes. We further suggest that the restrengthening of the EGCC resulted in part from cold water input by increased glacier calving during the speedup and increased ice sheet runoff. We hypothesize that the main mechanism for ice sheet mass loss in SE Greenland is highly sensitive to ocean conditions and is likely subject to negative feedback mechanisms.” Annual accumulation for Greenland updated using ice core data developed during 2000–2006 and analysis of daily coastal meteorological data, Bales et al., 2009.: “The much lower accumulation in the southwest and the much higher accumulation in the southeast indicated by the current map mean that long-term mass balance in both catchments is closer to steady state than previously estimated. However, uncertainty in these areas remains high owing ... [?!]” Hydrologic response of the Greenland ice sheet: the role of oceanographic warming, Hanna et al. 2009.: “Additional evidence from meteorological reanalysis suggests that high Greenland melt anomalies of summer 2007 are likely to have been primarily forced by anomalous advection of warm air masses over the ice sheet and to have therefore had a more remote atmospheric origin.” Oceanic control of the warming processes in the arctic – a different point of view for the reasons of changes in the arctic climate, Marsz, Styszyńska, 2009.: “Reaction of sea ice is the main mechanism controlling the heat content in water carried to the Arctic and influencing the SAT. Sea ice may either increase or limit the heat flow from the ocean to the atmosphere. The genesis of the ‘Great warming of the Arctic’ in the 1930s and ‘40s is the same as that of the present day.” “Dickson et al. (1996) showed that the formation of subtropical water in the Sargasso Sea on a multidecadal scale is functionally connected with convection processes in the Greenland and Labrador seas, albeit shifted in phase in relation to each other. These are elements of a general thermohaline circulation and they are dynamic elements of unquestionably natural character.” ”This means that observed in 1880-2007 climatic changes in the Arctic were promoted by the transport of variable heat content from the tropics with the oceanic circulation; they also have a natural and non-anthropo-genic genesis.” Increased Runoff from Melt from the Greenland Ice Sheet: A Response to Global Warming, Hanna et al., 2008.: “Significantly rising runoff since 1958 was largely compensated by increased precipitation and snow accumulation. Also, as observed since 1987 in a single composite record at Summit, summer temperatures near the top of the ice sheet have declined slightly but not significantly, suggesting the overall ice sheet is experiencing a dichotomous response to the recent general warming: possible reasons include the ice sheet’s high thermal inertia, higher atmospheric cooling, or changes in regional wind, cloud, and/or radiation patterns.” Greenland’s contribution to global sea-level rise by the end of the 21st century, Graversen et al., 2010.: “Greenland contributes 0–17 cm to global sea-level rise by the end of the 21st century. This range includes the uncertainties in climate-model projections, the uncertainty associated with scenarios of greenhouse-gas emissions, as well as the uncertainties in future outlet-glacier discharge.” I especially recommend in this paper: Fig. 6 (a) Partitioning Recent Greenland Mass Loss, van den Broeke et al., 2009.: “Without the moderating effects of increased snowfall and refreezing, post-1996 Greenland ice sheet mass losses would have been 100% higher. [...]”
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Arkadiusz, please furnish a concluding summation to give the readers an idea of why you post the linked references with their quoted texts. Trying to guess at that hidden meaning from your post is difficult. Thank you!
  28. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:41 AM on 18 December 2010
    Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    @Karamanski “Is it likely that warming in Greenland and the rest of the Arctic be the cause of the recent trend towards colder and snowier winters in the Midwest?” Overland, 2010. : says that yes, that is: “While individual weather extreme events cannot be directly linked to larger scale climate changes, recent data analysis and modeling suggest a link between loss of sea ice and a shift to an increased impact from the Arctic on mid-latitude climate (Francis et al. 2009; Honda et al. 2009). Models suggest that loss of sea ice in fall favors higher geopotential heights over the Arctic. With future loss of sea ice, such conditions as winter 2009-2010 could happen more often. Thus we have a potential climate change paradox. Rather than a general warming everywhere, the loss of sea ice and a warmer Arctic can increase the impact of the Arctic on lower latitudes, bringing colder weather to southern locations.” Others have “slightly” different opinion: Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?, Lockwood et al., 2010.: “We show that cold winter excursions from the hemispheric trend occur more commonly in the UK during low solar activity, consistent with the solar influence on the occurrence of persistent blocking events in the eastern Atlantic. We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect.” Low solar activity is blamed for winter chill over Europe, Benestad, 2010.: “The results of Lockwood et al (2010) fit in with earlier work (Barriopedro et al 2008) and provide further evidence to support the current thinking on solar-terrestrial links.” Tree rings and past climate in the Arctic, Juday 2010.: “Because many of the climate records available in this part of the world begin only in the late 1940s or early 1950s (during the one of the coldest periods of the 20th century) and continue to the present (the warmest period of the last millennium), the instrument-based record indicates a higher rate of temperature increase than the longer-term reconstructions that incorporate several cycles of temperature increases and decreases. This suggests that the strong late 20th-century warming (during the warm season) in western North America may have a considerable component of natural climate variability in the signal.”
  29. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    John and all others, a lot of patience sounds in your words ... I would have lost my temper ... congratulations to you! excellent job
  30. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    This one is easy to debunk. Earth position relative to the Sun is known within a few meter. There some discussion that there is a drift but I would be the order of a few meters per year at most. Astronomers are paranoiac about the Earth motion in space. Actually, there an international services only working on this issue. http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/index.php?index=mission&lang=en&change_lang=true You will see on this web page that the Chilean Earthquake did not change the duration of the day by the way.
  31. It's too hard
    I would be interested to see some update of this rebuttal to take into account the growing belief that we need to get down to 350ppm CO2 (or even 350ppm CO2e) to prevent dangerous climate change. thanks.
    Response: [JC] This issue is addressed in Why it's urgent we act now on climate change.
  32. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    Arctic as a heat sink I suppose we should be looking at the heat (energy balance) of the Arctic during high pressure events in the winter to see if it is higher or lower than in the past. It's not the temperature, but the energy balance that is important. Arctic highs allow warmer air to displace the colder air southwards. But that warmer air has to lose energy as there is no solar input in winter. I wish they wouldn't give accelerations in percentages. That is almost meaningless to me. I think what is meant is a change in velocity which is what should be said. Change in velocity without a time frame is meaningless and I only noticed that information provided in one instance. Figure 1 is meaningless without a corresponding figure showing the total amount of ice on Greenland. Figure 1 is over a very short timespan almost meaningless from a climatic standpoint. A perspective of several hundred years would be helpful.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Climate researchers are concerned with the change in the climate, including the change in the temperatures, hence the use of anomalies in the measurement of temperature change. In like fashion, ice researchers often measure change in ice sheet flows in percentages. Much the same thing. If you are unhappy with the wording of the post article, Mauri and I linked each reference for your easy perusal. Therein you may find the answers you seek. Lastly, Figure 1 contains incredible meaning and significance. As the very first linked reference shows, summer melt in Greenland saw a net 500 Gigatons of melt, or a bit more than the volume of Lake Erie of the US and Canada. That is a non-inconsequential amount to melt in just a few months. As such, the increasing melt signified by the curve on Figure 1 should give pause to sober minds everywhere. I invite you to visit Greenland in your several hundred years to convince yourself.
  33. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    Rob Painting #19 Maybe the author should compare notes with Josh Willis whose latest information was that there was not much warming in the deep oceans (less than 0.1W/sq.m). If there is a large amount of 'up and down welling' then you would expect that CO2 as well as heat would be transported and well mixed in a vast volume of water. Such vast mixing of CO2 would result in an infinitesimal change in pH (acidification). There are plenty of claims of significant acidification of the upper layers of the oceans which does not fit with large flows of water to the deep.
    Moderator Response: Again, this is not the thread for discussion of ocean heat content. Any further off-topic comments may be deleted without warning.
  34. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    This is debunked very simply: there's no consensus. As shown by Iorio 2009, "the Earth's perihelion position is displaced outward by 1.3 cm along the fixed line of apsides after each revolution." We must therefore wait a million years or so to see which interpretation is correct. In the meantime, this page is of particular relevance here: The earth is shifting on its axis (40 miles per year). Twelve o’clock noon use to be the hottest part of the day. Now three o’clock in the after noon is the hottest part of the day. This is due to the earth shifting on its axis. The earth is also wobbling on it axis. This was discovered before the Chilean earthquake in 2010. I discovered it on the internet in 2008. At this rate, the hottest part of the day will soon be midnight. Pigs will fly. The oceans will turn to lemonade. Because everyone knows that anything discovered on the internet must be true.
  35. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    I should end my off-topic excursion by saying I don't see a connection between the Greenland ice loss depicted above and AO (or NAO) even though the negative AO appears to sometimes pump warm air into Greenland in winter.
  36. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    My reasoning would be similar to MarkR above: the closer sun would mean more W/m2 of energy getting here, and we do not observe that. OTOH, if we were getting closer, but that did not change the irradiance we get, then it's irrelevant to the point.
  37. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    I agree with #9. Earth orbit apsis must be decaying some 0.2% per century -some 10 km a day- to get a warming effect the same order as observed. This reasoning cancels positive feedbacks with system inertia because "I feel" they are similar. Isn't i-feel-ogy epistemologically correct from a hedonistic point of view?
  38. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    So we all promise to avoid circular arguments? There is a favorite refrain on this website which goes it's the multiple lines of evidence that support AGW. I except the basic premise of the point but every time it's used as an argument to defend a criticism of any one particular line of evidence it seems to lose it's power. The use of circular arguements on the "The human fingerprint in the seasons" comments started to really bug me.
  39. Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    #9 Karamanski, there may be a better explanation for cold midwest winters, http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html What is not shown in their diagram is the warmth flowing up into Greenland and (at the moment) eastern Canada. Here's a long term chart of the AO http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/month_ao_index.shtml and I would think that should match to cold outbreaks and lake effect snow, but the match is sporadic at best (e.g. 1977 and 2001, but not 2004)
  40. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    Apart from what others have already mentioned, I would have asked him what kind of globe he is looking at where Houston is "near the equator". But, then, it might just depend on his definition for "near"! Oh, and also, how relevant one specific location is when we talk about something global.
  41. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    One more reason - if the earth's orbit were decaying (shades of Star Trek !!) at a rate sufficient to cause the observed warming, then AGW is the least of our troubles !
  42. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    We have satellites around Earth. If they measure more heat from the Sun, then more heat is arriving. This could be the Sun heating up, or us getting closer, or a combination. 'It's the Sun' explains why... it's not the Sun.
    Response: This is the answer I went with in my email reply. But interesting to read the other responses - circular reasoning, length of year, the lack of solar fingerprints, surface measurements of solar radiation - this hypothesis is falsified on many levels. I should throw out a few more skeptic myths, see what readers come up with as an interesting exercise (might save me some work too :-)
  43. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    muoncounter #49 As per maps, it looks like the planet (and we humans) are in big trouble. The map (the red zone in particular) is an eye opener for me, as CO2 can only be accumulating overall (in both air and water), and will only increase in the atmosphere if the oceans warm. Its the red splotches that are of concern, which seem to indicate that CO2 will outgas even though CO2 in the atmposphere is already above its premodern "natural" equilibrium. And if this is the case, the CO2 ppm level should continue to rise or at least hold steady even if we were to stop burning fossil fuels today. This effect would be the ocean's "fault" for a while, (but of course we "intellegent beings" were the ones who put it there). Furthermore, if CO2 actually does cause warming, this should act as positive retro-feedback for both further warming and CO2 increase. I assume the only way for the CO2 level to go back down then is in getting minerally sequestered in a more permanent fashion as opposed to simply dissolving (temporarily) in water. Its as if the ocean's are actually masking the problem, one that is independent from above the acidification bio detriment. While warming is an evironmental problem, this one seems much bigger and easier to characterize. Maybe I am all wet as you say, but this is how it seems.
  44. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    I'd go with Bern's point about circular reasoning as the main problem. He's not understood the most basic point about spurious correlations.
  45. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    I kind of think we’d have noticed the year getting shorter. Bah, Doug beat me to it.
  46. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    I would ask: if the earth's orbit is decaying, then why is the upper atmosphere not warming at the same rate as the lower? Why are nights warming more than days? Why are winters warming more than summers? With thanks to the new Skeptical science guide for clarifying these points for me!
  47. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    If earths orbit were decaying to the extent that it alone was responsible for global warming, then one would expect an increase in solar radiation at the earths surface which has been observed (Pinker 2005) but one would also expect that radiation to show consistent increase over the last 50 years. Measurements show that solar radiation reaching the earths surface showed a decline until 1993 and some increase in the following decade. During the period of decline in solar radiation, global temperatures rose. Decay of the earths orbit could not have produced global warming which occurred from 1963-1993 Further, the increased solar radiation reaching the earths surface since 1993 has been less than that required to account for the rise in global temperatures. This shows that change in the earths position relative to the sun have been too small to account for temperature increases. Ergo, rising greenhouse gas concentration accompanied by an almost linear rise in temperature remain the most logical explanation.
  48. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    Kepler’s 2nd law of planetary motion: orbital period squared is proportional to semimajor axis cubed. Roughly that means that the length of a “year” is proportional to the distance from the Sun. Where a “year” is here defined relative to the background of fixed stars (sideral). I kind of think we’d have noticed the year getting shorter. Mercury 58 million km from Sun (OK so it varies a lot at 0.21 eccentricity)* and surface temperature ranges from about -180 deg C (night at pole) to about +430 deg C (noon at the equator). Venus 108 million km from Sun (i.e. gets a quarter of the sunlight that Mercury does). Surface temperature quite uniform day/night pole/equator at about 460 deg C. Remind me what the physical difference between Mercury and Venus is? Oh yes. Venus has an atmosphere. And what is the major constituent of the cytherean** atmosphere? Go on, have a wild guess. *Whereas John will pull my comment if I speculate upon that of the questioner. ** I learned so much from Kuttner/Moore.
  49. citizenschallenge at 18:50 PM on 17 December 2010
    Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview
    Thanks for the information. {ps. you mean watt$ not sharing all of the story... go figure.}
  50. Debunking this skeptic myth is left as an exercise to the reader
    Well, the obvious reply is that the earth's orbit *is* decaying, but very, very slowly - it's not likely to be a problem for at least half a billion years or so, I'd guess (to pluck a number out of the air - anyone who feels like doing the research will quickly be able to find something more meaningful). However, it's a constant process. Even if there *was* any significant forcing as a result of orbital decay, it certainly couldn't explain the rapid upswing in the warming trend over the past decades... And that, of course, completely ignores the circularity of his reasoning: "The earth is warming because it's orbit is decaying, and we know the orbit is decaying because the earth is warming..."

Prev  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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