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  2091  2092  2093  2094  2095  2096  2097  2098  2099  2100  2101  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  Next

Comments 104901 to 104950:

  1. Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
    #24 The Ville You post "Apart from that, the faint young Sun and the CO2 thermostat would have taken care of long term CO2 effects and levels over hundreds of thousands of years" I still question the "faint young Sun" hypothesis. It is based upon some solar models but are they correct? If our sun was faint in the past (when CO2 levels were in the 6000 PPM range) then how did Mars have flowing water on its surface? These two conclusions are mutually incompatible. Either the Sun was not cooler and could warm Mars or Mars could never had liquid water with a fainter Sun. From studies on downwelling IR radiation, the contribution given by current levels of CO2 is about 10%. That's it. Here is what CO2 will give you: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/images/lynchi2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda/Global_Warming_Myth/lynching_of_carbon_dioxide.htm&h=818&w=870&sz=73&tbnid=mooueGrTNRbqNM:&tbnh=136&tbnw=145&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcarbon%2Bdioxide%2Babsorption%2Bspectrum&zoom=1&q=carbon+dioxide+absorption+spectrum&usg=__pSKV5BxhGfhn4yRlb1D39C9_ZWw=&sa=X&ei=ITzXTISaNM-cnwfq_fzhCQ&ved=0CB8Q9QEwAw
  2. Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
    #42: "When climate warms, more CO2 is released from the oceans, " For starters, when atmospheric CO2 increases, climate warms and oceans become more acidic. "If some warming event coincidences with a volcanic eruption which huge releases of CO2" Sorry, no soap. CO2 volumes from most eruptions are comparatively small. Large eruptions (such as Pinatubo) cause cooling due to their aerosol volume - that's well-documented. Along with that particular early 90's cooling event came a temporary drop in the rate of global CO2 increase -- also well-documented. If you would like references for any of the above, start with SkS search. I'm with Yooper on this, you need to do some research to support your ideas. And please, try harder than the old correlation-causation canard.
  3. CO2 has a short residence time
    Isn't the NASA graphic a bit out-dated? 5.5 Gt carbon from anthropogenic emission? As for ATekhasski's comment, the fact remains that uptake rates in today's carbon cycle appear limited (thus the rapid accumulation). The article seems to hint that the relaxation time is a function of the excess uptake (beyond the natural exchange) vs. the amount of buildup. Don't know how up-to-date this is, but RC had some discussion of the ANTHROPOGENIC PERTURBATION lifetime: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/
  4. Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
    Re: protestant (42)
    "Response to #18 was also a bit silly imho. The paper linked just proves how fatally flawed the climate models are, and thats it."
     Um, are you referring to the linked video in the response to #18? If so, then you should really watch it and try and learn something about CO2. And the specifics about GHG's are that, without their effect, the average temp of the Earth would be 33 degrees C less than it is now (about 59 degrees F less). Since that puts the Earth well below the freezing point of water on a global basis, there would likely be no life, as the Earth would be a global iceball, pole to pole. This is well-understood and has been for over a hundred years. The majority of your posts here thus far are fraught with a lack of understanding of, well, just about anything to do with climate science, actually. And I see by the responses that many commenters have stepped in to help you gain understanding on a post-by-post basis. Have you actually read any of their references they cite? Did you have any questions or reservations on what you read? Quite frankly, I don't think you're trying. I'm not sure anyone here can help you if you're not willing to let anyone actually help you. The Yooper
  5. Ice-Free Arctic
    Thanks, muonocounter. There is time series data for 1870 - 2007 at that page, including extent for the 1930s. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008 According to that data set, Arctic sea ice extent (annual) first dipped below 13 million sq/km in 1960. Prior to that it was always greater than 13 mil. From 1979, annual extent has always been below 13 million sq/km, and by 2000 was starting to dip below 12 mil. In 2007, the annual sea ice extent fell below 11 million square kilometers. The first column is annual data. The following four columns are Winter, Spring, Summer and Autumn extents year by year from 1870. Although summertime extent is more variable, the 1930s were relatively stable, and the data show considerably greater extent for that period/season than today. While we have a lot of ice-edge data from the 1930s, it is quite inferior to the satellite period data. All the above should be read with the usual caveats.
  6. Stephen Baines at 10:11 AM on 8 November 2010
    Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
    RSVP Ya know, heroin is also biological solar energy ... just kind of processed...like petroleum. And if the point isn't clear...You judge whether something is "bad" based on it does, not where it comes from. Surely you're just taking the mickey, right?
  7. Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
    And does correlation prove causation, or in this case climate sensitivity? No. When climate warms, more CO2 is released from the oceans, CO2 lags temp and thats all we know (well yes it can amplify the change but self-evidently its not _the_ control knob). If some warming event coincidences with a volcanic eruption which huge releases of CO2, that does not prove CO2 was the main cause either. The geologic history is SOOOO long it is actually evident such coinsidences occur. Response to #18 was also a bit silly imho. The paper linked just proves how fatally flawed the climate models are, and thats it. They claim there would be almost no greenhouse effect without CO2, thats an outrageous misinterpretation. Which one of you really believes that we would lose nearly all water wapor and have over 70% cloudiness without CO2? omg... Determining climate sensitivity or anything as complex as that from inaccurate paleo-reconstructions is just pop-science. When all of the forcings (including the multi-decaedal and multi-cencennial oscillations) are not known the climate sensitivity can not be determined.
  8. Ice-Free Arctic
    During the 1930's the Russians took extensive pictures of the ice edge during the summer from airplanes. These photos have been used to archive that side of the Arctic. I have not seen American records, but there is undoubtly something. Probably not as systematic as the Russian records. There are many towns in the Canadian and Alaskan Arctic. Those peole keep records every year, going back to the 1800's, of the local ice conditions. It is well known that the Northwest passage was only open to non-icebreakers in the past 5 years. The people who say the passage was previously open are trying to fool naive readers. Around 1900 Peary and Cook were doing their exploring. There is a lot of data about the Arctic ice before satelites were launched.
  9. Ice-Free Arctic
    #27: "we have little from that period corroborating the notion of significantly less sea ice coverage" The reference in Polyak goes through Kinnard et al 2007 to the University of Illinois sea ice data set. There's a slight offset to match the satellite data, but there's enough overlap to work that out.
  10. Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
    #40: "and yet it is "a bad thing"." The bad thing in question is: we released the carbon that was stored in fossil fuels back into the atmosphere in the form of CO2. But I'm sure you knew that already. If not, you really should do some more reading.
  11. Ice-Free Arctic
    Here's a full version of Polyak 2010 for anyone to review. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/mholland/papers/Polyak_2010_historyofseaiceArctic.pdf
  12. Ice-Free Arctic
    Brutus,
    Isn´t it likely that minimum sea-ice extent was much lower in the 1930s when temperatures were (almost) as high as today?
    While anecdotal evidence is hardly foolproof, and a lack of anecdotes even less so, still we have little from that period corroborating the notion of significantly less sea ice coverage than where we started at the beginning of the instrumental record. I'm aware of pictures from the North Pole in the 1930s of areas of open water, but this only reflects local conditions, not the entire Arctic. We also have had open water at the pole from time to time throughout the last 30 years. This is a result of various conditions, mostly to do with how winds blow the sea ice about. We've also had a longer period of warming (since 1970s) today than then, a couple of decades more of sustained warmth. Overall Arctic sea ice doesn't respond in lockstep with temps, but declines as a result of continued warmth over years until an equilibrium is reached. Thus, it is probably unlikely that sea ice coverage in the 30s was less than today's, as there wasn't the same long-term build up and sustained high temps for long-term melt. Reconstructions from observational data (which is admittedly sparse pre-1950) and proxy data support this probability. One could reasonably argue that these findings are not certain, but it would be unreasonable to posit that sea ice coverage in the 1930s was "likely" as low as today.
  13. Ice-Free Arctic
    Brutus no systematic observations does not mean we know nothing. Take a look at Polyak2010 fig. 2a, reproduced below for your convinience.
  14. Ice-Free Arctic
    Various points; Riccardo #14, Arctic ice volume accuracy - While the PIOMAS model results are the only continuous 'record' I am aware of it should be noted that this has been validated against submarine and ICESat records. Thus, there is a fairly strong case for the PIOMAS results being accurate within a relatively small margin of error. Camburn #17, "...we are at the end of the 30 year cycle" - What cycle are you referring to? The usual '30 year cycle' that skeptics go on about is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation... but we are actually ten years into the 'cool' phase of that rather than "at the end". Oamoe #16, Cryosat - Cryosat has actually been "collecting data" since April. They have been fine tuning the sensors and working out the kinks, but the commissioning phase actually ended a couple of weeks ago. I'm not sure whether they will release anything from prior to the end of the commissioning phase since they were still making adjustments during that period, but they should be able to tell us whether the current (remarkably low) volume reported by PIOMAS is roughly accurate.
  15. Ice-Free Arctic
    Camburn.... I also find this from Weather Underground regarding passages of the Northern Passage... "We can be sure the Northwest Passage was never open from 1900 on, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period, and the native Inuit people have no historical tales of the Passage being navigable at any time in the past."
  16. What should we do about climate change?
    PL #376 The discussion certainly is pointless if you won't answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. I see you've written quite a large volume of stuff on energy policy, and that your evaluation of the evidence tends to a conclusion that renewable energy is not terribly viable. I had a question about this which you don't seem to want to answer. Let me repeat it for you: So do you have anything to say about demand management synergestic effects, and renewable generation site optimisation? Have you accounted for these in your conclusions? Can you show me where? Straightforward yes/no answer please. If the answer is "yes" then a link and possibly a page reference will suffice. I'm afraid if the aswer is no, and you haven't evaluated this aspect, then I suspect that you're missing a critical piece of the puzzle, and I would question the validity/coverage of your argument. When people ask me about things that I have written I give them the courtesy of telling them where the passage(s) they are interested in are located - I don't tell them to trawl through my entire output.
  17. Ice-Free Arctic
    Camburn.... Think about it for just one second. Sailing of the NW Passage, on any route, was a fantasy of traders for most of the 19th and 20th century. Lots of attempts made. Many lost ships and men along the way. The first passage by Amundsen took three years, spending two full winters stuck in the ice. This year a guy does it solo in 12 days.
  18. Ice-Free Arctic
    Camburn.... "Kiwi Yachtsman, Graeme Kendall, completes world sailing firsts; Arctic North West Passage solo, non stop & in a record 12 days."
  19. Ice-Free Arctic
    The Canadians use the southern passage yearly. Usually during the month of September to re-supply towns etc in the Arctic.
  20. Ice-Free Arctic
    Rob: He sailed the southern passage, not the northern passage. The southern passage is open most years to small boats.
  21. Ice-Free Arctic
    Camburn.... If look up the prior sailings of the NW Passage you'll find that these were major endeavors requiring aid from ice breakers. This past summer Graeme Kendall in the Astral Express sailed the NW Passage in a small one man sailboat in but a few weeks. The conditions of the Arctic now is not at all comparable to those of previous expeditions.
  22. Ice-Free Arctic
    Re: oamoe (16) Not an expert, but here are some answers: 1. As soon as the calibration phase is completed. Here's the most recent (26 Oct 2010) press release on the matter. 2. As PIOMAS is a climate modeling tool used to make Arctic ice forecasts (model runs through 2049 are available on their site), then that would be a safe assumption. It may take awhile to figure out the necessary calibrations, as PIOMAS uses 7 years worth of forcings to hone its accuracy. 3. As an add-on to #2 above, PIOMAS is not a data reporting effort but a climate modeling tool. It used to be that updates would be announced every 2 weeks, but as we all know, life sometimes gets in the way of ill-funded missions. A cool thing: for the curious, you can track the current location of Cryosat-2 here. The Yooper
  23. Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
    muoncounter #39 "this is a bad thing" From what you say, the energy stored in fossil fuels is apparently from the Sun which constitutes a source of biological solar energy. The biproduct of this process that favors plant growth, and yet it is "a bad thing". I am sure I can think of worse things.
  24. Ice-Free Arctic
    One would expect the ice conditions to be low at this time as we are at the end of the 30 year cycle. The northern northwest passage was sailed in 1944. As low as the ice was during the past 6 years, that voyage has not been repeated. There are numerous stations showing the current air temps of the Arctic are very simliliar to the temps of the late 30's and early to mid 40's. Geomagnetic research is showing that solar winds and the sun's cycles play an extremely important role in the placement of the jet streams. There also seems to be a link between geomagnetic levels and placement of global ocean circulation. And not least, is the tremendous amount of soot that China spews that lands in the Arctic. Mr. Schmidt etal published a paper in Science expressing that co2 has a minor effect on the Arctic verses the culmination of soot etc.
  25. Ice-Free Arctic
    Several questions: 1) When will cryosat 2 begin collecting data? 2) Will cryosat 2 data serve to calibrate the PIOMAS model? 3) Why the big time lags in PIOMAS web updates?
  26. Ice-Free Arctic
    There are no (systematic) observations from 1900 till 1950 (according to the IPCC-curve). How do they know that minimum sea-ice extent was above 8 mill km2 all these years? Isn´t it likely that minimum sea-ice extent was much lower in the 1930s when temperatures were (almost) as high as today?
  27. Ice-Free Arctic
    CBDunkerson I think we all agree that ice volume is the real quantity of interest. The problem is that we do not yet have good measurements. Hopefully in a few years we'll have enough to hindcast past conditions accurately and eventually redo this kind of estimates. Crispy I don't like betting, but I know many people do. Grumbine's estimate using a logistic function is easy to reproduce, but before showing the results I'd like to emphasize that it's a purely probabilistic approach, no physics whatsoever behind it.
    The two dashed lines represent the 2σ uncertainty on the timing, the year at which the extent is half of the initial value. Place an ice extent minimum threshold and go ahead with your bet :) Rob Honeycutt I've seen Barber's lecture, very interesting. He claims, and I have no reason to doubt, that satellites are fooled by thin ice between thick floes. Only good volume measurements can give us a better picture of the situation there.
  28. Ice-Free Arctic
    Riccardo and _Flin_.... You might look at Dr. David Barber's lecture here. If you go to minute 19:40 Dr Barber is predicting ice free summers sometime between 2013 and 2030. And this is a very recent lecture.
  29. Ice-Free Arctic
    Thank you MichaelM and NickD, I made the necessary corrections. _Flin_ as you may have noticed, the post didn't focus on the timing. I think it's more important to focus on the process itself and to know that it's a matter of decades, not millennia.
  30. Ice-Free Arctic
    Thanks Riccardo, very clear. I've been lurking at this site a long time... thank you John for all the work. Robert Grumbine has a discussion of the timing for an ice-free arctic September. He estimates 2035, plus or minus seven years, based on a probabilistic prediction. Which starts with a logistic curve as a best fit for the data, I think. RG is an infrequent blogger, but always worth a look. He has a lot to say about arctic ice.
  31. Ice-Free Arctic
    The article suggests that ice-albedo feedback will eventually reach a point of diminishing returns which should cause the currently accelerating decline in extent to level off. How certain is it that the trend is being driven primarily by ice-albedo feedback? Pikaia brings up the much steeper ice VOLUME trend (declining an average of about 1000 km^3 per year for the past decade, Sept minimum 5800 km^3 in 2009 and 4000 km^3 in 2010)... which might suggest that the melt is being driven by ocean temperature change. Yes, ice albedo factors into the ocean temperature, but ice volume has dropped even in years that extent has increased. Each of the past three years has had ice extent greater than 2007, but ice volume has continued to decline to new record lows each year. To me that suggests that what we are seeing is part of the effect of global warming on world ocean temperatures. The water flowing into the Arctic ocean is warmer than it was in decades past and that is accelerating the breakup of the Arctic ice cover. This causes old thick ice to break into smaller chunks which can then spread out to continue 'filling' extents similar to past years... but eventually that thick ice will be gone and extent will drop as sharply as volume has been. If the ice volume trend is going to level off it only has a few years left in which to do so before hitting zero. We should be starting to get Cryosat 2 data soon now. Hopefully that will dispel any questions about the accuracy of ice extent and volume estimates.
  32. Ice-Free Arctic
    If you look at the volume instead of the area it looks like the Arctic will be ice-free sooner rather than later. The average volume in September is 13,500 cubic Km, and the bottom of this graph equates to an anomaly of 13,500: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/PIOMAS_daily_mean.png
  33. Ice-Free Arctic
    "Catastropism"? :)
  34. Ice-Free Arctic
    Some are betting on sooner, rather than later: Shell is pressing the Interior Department to grant final approval for its Arctic projects by the end of this year so that the company has enough time to move the necessary equipment to drill next summer, when the waters offshore are free of ice. -- New York Times, 5 Nov 2010 (emphasis added)
  35. Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
    #38: "there must have been a steady stream of CO2 being liberated from somewhere and for some reason" Yes, its called the Carbon Cycle. There are numerous discussions of it here, which you can no doubt find on your own. "(lets assume the ocean)." Why? "But in order for plants to thrive, and for CO2 to be released, temperatures need to go up." Again, why? There is always some CO2 in the atmosphere; the amount moved around the photosynthetic cycle doesn't necessarily cause temperature increase -- that's why today's climate change is called Anthropogenic. A large percentage of the fossil fuels we've burned recently was formed at times in the geologic past when CO2 was much higher than it is today: That's why this is a bad thing. We've put back into the atmosphere the stuff that was put away long ago. "How could this have happened if the plants where continually sequestering the CO2?" Perhaps read up on how fossil fuels are formed and then come back to the Carbon Cycle.
  36. Ice-Free Arctic
    Thank you, Riccardo. Looking at accelerating arctic sea ice loss the question one asks is: "When will the arctic be ice-free in September?". The first graph supports the impression: "Oh, in 2020, or maybe even a bit earlier". Which is of course not true, and differs from your text as well. Thank you for providing the other graph, I really do appreciate it. It helps for pointing people over here without having to discuss things like "Oh, the alarmists over there use misleading scales."
  37. The value of coherence in science
    #82: Nice to see this repeated. Your 'logic' is really the bottom of the barrel in terms of arguments: A general swipe at a class of individuals. You might as well say 'all plumbers are crooks' or 'all cops are out to get you'. No way to deny, no way to verify, because it doesn't apply to anyone in particular. Nice. Of course, my earlier note still stands: This sword cuts both ways. By your 'logic', climate deniers must be just as computer illiterate as climate scientists. Have you posted same at W@tt$ and Co. or clim@te @udit or any of the others? Let us know how 'Hey $teve, you're computer illiterate' goes. "My post was 100% accurate." Accurate, yes: as quotes from a 'News Feature', which is not a scientific paper. The 'feature' is based solely on anecdotal evidence (and part of that provided by someone who owns a company in the business of fixing just this problem!) Does the author have a degree in computer science and is therefore qualified to assess even this anecdotal evidence or is she a freelance journalist and author?
  38. Ice-Free Arctic
    I'm terribly sorry. My previous message was very curt. I should have added my thanks to Riccardo for all the work he put into writing the article.
  39. The value of coherence in science
    Poptech's argument also depends on a rather idiosyncratic view of the research environment (as indeed does the original Nature article, to some extent). Development of software in research groups was (in my day) carried out by graduate students and post-docs. It almost certainly still is today (as in the case of "Harry"). Like any organisation, a research group will be made up of specialists whose expertise is not shared throughout the group. Therefore, it seems to me, the idea of making scientists more "computer literate" misses the point. What is really needed is for the research group as a whole to be aware of good software practises, whether it is test-driven-development, pair-programming, peer-review and documentation standards. Poptech's assertion that by "dealing with university scientists" he understands the software culture of a research group seems dubious to me.
  40. Ice-Free Arctic
    The Copenhagen Diagnosis link is broken. There is an extraneous space at the end i.e 'LOW.pdf_'
  41. Ice-Free Arctic
    I'd forgotten the Copenhagen Diagnosis! I think that is because it coincided with the CRU email theft.
  42. Ice-Free Arctic
    _Flin_ you don't say what that figures apparently implies, so forgive me if I misinterpret your thought. What I wanted to show, and as explicitly said in the text, is that the downward trend has accelerated. If you think that by having the y axis starting at 3 I'm suggesting that we will have an ice-free arctic when the extent reaches the x-axis, it would be in contraddiction with what I wrote. I'd also like to underline that a polynomial fit is an interpolation technique, I hope no one will try to extrapolate it to zero without good (physical) reasons to believe it will continue. As I said in the text, we have good reason to believe it won't. Anyways, if you're happier with the y-axis starting at zero, here's the graph:
  43. The value of coherence in science
    Poptech: Using your logic, scientists not formally trained in English would likely be illiterate. Their training in English after High School is very much self-taught. Your argument does depend on a very narrow definition of 'illiterate', Scientists have indeed been criticized for their use of english and have been asked to improve their communication skills. I have no doubt English professors would view some of their scientist colleagues as illiterate barbarians. In its more common usage, calling out climate scientists as computer illiterate is a shallow attempt to mislead.
  44. Ice-Free Arctic
    I don't like the NSIDC graph. Y-axis should start at 0. As it is, it implies wrong things. Facts are bad enough without a distortion like that. Of course the graph is correct, y-axis correctly labeled, nevertheless starting at 0 might show better where we are heading.
  45. Models are unreliable
    A nice demonstration of how models work is given here, at Steve Easterbrook's site - it is of French origin and you can access the original video through that site also.
  46. It's cooling
    To the Yooper, Thanks for the links above, re #65, excellent way to get a good base, very interesting info. I have some questions that I will post in the appropriate threads.
  47. CO2 effect is saturated
    After thinking on this I think I understand the IPCC argument better. I think the idea is there are two areas of increased warming. One is the outer atmosphere which is caused by CO2 as this article talks about. The second is the area between the troposphere and stratosphere, which is caused by H2O feedback. This increased H2O would supposidly prevent radiation from the troposphere to the relatively still stratosphere. The problem with the H2O feedback idea is it brings us back to the "skeptic" arguments raised in this article. H2O can approach (but never reach) saturation just like CO2 can. So each additional amount of H2O does less warming. Except now we don't have the counterarguments that the H2O is getting farther apart or that the H2O that is radiating is getting cooler and therefore radiates less (because it's getting warmner). I tried to be brief so I hope that makes sense.
  48. Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
    Daniel Bailey #36 "...an immense bolus of formerly sequestered (i.e., removed from the carbon cycle's closed budget) fossil-fuel derived CO2 back into circulation in the carbon cycle" In order for hydrocarbons to have accumulated over the eons, there must have been a steady stream of CO2 being liberated from somewhere and for some reason (lets assume the ocean). But in order for plants to thrive, and for CO2 to be released, temperatures need to go up. How could this have happened if the plants where continually sequestering the CO2? What''s good for goose, must also be good for the gander.
  49. CO2 effect is saturated
    This page makes the argument that the lower layers of the atmosphere are ruled by convection, and that it's the "temperature of this 'last' layer" that is important for radiation of energy. However, the majority of the warming projected by the IPCC is caused by water vapor feedback in the troposphere. The outer layers of atmosphere do not have water vapor. So the argument on this page seems counter to any argument of water vapor feedback.
  50. Models are unreliable
    Poptech, Oh now it is "natural scientists"...need I remind you of your original headline? Anyhow, you demonstrated above that you not only cherry picked your cut and pasts, but you distorted the content of the article to suite your means. Yes, that is poor form. EOS. Do all scientists (with the obvious exception of computer science) need to hone and improve their computer skills? Yes, I can certainly agree with that.

Prev  2091  2092  2093  2094  2095  2096  2097  2098  2099  2100  2101  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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