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  2145  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  Next

Comments 107601 to 107650:

  1. It's freaking cold!
    Redirect from the "new ice age" thread: This is an excellent topic page - and one of the more insidious errors. Our personal experience, and by extension the personal experiences of people we know, tend to have a lot of weight on our judgement. So do more immediate events - what happened last week is more immediate, more forceful in our minds, than what happened a month ago. We also place extreme weight on extraordinary events: a freak snowstorm gets talked about for years, even if the winter in which it occurred was on average pretty mild! So for anyone collecting anecdotes or news stories about extreme weather events - I would strongly recommend looking at the statistics to judge the trends. Individual extreme events tell you very little...
  2. We're heading into an ice age
    Re #104, sorry moderator......
  3. We're heading into an ice age
    Sorry about my last comment, which should be posted elsewhere as suggested - I didn't see the Moderator's suggestion before I posted. This will be my last on this subject here.
  4. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom Loeber, your first link mentions a "worst cold spell in 46 years"; the second mentions the "lowest temperature this year"... I give up. You just do not understand the comparison between, say, a 'record since records began', and 'a record this year'. You seem to see the word 'record' and think that is everything. It isn't : what you are so excited about is called 'weather'. As for "some reports say more than 100 years", prove it. It's not worthwhile anyone bothering to check anything you type out anymore. Finally, and most bizarrely, you suggest that we shouldn't "trust the summaries written up by prominent scientists or organizations" - while you trust media reports and headlines; think the internet allows you to be an expert in whatever you feel like, and end up with conspiracy theories. You have nothing, I'm afraid, but you think you have everything.
    Moderator Response: Continue discussion of individual weather events on the relevant thread It’s freaking cold!.
  5. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom, please read other people's posts very carefully. I was talking about all time record maxima and minima. Regardless, as Ned showed nicely @101, record highs are far outpacing record minima. Yes, and I have a life too. Tuning you out then.
    Moderator Response: Please post comments--even responses--regarding weather on the thread It’s freaking cold!.
  6. We're heading into an ice age
    Only one record low in one nation this year? This article must be mistaken http://en.trend.az/regions/world/ocountries/1725799.html and this one http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/07/15/12419233.html and this one http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/record-cold-set-in-antarctica/ and this one http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10658655 and this one http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/record-cold-at-lax-airport-as-july-gloom-continues-in-southern-california.html and this one http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/06/grsq-dreary-clouds-last-until-mid-week/ and this one http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2921285 and this one http://journalnet.com/news/local/article_10a69c4e-6c75-11df-b454-001cc4c002e0.html That is about half of this year. I could go back more but I think of the above you will fine at least two that are fairly reputable that list record cold temperatures in different nations. Mr. Bostrom, that paper I commented on earlier also states that the extent of the noctilucents has never exceeded as when they were first noticed. That is convenient for his argument that they play no significance in climate change but it is absolutely false. You don't see the data though in his paper as he only takes a slice, less than 36% the time they have been observed. Mr. Murphy, I stand corrected. I see the notices that last year or maybe the year before then, England had its coldest winter in at least 30 years and some reports say more than 100 years. I cannot continue with this. I do have a life and this is a message board and as such it is linear and people can post more than their proven worth. I will leave you with one suggestion, don't trust the summaries written up by prominent scientists or organizations. The internet gives you a good start at going and looking at the evidence yourself. There are strong, violent and intolerant forces at work that have been swaying public and private opinions for generations and they continue to play a dominant role, IMHO.
    Moderator Response: You must post comments on weather on this thread: It’s freaking cold!. Further comments on that topic on this page will be deleted--that's comments by you and by anyone else.
  7. An underwater hockey stick
    To John Cook, I find the above post JMurphy at 23:42 PM offensive. The censorship process by the moderator is not open or transparent in disallowing a response whilst allowing an offensive post to remain without comment by the moderator. If the above post JMurphy at 23:42 PM is allowed to remain then I would like my just deleted post reinstated in it's entirety. The remarks that I was responding to are an attack on myself and a distortion of how the debate evolved. I was very specific about the subject in question, that being the IOD and JMurphy at 23:42 PM is a distortion of what was being referenced as well as a snide attack. If you are not willing to reinstate my reply, then I ask that you censor his post as well.To John Cook, if the above post JMurphy at 23:42 PM is allowed to remain then I would like my just deleted post reinstated in it's entirety. I find it offensive. The remarks that I was responding to are an attack on myself and a distortion of how the debate evolved. I was very specific about the subject in question, that being the IOD and JMurphy at 23:42 PM is a distortion of what was being referenced as well as a snide attack. If you are not willing to reinstate my reply, then I ask that you censor his post as well.
    Moderator Response: The comments policy here is quite clear. Try restating your case without the all-caps, more calmly.

    This is also a good time to take the entire topic of Australia's climate and the IOD to a more appropriate thread. Please use the search box at upper left, choose a better thread, and make further remarks there.
  8. We're heading into an ice age
    My post @ 96 should have read: "And a correction to my previous post. No nations, to my knowledge, have set all-time record cold temperatures in 2010, not one." And the experts concur with CBDunkerson's thoughts on noctilucent clouds: Here is some information In which they state: "First sighted in 1885 in Northern high latitudes, noctilucent, or night shining clouds occur in the summer in the mesosphere, which is the coldest part of the atmosphere. Cloud formation is possibly hastened by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. While CO2 is thought to contribute to global warming on Earth, it actually cools the high atmosphere. In recent years, noctilucent clouds have begun appearing closer to the equator." And some more here. In which they say: "Ironically, greenhouse gases like CO2 that warm Earth's lower atmosphere also cool the upper atmosphere, possibly enhancing conditions for ice crystal formation, said Rusch, lead scientist for the Cloud Imaging and Particle Size experiment, or CIPS"
  9. We're heading into an ice age
    Mr Loeber, you appear to believe that the best way to describe the state of the climate is by seeking out every report of a cold snap somewhere, sometime, and highlighting it. That's a good way to fool yourself, but not a good way to understand objective reality. Maximiliano Herrera has compiled data on met stations that set new high or low records every year since 2002. So far, in 2010 there have been 337 warm records versus 13 cool records. In 2009, the ratio was 80 (warm) to 15 (cool). In 2008, it was 40 (warm) to 18 (cool). In 2007, it was 133 (warm) to 9 (cool). And so on... Your comment "It is my opinion that the greatest danger we face is epistemic relativism. Might does not make right. Majority opinion does not determine truth. Observe to formulate opinions ad infinitum. Don't opinionize to formulate what you can and cannot observe." is highly ironic. Rather than being convinced by the objectively straightforward warming trend, you rely on anecdote, cherry-picking, and appeals to emotion.
  10. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom: "I see that you folks pretty much have your minds made up and no amount of contrary evidence can be tolerated." Tom, you know the same could be said of you. You simply don't (or choose not to) recognize that in terms of amount, the evidence against what you claim is mountainous compared to your molehill's worth. I'd like to see the mechanism you propose that would cause a sudden cooling snap (no global instrumental temperature record displays a cooling trend excepting TOA). Can you model the tipping point for us? How long do we have? Or are you simply picking over the mass of collected data and choosing the bits that support your "shocking" pseudo-theory?
  11. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom #94: "Only one nation? That is not worthy of any effort to refute." Why? It would be so EASY to prove that you are right. Especially since in post #96 Albatross says it turns out that "one country", Guinea, actually had its all time record set LAST year. So all you have to do is cite one country, anywhere in the world, which had its all time record coldest temperature set this year. Just one. That's really 'too much effort'? After all the other posts you've made? Typing out the name of a country is too much work? Or is it not worth refuting... because it is TRUE?
  12. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom Loeber wrote : "I see that you folks pretty much have your minds made up and no amount of contrary evidence can be tolerated. " Unfortunately, you have no "contrary evidence" : you have newspaper articles, online news stories, personal theories and personal experience. Doubly unfortunate is that you cannot see that you don't have any "contrary evidence". If you don't actually provide any, you can indeed expect to be ignored or repetitively shown the evidence that has already been shown but which you are ignoring because you have a pre-determined need to believe what you want to believe. Provide some real evidence, please.
  13. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom Loeber - I don't believe you'll be banned; I don't know of anyone who has, quite frankly. However, your arguments about noctilucent clouds are (as CBDunkerson pointed out, reversing the causal relationship - more noctilucent clouds are expected with warming, not fewer. Extreme weather conditions are to be expected with natural variability - but extreme maxima are occurring twice as often as extreme minima over the last few decades. Your insistence on scattered news reports and anecdotes does you no favor in this discussion - the data contradicts you on that. And as per the main topic of this thread, we appear to be moving away from ice age conditions, when normal cycles indicated we should be moving towards an ice age - we're getting further from ice age conditions all the time. You have presented roughly zero evidence for an immanent ice age. So, while I don't know if anyone gets banned (although individual posts get cut, and if someone has nothing but insults or off-topic posts, it may seem that they're cut), you are at this point not going to be taken seriously by anyone on this site unless you develop a more evidence-based line of discussion. Not banned. Ignored, I'm sorry to say, is fairly likely. I would really encourage you to look at and consider the evidence for global changes (watching out for confirmational bias), and remain in the discussion.
  14. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom, Please read this Those are actual weather data form various weather agencies and climate groups around the world. You continue to fail to support your assertions with facts and data. And a correction to my previous post. No nations have set record cold temperatures in 2010, not one: "No nations set record for their coldest temperature in history in 2010. Jeff Masters erroneously reported in his blog earlier this year that Guinea had done so. Guinea actually had its coldest temperature in history last year, on January 9, 2009, when the mercury hit 1.4°C (34.5°F) at Mali-ville in the Labe region." [from above link] "I expect to be banned or something like that soon, eh?" John Cook is very patient and open to criticism, and you'll find that is you can support your arguments with facts, people here will be very tolerant. That said, this site has a comments policy and you seem to be doing your best to break the rules and antagonize people, why? Again, time to up your game and start substantiating your claims with facts from reputable sources, this may be a blog, but it is a science blog.
  15. We're heading into an ice age
    No, Tom. It's almost impossible to be banned here. You can expect to be ignored.
    Moderator Response: Also, Tom, individual comments will be deleted if they are off topic of the page on which they are posted. You need to continue discussion of individual weather events on the relevant thread It’s freaking cold!.
  16. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    ChrisG, the mental trick being exploited by opponents of regulation of CO2 as a pollutant is that of getting people to think of toxicity, when the threat is physical and has nothing to do with our own metabolisms. Even the ocean acidification issue is mostly not metabolic per se, more a matter of unfavorable physical chemistry. The pollution issue w/CO2 analogizes reasonably well to that of chlorofluorocarbons and stratospheric ozone. The pollution threat in both cases is not toxicity but physical effects. Ozone and CO2 are both just trace gases; seemingly small concentrations of both gases produce notable physical effects if they're changed much. If the ozone at typical concentrations from top to bottom of the atmosphere was concentrated at the bottom of the atmosphere we'd have a wee layer of ozone 3mm thick. That little 3mm turned out to be a big deal; maintaining a ridiculously small but vital amount of gas caused quite an upheaval but was absolutely necessary. Do the exercise with C02 and we get something like 1000 times the thickness, around 3m. Thinking of 3m of C02 and what it does to keep things warm, it's easier to understand why increasing that thickness to 4 or 6 meters is actually quite a change. Denying that increasing the thickness of C02 in the atmosphere by 50 or 100% will produce a change means you have to either take the simple-minded perspective that CO2 produces little or no greenhouse effect, or you need to invoke CO2 is saturated magic. Fossil fuels are dangerously defective when considered from the perspective of the physical threat posed by their emissions. We've dealt with a similar situation before, on a global scale.
  17. We're heading into an ice age
    Mr. Albatross, thank you for posting your name. Only one nation? That is not worthy of any effort to refute. It is you being highly unreasonable and inaccurate. I am warmed by your deciding to tune out. I see that you folks pretty much have your minds made up and no amount of contrary evidence can be tolerated. I expect to be banned or something like that soon, eh?
  18. A detailed look at the Little Ice Age
    A minor quible; I think that you should modify the paragraph that begins 'Note that over short periods...' to something like 'If you assume forcings are constant, you will have a situation like Case 1, as over short periods...'
  19. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom Loeber, noctilucent clouds = cooling mesosphere = warming surface. For example; Summer: Warm at the surface. Cold in the mesosphere. Poles: Showing the greatest surface warming. Coldest region of the mesosphere. Increasing CO2: Warms the surface. Cools the mesosphere. Noctilucent clouds require temperatures of about -120 C to form... which even the mesosphere, the coldest region on Earth, seldom reaches. That is why they are seen in Summer near the poles... the coldest time and region of the mesosphere. As CO2 concentrations increase the mesosphere as a whole gets colder and noctilucent clouds become more common, but the planet's surface gets warmer. Your premise seems to be 'as goes the mesosphere so goes the planet'. In reality all available evidence indicates the opposite... a cooling mesosphere means a warming planet.
  20. We're heading into an ice age
    Mr. Bostrom, so if the data does not lead to "useful conclusions" it should be ignored or discounted totally? I've yet to go into all the links you provided but that last one, he shows a graph of 45 years and determines that noctilucents are really of no concern. Hmmm, first surface mirrors peaking at summer when solar input is supposed to be the most coating the planet far above the green house gases not a concern? How about this graph from NASA going back to when noctilucents were first recorded. I think that tends to skew the data presented in the paper you link to towards a different conclusion. My understanding is that over the last few years the noctilucents have grown in frequency and duration to record amounts repeatedly, beating practically each year's extent and duration.
  21. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom, With respect, you are simply not listening or comprehending the replies to your posts. You keep citing cold weather events, that is confirmation bias. I'll repeat it again, only one nation around the globe has set all time record cold low in 2010. In contrast, so far this year 17 nations around the world set all time high records, and 2010 is on track to be the warmest on record. In the USA warm temperature records are out pacing cold records by over 2:1 so far this year, and similar stats are emerging elsewhere. We are not rapidly changing the tilt of the earth's axis Tom, there are still going to be seasons, including cold snaps during the winter months. The long term trend is global temperatures is up, and for the past 30 years the planet has been warming at almost 0.2 C/decade. The cold weather in parts of Europe and Eurasia last winter were because of the Arctic Oscillation (internal climate variability) flipping into an extremely negative phase, which meant the Arctic was relatively warm while the aforementioned areas were colder than average (not all time record lows as far as I can tell). Sorry, but unless you up your game and stop moving the goal posts, I'm tuning out.
  22. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom Loeber wrote : "Mr. Murphy, there is so much. The record cold that destroyed the livelihood of Mongolian herders, killing their livestock, the record cold across the whole south of China that was said to be the worst in more than 700 years, the record cold and snow in Washington state and descending into Oregon that helped kill my mom two years ago. The NE US and Europe cold that Professor Hansen explained away as weather not climate. England is stated as having their coldest winter on record within the last two years. I could give you a list as long as my arm of record cold events, widespread and on all continents and it appears since they just don't fit your hypothesis you can't see them." Firstly, last Winter here in the UK was the coldest since the late 70s overall. Hardly the "coldest winter on record". Feel free to post evidence that shows otherwise. Mongolian herders were indeed affected by a very cold Winter following the previous season's drought - a double whammy, as some of your other news articles for other countries have shown. Record cold ? Only if you want to believe so. I have read news articles about the cold Winter in China, a couple of years ago, suggesting the coldest since anywhere between 20 to 100 years. 700 years ? Over to you. You are still relying on news outlets for your opinions, but also, it would appear, your own personal loss. I can understand how this would make you want to see everything in catastrophic terms.
  23. We're heading into an ice age
    Mr. Murphy, no one is perfect. John Hamaker was apparently totally unaware of noctilucents though they appear to be a very strong indication that his theory is largely sound. Did you get a chance to see that movie I linked to earlier? Those small and large scale experiments in remineralizing soils offers so much to help us secure this planet. How come it is not a UN sponsored strategy? Seems remineralizing soils rather than using fossil fuel derived fertilizers would help the situation no matter what theory you believe. Hmmm, could fossil fuel companies wanting their cash cow of fertilizers to remain unchallenged be playing any role?
  24. We're heading into an ice age
    KR, extreme weather but over wide areas of the planet? When extreme weather becomes the norm should we still discount it? I am not denying global warming. I do think if the planet does snap into ice age conditions that will be a singular event and it will be climate and weather. I think there is a great deal of evidence that is happening but seems most are going to have to learn the hard way and that means a lot of death and destruction, maybe too much for humanity to survive, IMHO.
  25. We're heading into an ice age
    I've just looked up that Hamaker fellow and it appears he was predicting a shortening of growing seasons, before we fall head-long into an ice-age. Any proof ? An increasing number of studies have reported on shifts in timing and length of the growing season, based on phenological, satellite and climatological studies. The evidence points to a lengthening of the growing season of ca. 10–20 days in the last few decades, where an earlier onset of the start is most prominent. Observed changes in growing season length Field and satellite data at the community and biome levels indicate a lengthening of the growing season across much of the Northern Hemisphere (1–6) and—where data exist—in the Southern Hemisphere (5, 7, 8), yet life history observations of individual species suggest that many species often shorten their life cycle in response to warming (9–12). Not a very good start for Mr Hamaker, it would appear...
  26. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom Loeber - There will always be some extreme weather with unfortunate consequences, including the events that affected your family (which I'm very sorry to hear about). However, singular events are weather. If you are looking at climate (long term trends), you need to look at the statistics and numbers of many events, hot and cold. If you look at the relative numbers of hot and cold events, maxima and minima, you will see that individual cold weather doesn't disprove global warming. There are simply more extreme highs than extreme lows over the past 30 years. What we personally experience has strong effects on our beliefs - how could it not? But if you want to look at global changes, you need to look beyond personal direct experience to the global data.
  27. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom #82: Noctilucent clouds are believed to be CAUSED by global warming... and thus hardly constitute a 'fly in the ointment'. From what I can gather I think you are arguing that noctilucent clouds indicate cooling and thus are contrary to global warming. Of course, noctilucent clouds are found in the mesosphere... which of course cools as greenhouse gas concentrations increase and 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere.
  28. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Note that I also made a point of listing the EPA's references for their responses to the skeptic 'verbiage' (USGCRP, IPCC, and NRC) in anticipiation that certain individuals would dismiss their findings offhand, as gallopingcamel did.
  29. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    I'm finding that as I learn more I have less to say. Most of what I would say has already been said, in particular the comments relating to how something can be a pollutant merely by being out balance with what the current biological systems have adapted to, and the mind-numbing verbiage that are the critiques and responses to every comment the EPA received. GCamel, I suggest you read them before guessing what they might say. Then, if you are feeling industrious, find an independent, reliable source like a university science web site or physics and/or chemistry textbook to find confirming or controverting evidence. I'm trying to think of an analogy to CO2 being a pollutant that hasn't been used before, that would also strike home for the average person. Digoxin was pretty close, but while I happen to know what it is, not everyone does. It is a insidious because it is present naturally and its harmful effects are indirect. Like good old sodium chloride (table salt), it's required for life, but if someone were dumping some on my yard I be a bit peeved. But that doesn't work well because CO2 levels have to be very high before they become directly toxic. CFCs are relatively close because the harmful effects are indirect, but CFCs don't really occur naturally, at least in any quantity that I'm aware of. So, I'm still searching.
  30. We're heading into an ice age
    The Milankovitch theory does not explain noctilucents. They get in its way so I see, such as in the following article they are ignored, not even mentioned... Tom, if you'd actually read replies to your comments, you'd already have learned that noctilucent clouds are not being ignored. A further two minutes w/Google Scholar would also help you realize that the flies are actually in your ointment, screaming with their tiny voices for your attention.
  31. We're heading into an ice age
    Mr. Murphy, there is so much. The record cold that destroyed the livelihood of Mongolian herders, killing their livestock, the record cold across the whole south of China that was said to be the worst in more than 700 years, the record cold and snow in Washington state and descending into Oregon that helped kill my mom two years ago. The NE US and Europe cold that Professor Hansen explained away as weather not climate. England is stated as having their coldest winter on record within the last two years. I could give you a list as long as my arm of record cold events, widespread and on all continents and it appears since they just don't fit your hypothesis you can't see them. It is my opinion that the greatest danger we face is epistemic relativism. Might does not make right. Majority opinion does not determine truth. Observe to formulate opinions ad infinitum. Don't opinionize to formulate what you can and cannot observe.
  32. We're heading into an ice age
    My understanding is that when Milankovitch first proposed his theory he suggested gravitational influences from stars other than our own play a part in the comings and goings of ice ages besides eccentricity of orbit, influence of other planets, etc.. That seems pretty outrageous to me, tantamount to astrology. BUT that theory totally absolves humanity from having to watch what it does to the atmosphere as far as avoiding the threat of tipping the climate into its most stable state, ice age conditions. Most likely people reading this have college and university experiences. Look at who provides scholarships, awards and "prizes" more than any other source of money. It is the fossil fuel and the otherwise military associated companies that play a major role in determining funding, who gets degrees, who gets well paying jobs and who gets to be teachers. Do you think this does not lead to across the board mistaken assumptions that downplay the danger of burning fossil fuels? The way I have come to describe it, the interglacial is like a house of cards. It takes a long time to build but can collapse fast. The Hamaker hypothesis appears to fit the evidence better than the Milankovitch theory. Unlike the Milankovitch theory, the Hamaker hypothesis has led to experiments that strongly suggest its relative validity, real time experiments. The Hamaker hypothesis is not just dependent on the interpretation of past events like the Milankovitch theory is, solely. Many small and large scale experiments show soil remineralization greatly increases biomass and carbon dioxide sequestering. The Milankovitch theory does not explain noctilucents. They get in its way so I see, such as in the following article they are ignored, not even mentioned, though earth albedo is found to be the driving factor and not solar insolation Interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles, and Carbon Dioxide 2/10 Scientific understanding has been found to be quite wrong before despite a vast majority of established scientists, teachers, lecturers, politicians etc. holding most vehemently to the mistaken assumptions. It is even more easy to have those mistaken assumptions when they absolve any danger of the promulgation of the main money making enterprise of the richest fraction of the population. Noctilucents, a fly in your ointment, gentlemen.
  33. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Also, Doug hits the ball out of the park in this comment: What's really ironic and kind of funny in light of your word choice is that many more pages of what many of us think of when we use the term "verbiage" were donated by "skeptics," forcing the EPA to explain again the science behind the policy. The comments portion is an exhaustive encyclopedia of wrong thinking about climate science and science in general. Exactly. The reason the EPA's document is so lengthy is that they made their scientists sit down and write patient, careful responses to every single objection or criticism, no matter how ill-founded. The end result is actually rather reminiscent of Skeptical Science itself, as has been pointed out previously.
  34. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    GC #87 EPA initiatives intended to improve the environment are often wrong headed and costly. I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again. What is it with "skeptics" and argument by assertion? If you want to make this case, you need to demonstrate -- not just announce -- that the EPA's policies are "often" wrong and costly. It'd also be helpful to provide hard evidence that EPA policies routinely lead to worse outcomes than doing nothing. None of that would demonstrate that they're wrong on CO2, of course, any more than Dred Scott demonstrates that the SCOTUS is wrong on CO2. But at least your argument would have a little bit of substance, as opposed to none.
  35. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    gallopingcamel writes: Ned (#86), Great graph! I am sick of all those graphs that exaggerate effects by suppressing the zero. Thank you. There is no definitive rule for what's appropriate in scaling graph axes. In some cases, extending the axis to 0 is appropriate. In other cases, it merely serves to obscure information that could be presented more clearly by a different choice. In this case, the Y axis needs to cover the range from below 180 to around 1000 ppm. Given that range, there's no particular cost to extending the Y axis down to 0. In general, humans are often able to extract the most information about the shape of a graph when it is scaled such that the absolute values of line segments are centered around 45 degrees (W.S. Cleveland, The Elements of Graphing Data [1994]; discussed in E. Tufte, Envisioning Information [1997], p. 25).
  36. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    GC, the majority of the EPA's "verbiage" as you describe it is an exhaustive recap of the myriad scientific details justifying policy. In other words, EPA is demonstrating a compelling case. What's really ironic and kind of funny in light of your word choice is that many more pages of what many of us think of when we use the term "verbiage" were donated by "skeptics," forcing the EPA to explain again the science behind the policy. The comments portion is an exhaustive encyclopedia of wrong thinking about climate science and science in general. I'm guessing you made that blunder because your odd attitude to government did not permit you to actually visit and read any of that information. Your other remark about EPA is just vacuous. I know you can do better; I've seen it.
  37. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    chriscanaris, unlike CO2 in the atmosphere, which mainly causes problems and so needs to be regulated, junk mail mainly leads to profits and jobs, and is already regulated : Direct marketing generates £205 billion in annual sales for UK Plc
  38. gallopingcamel at 02:03 AM on 6 October 2010
    Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Ned (#86), Great graph! I am sick of all those graphs that exaggerate effects by suppressing the zero. doug_bostrom (#63), I have to admit that you do your home work. The EPA probably imagines it has covered its vulnerable extremities with all that verbiage. I bet there is even more documentation to justify the mandatory addition of ethanol to our gasoline. EPA initiatives intended to improve the environment are often wrong headed and costly. The EPA's reputation will soon be on the level of the Department of Education. Come to think of it.....that is a good thing.
  39. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    @KL (149): then you agree the "flattening" was simply a temporary reduction likely caused by the PDO's cooling effect? "What Ned and archiesteel are trying to claim is that I don't understand climate responses to the AG radiative forcings." It would be hard to tell if you understand it or not since you seem to make a point of posting confusing (and confused) arguments. Of course the forcings (including solar) were not at "zero" in 1750 - the sun was shining, wasn't it? Similarly, there was already CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere, so the GHG forcing wasn't zero either - but that completely misses the point. The *increase* or *decrease* in the forcings is what counts.
    Moderator Response: Please follow KR's excellent example and move all further discussion of whether or not solar irradiance forcing is responsible for modern warming to the thread on Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?. Thanks.
  40. It's the sun
    Ken Lambert - To follow up on the theme of comparing anomalies, the discussion on CO2 is not the only driver of climate is quite useful, especially this chart: This starts from a baseline of 1880 (where the "zero" is set), showing deltas (changes) from those values. Note that solar irradiance deltas are trivial compared to greenhouse gases and aerosols. Once again, TSI is not the driver of recent warming. TSI changes simply do not match the temperature record.
  41. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Here's a graph showing CO2 levels over the past 800,000 years, compared to the current concentration (around 390 ppm) and the range of projected concentrations in 2100 based on the various IPCC scenarios: CO2 concentrations in the Dome C, Vostok, and Law Dome ice cores, for the past 800,000 years (purple line). Atmospheric concentrations 1959-present shown in orange line at right, with current (2010) value of 390 ppm indicated by dashed line. Red circles indicate range of projected CO2 concentrations in 2100. This might provide some context for the importance of regulating CO2 emissions. Failure to limit emissions would shift the chemistry of the atmosphere to a condition certainly not seen in the past 800,000 years and probably not for quite a long time before that.
  42. gallopingcamel at 01:10 AM on 6 October 2010
    Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Many thanks for your thoughtful responses. My speculations in #73 are based on the link to the NOAA web site. However, I did take the time to download the actual data from NOAA and plot it using my spreadsheet program. You can do the same by clicking on the "Data" link. Here is the URL again: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html Alley's data was published 10 years ago, so an update covering recent years would be helpful. That is one of the reasons for my planned visit to NCDC in Asheville in two weeks time. I don't expect to meet with Alley himself but there are several other people who worked on central Greenland. A related question for my Asheville visit concerns the "station drop off" at high latitudes. Given the "magnification" of warming and cooling effects at high latitudes, why have the number of reporting stations fallen? For example, the GHCN only includes Resolute and Alert in its database when it comes to the Canadian arctic and the situation is similar for northern Russia. It has been my experience that people will tell you many things in conversation that are not evident by reading their published papers, so I hope to be able to share some additional insights next month. With the above in mind do any of you have questions for the staff at NCDC?
    Moderator Response: Comments about station dropoff belong in a different thread. You know how to find it.
  43. Roger A. Wehage at 01:06 AM on 6 October 2010
    Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
    Fearing unfavorable public reaction, it is unlikely that the United States government will do anything significant to mitigate CO2 emissions in the foreseeable future. But they may spend hundreds of billions on star-wars type geoengineering ideas. Here is Representative Bart Gordon's Plan B for the Climate. Rep. Gordon said, "Within the next month, I will release a report titled Geoengineering the Climate: Research Needs and Strategies for International Coordination." Watch for that report for more details.
  44. It's the sun
    Ken Lambert - In regards to your ongoing insistence on unmeasured solar influence, I will point out that some of your issues with 1750 are based upon an inconsistent and incorrect view of "baseline". Forcings are set to zero starting at 1750 in many discussions as a point of reference for anomalies, not because of an equilibrium state. According to the historic and paleo reconstructions, without industrialization we should have seen 1750 onward continuing the Little Ice Age slope, and cooling (not equilibrium). By comparing TSI, CO2, aerosols, and other elements to the numbers at 1750 we can see how they've changed over time, and hence determine which changes are more relevant to the changing climate. But it's absolutely NOT a zero sum game starting from a blank slate equilibrium - which you for some reason keep insisting upon. And finally, given the historic record of changes in solar forcing, your insistence on "it's the sun" is not supported - there have not been changes in solar output consistent with the temperature record over the last 30-40 years. The sun is clearly not the base cause of global warming.
  45. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ken Lambert - I would strongly recommend taking this discussion, and your unsupported theory of unmeasured solar forcing, to the "It's the sun" thread, where it's appropriate. I have placed a reply on that thread.
    Moderator Response: Thank you.
  46. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    All the Ken-world viewers note this on significance periods: 14 years is better that 10 years is better than 8 years is better than 5 years and 1-2 years is not much good at all.
  47. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Sorry Moderator, I didn't see your comment while I was posting.
  48. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Ned: Ad hominem? No. I assume most people make the decisions they do in good faith. They sometimes get things wrong as no doubt you believe I have today. Unfortunately, as one who's had a fair bit to do with courts as an expert witness, I have a somewhat jaundiced view of our Anglo-Saxon adversarial court system even when judges do the best they can. However, judges are also constrained by the evidence placed before them. In this instance, I have no quarrel whatsoever with the Supreme Court's rulings - I think they had sound reasons for viewing anthropogenic CO2 as a pollutant. Doug: You used the word 'legislate.' Technically you're right - elected legislators legislate or make law while courts interpret legislation. In interpreting legislation, however, Courts create legal precedents (effectively clarifying law and in some instances giving it novel expression) which can only be overturned by specific legislation. Doug: I'm not speculating on your personality. Again, I always assume you are contributing here in good faith and with good will. However, I thought you were being inconsistent which all of us, myself included, inevitably sometimes are. I may be wrong, of course. JMurphy: I think this site is a superb forum for debate which is consistently stimulating and thought provoking. We could do with more such spaces. As for revenue suffered by firms from loss of advertising, I can count on my fingers the number of times I have purchased items based on unsolicited mail. The sheer inefficiency and waste for so little revenue with such substantial environmental impacts does upset me. Cutting down trees to turn them into pulp for advertising is certainly not my idea of a carbon sink. Using energy for unnecessary production of paper is not a good carbon sink. What's worse, you're probably right - much of that paper never goes into recycling but ends up in landfill. As for those who can't walk or cycle, Sydney has been crying out for thirty years for a better public transport system - no government of any stripe seems willing or able to take defective action. It'd be great to see fewer cars on our roads. Not no cars - just fewer cars and more efficient cars.
  49. Arctic sea ice... take 2
    CBD, thanks for the numbers update. That '07 'increase' probably reflects the winter levels transitioning from '06 to '07. We know what the summer of '07 did. For all practical purposes, the last chance of a 'recovery' ended that year. We are left with the prospect of being one bad (for the MultiYear ice) summer away from a late-summer/early-fall-navigable Arctic Ocean. With its attendant habitat loss for the walrus, seal and polar bear (the Arctic Fox is the poster-child for the forgotten species, but will probably endure best). Keep an eye on the MY ice advection out the Fram this winter. That, plus a strong dipole next year, will officially mark the dawn of a new era in international commerce...and species loss in the Arctic. As Doug & Riccardo delineate, the times they are a-changin'. Now. On our Watch. The Yooper
  50. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Yooper, Ned, Archisteel, Adelady, kdkd et al: It must be bash Ken-world week. Clearly if you visited my posts on other threads - you all might glean that I have some reasonable understanding of the numbers and state of climate play. This is what I said to Yooper on 20SEP: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=56&&n=374#comments Comment #63 "The critical measurement is the TOA imbalance which nets all the heating and cooling forcings. Ref Fig 2.4 of AR4 which gives a total net anthropogenic forcing of +1.6W/sq.m. To this number is then added the climate responses which mainly consist of radiative cooling (from a raised Earth temperature of 0.75 degC as per S-B) of about -2.8W/sq.m and WV and Ice Albedo Feedback of about +2.1 W/sq.m. (Ref Dr Trenberth Fig 4 'Tracking the Earth's global energy) The sum is then +1.6 -2.8 +2.1 = +0.9W/sq.m All the heating and cooling forcings are acting in concert. S-B is emitting IR, Aerosols and clouds are reflecting incoming Solar heat, while CO2GHG are supposedly trapping Solar heat at lower levels (the mechanism is more correctly slowing down the transfer rather than 'trapping' heat) which tends to raise the equilibrium temperature as the analogy of a better insulator increases the T1-T2 temperature difference for a given heat flux transferred. What is certain is that CO2GHG forcing (currently claimed at about 1.6W/sq.m) is logarithmic with CO2 concentration, and S-B radiative cooling is exponential (proportional to T^4). Where these forcings and the others cross is where the forcing imbalance is zeroed and the new equilibrium temperature approached. The CO2GHG theory hangs on the interaction of WV and CO2 in the atmosphere and what will be the surface temperature rise for a unit rise in the IR emitting temperature of the Earth as seen from space." end quote What Ned and archiesteel are trying to claim is that I don't understand climate responses to the AG radiative forcings. The point I am making about Solar forcing and energy over time is that the components of the Radiative forcing (Fig 2.4 IPCC AR4) are separated for analysis and quantification, but they are the INSTANTANEOUS energy flux (power) forcings in W/sq.m circa AD2005. There is a history over time for these forcings going back to the pre-industrial 'zero' date of AD1750. There will be a curve for each and the area under that curve represents the total energy contributed by each. Simultaneously there are the climate response forcings which also have their curves going back wrt time ie: "which mainly consist of radiative cooling (from a raised Earth temperature of 0.75 degC as per S-B) of about -2.8W/sq.m and WV and Ice Albedo Feedback of about +2.1 W/sq.m. (Ref Dr Trenberth Fig 4 'Tracking the Earth's global energy)" Again these are AD2005 numbers for the instantaneous value of the response forcings. Summing ALL the curves should give a combined effect of a composite curve over time, the area under which represents the total of the energy absorbed or lost to the earth system at any point in time since AD1750. Temperature (with appropriate lags) should in theory follow this time integral. Now, where Ned does not 'get it' is that when looking at the Solar forcing COMPONENT of the +1.6W/sq.m of net AG forcings, my contention is that this is underestimated if the Solar forcing of the Earth was not 'zero' in 1750, because all the other AG forcings were 'zero' as far as we know. If CO2GHG forcing was not zero in 1750, the same argument would apply to its area under the forcing curve. It would also be underestimated. If you disagree with the methodology of looking at each COMPONENT AG radiative and Solar forcing and then summing them (and their time history curves), because they in reality all acted in concert together with climate response forcings to produce the net result; then you must disagree with the IPCC method and that of Hansen, Dr Trenberth et al, who explicitly use this method to separate out the components. Without this separation - no theroetical analysis of the relative value of each AG forcing could have been made and all we would know is that the current TOA imbalance (CERES April 2010) is +6.4W/sq.m which would indeed cause us all to fry in hell. A correction back to 0.9W/sq.m would be impossible without the theroetical analysis of the components and their apparent magnitudes.

Prev  2145  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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