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  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  Next

Comments 107901 to 107950:

  1. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    gallopingcamel. Ah, I'm glad you said that! There are indeed sharp upturns in temp throughout the record, and all were natural. You're right, we're told that this time, this time, it is man-made (and we have a suitable cause). What intruiges me when I look at the graph of modern temps is indeed THAT sharp uptick. Would you agree that it would fit better if the temp slowly rose up, rather than it being quite sharp?
  2. It's not bad
    This PNAS abstract shows decreasing rice yields under higher night time temperatures if you're looking for non greenhouse based work on (dis)advantages of higher CO2 on crop growth.
  3. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    CoalGeologist #65 "The U.S. Supreme Court, which CORRECTLY (beyond question) identified CO2 as a pollutant,..." Just a few articles back, "Does breathing contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere?", it was being said that it was OK to breathe, (and I might add, if this is, it should be OK to burn wood as well). Meanwhile, the US Constitution guarantees the right to life, (i.e., "nor shall any State deprive any person of life...")... yet you go on to say that the Supreme Court... "merely gave the EPA the authority to regulate its discharge " Considering the possibilities, (and the level of misinformation going around), "merely" sounds like a gross understatement. And perhaps the real problem stems from a need to use a different word. Pollution is the wrong word. "Surplus" might be better.
  4. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    For those arguing that the benefits of increased CO2 will outweigh the negatives, or that the negatives aren't significant, or what have you, I recommend actually reading the 'How Much Warming is Dangerous?' section of the article and the links it references.
  5. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Here are a couple of very good examples of how something that is good in very small quantities is actually *harmful* in larger quantities. Digitalis is a toxin which, in very small quantities, can prevent heart-attacks yet, in higher concentrations, can lead to a very swift death. Similarly Botulinus Toxin (aka Botox) can be used to reduce the visible signs of aging but-in large enough quantities-can lead to extreme illness & even death. I see CO2 & the like in a very similar light. Its worth noting though that, even if CO2 were considered utterly benign-at all quantities-the other by-products of burning fossil fuels are sufficiently toxic to warrant that we use far less of them. Burning petrol generates particulate emissions & benzene-both extremely hazardous to health, & burning coal generates particulate emissions, cadmium & mercury (amongst a host of other toxic by-products). Not exactly good for our health!
  6. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Another statistical way of looking things: From CapitalClimate
  7. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Thingadonta @#50: There are several interrelated sets of issues regarding climate change that tend to become muddled in the skeptical debate, in particular: 1) Is the climate changing, and at what rate?, 2) What is causing this change?, 3) How might climate continue to change in the future, particularly if nothing is done to limit human impact? 4) What is the likely impact of [anthropogenic] climate change on human civilization as well as on natural ecosystems?, and finally 5) What can or should we do, if anything, to reduce the impact of anthropogenic climate change? The first four questions fall ostensibly within the realm of science, while the last (#5) falls within the realm of values, priorities, and politics--perhaps even religion. Unfortunately, I believe that a lot of "skeptics" allow their opinions regarding #5 to influence their judgment regarding #'s 1 through 4... and that pertains both to those who would wish to reduce human impact to as close to zero as possible, and those who, like Rhett Butler in regards to Scarlett O'Hara, frankly don't .....er... care. The U.S. Supreme Court, which CORRECTLY (beyond question) identified CO2 as a pollutant, merely gave the EPA the authority to regulate its discharge into the atmosphere. The Court did not indicate what should be done to limit CO2 emissions... but only that it falls under the EPA's authority. Trade-offs need to be weighed in any such circumstances. We face a lot of serious questions regarding our priorities for the future. Although I'm by no means sure what can or should be done regarding CO2, there is one thing I do feel sure of... that 7+ billion of us can't all simultaneously do whatever the hell we want, and not affect everyone else. We need to consider the consequences of our actions--or inaction, as the case may be--as opposed to denying that such consequences are real. In the meantime, libertarians should give serious consideration to finding another planet to live on.
  8. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    "The big difference is that this time the upturn could be caused by humanity's fondness for burning growing quantities of fossil fuel." - that and the lack of the forcings that dictated such change in the past. If comparing past 750,000 make sure you put instrumental record on same scale so you get a real understanding of "sharp". Though fortunately current change does not appear to be as rapid as NH suffered in Younger Dryas and Heinrich events that occur when coming out a glaciation.
  9. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    GC - well I am not going to comment on an US political matter. As to ice ages, perhaps comment on CO2 lags temperature (after reviewing argument)?
  10. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    GC, you're typically a pretty articulate fellow. I've got to say, there's a wide gulf of understanding here based on your remark that the EPA is behaving ludicrously by taking up C02 as a pollutant; a single adjective doesn't begin to explain your perspective. The trouble is, "ludicrous" is what's on offer, versus this: Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (PDF) (52 pp, 308K) Technical Support Document for the Findings (PDF) (210 pp, 2.5MB) Beyond its immediate findings, EPA bent over backwards to entertain a vast number of comments and criticisms. I'm willing to bet the word "ludicrous" may be found in the compilation of this interaction but more to the point, lots of people devoted more effort than launching a single adjective to attacking the regulation of C02 by EPA, only to be found less than compelling. There are 11 volumes of comments and responses in all, but the key discussions from the perspective of vistors to this site are probably mostly to be found here: Volume 1: General Approach to the Science and Other Technical Issues Volume 2: Validity of Observed and Measured Data Volume 3: Attribution of Observed Climate Change Volume 4: Validity of Future Projections Volume 9: Endangerment Finding The thing is, after all of the disparagement about vague and nonspecific bureaucrats is brushed away as silly irrelevancy, we're left with the fact that EPA actually has a track record of successfully dealing with a range of pollution issues at various scales from relatively miniscule to quite huge. EPA's got a huge reservoir of expertise to tap into, they've been mobilized to look at this C02 challenge and you can see the results above. Against that, a single adjective?
  11. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    It is very disappointing to find the (mostly) sane denizens of this blog going along with what amounts to a denial of 9th grade science. "9th grade science" from which decade? Science does evolve, you know. If you want us to understand why classifying CO2 as a pollutant is "ludicrous," you need to present an actual argument, and back it up with evidence.
  12. gallopingcamel at 14:26 PM on 5 October 2010
    Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Baz, (#94), you ask: "What else could have caused a fairly-sharp upturn in temps?" That is a fair question but have you considered the fact that sharp upturns and downturns are the norm in "Climate Change". If you doubt me take a look at the ice core records that go back over 750,000 years. It is true that we are experiencing a "sharp upturn" but it is not unprecedented. The big difference is that this time the upturn could be caused by humanity's fondness for burning growing quantities of fossil fuel.
  13. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    @GC: CO2 is a pollutant, because too much of it is harmful to us. That point has been made to you over and over again, and you have yet to offer a convincing counter-argument. This is how debating works, by the way. You can't just restate your original position, or claim that everyone but you would fail 9th grade science, and expect to convince others that you are right.
  14. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Thingadonta: Using the argument that everything that is 'bad' for the envrionment is no good would mean no houses (cuts down habitat), no roads, no mines, no anything. The only people I've ever seen using this argument are "skeptics" who'd rather build strawmen than address their opponents' objections in good faith. C02 obviously is necessay for life, but too much might not be good. But there is a danger in giving bureacratic agencies legislation which classifies something as a 'pollutant' which is also necassary for society to function. I'm sure we're supposed to be frightened by the word "bureaucratic," but the fact is, we routinely put bureaucracies in charge of serious and dangerous things, from epidemic disease to military forces to nuclear weapons. If AGW is half the threat that mainstream, peer-reviewed science says it is, then the legislation you decry is really the only reasonable response to it. To imagine otherwise is childish, IMO. It is not about whther or not something is harmless, but whether the 'harm' outweighs the benefits, in other words, is a certain amount of harm acceptable, or can the hamr be reduced to an acceptable level? Acceptable to whom? Many of the people who will suffer most from the effects of AGW have little or no voice in this debate. Note, also, that to the extent that reducing harm is possible, it'll probably be accomplished by people who've accepted the scope of the problem, instead of sticking their heads in the sand (i.e., by the "greens" and "bureaucrats" who worry you so much).
  15. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Re: gallopingcamel One could also posit the lack of understandings of ice ages as a denial of 9th grade science as well. But that would also be wrong. ;) The Yooper
  16. gallopingcamel at 14:01 PM on 5 October 2010
    Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    scaddenp (#40), Yes, I am still having trouble understanding ice ages but there are other threads for that. This thread does not condemn the ludicrous position taken by the EPA with regard to naming CO2 as a "pollutant". It is very disappointing to find the (mostly) sane denizens of this blog going along with what amounts to a denial of 9th grade science.
  17. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Re: doug_bostrom (76) Thanks, Doug. The graph, not found in the paper (nor can I locate it on the GISP2 website), must be what he was referring to. The graph hardly has the resolution to make any claims about the Central Greenland location of the core during the LIA or the MWP, let alone any further extrapolation outside that area. Maybe I can find it on Alley's website. Re: scaddenp (77) Nice hauling out the secret weapon! The Yooper
  18. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    GC - I am extremely puzzled by your summary of what the paper purports to show. For starters perhaps, how is ice core supposed to show us anything at all about last 100 years? How about this graphic then? Of course you could write to Richard Alley and ask his opinion of your interpretation.
  19. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    thingadonta @50, you are creating a bit of a straw man. Calling something a "pollutant" is not the same thing as saying that all sources of the thing must be completely eradicated. We live every day with pollutants, and society must constantly evaluate the costs of those pollutants against the benefits of the activities that generate them. Climate (and other) science is trying to get a handle on the costs of CO2 emissions, not the benefits. Human society as a whole will bear those costs, regardless of anyone's arguments for or against global warming. Without an accurate understanding of the costs, there is no way for society to make rational decisions on cost versus benefits. That is why the people intent on obscuring the truth are doing such a disservice to mankind.
  20. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    I just have a thing about trying to supply links for complete articles instead of abstracts, Daniel. No way can I read 'em all, heh! I suspect GC's conclusions are largely based on the graph found at the URL he supplied but GC can say better.
  21. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Re: doug_bostrom (74) Thanks, Doug. I took the time to read it first...to find you beat me in posting the actual link. Re: gallopingcamel (73) Are we reading the same paper? Alley's 2000 paper deals with the termination of the Younger Dryas event, circa 11,500 BP...nowhere in the paper is a discussion of the LIA, the MWP or temperatures over the last 10,000 years. Please give us the actual source(s) for your point 1-5 claims. The Yooper
  22. An underwater hockey stick
    JMurphy JohnD's email quote appears to have been sourced here. It's worth reading the whole thing, a familiar refrain as we've yet again been treated to a rhetorically expedient selection. There's some discussion here further indicating things were not as simple as they've been portrayed. Not on-topic; maybe there's a better place here, such as "Models are unreliable."
  23. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare." The public health crowd has something to say here: It is now widely accepted that climate change is occurring as a result of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere arising from the combustion of fossil fuels. Climate change may affect health through a range of pathways, for example as a result of increased frequency and intensity of heat waves, reduction in cold related deaths, increased floods and droughts, changes in the distribution of vector-borne diseases and effects on the risk of disasters and malnutrition. The overall balance of effects on health is likely to be negative and populations in low income countries are likely to be particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects. The experience of the 2003 heat wave in Europe shows that high-income countries may also be adversely affected. Sounds unhealthy. A bit like a pollutant, no?
  24. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Full text of Alley 2000 as mentioned by GC is here (pdf).
  25. gallopingcamel at 12:48 PM on 5 October 2010
    Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Albatross, (#72), Thanks, the Leaf sounds quite similar to the EV1 and the price is in the right ball park. John Cook, Picking up on what you said at the top of this thread: "Of course, it's also important to realise that this is the global average. Warming at high latitudes may be 3 times as much." This appears to be an accurate statement. The evidence from ice cores shows temperature swings of greater than 20 degrees Kelvin as the planet undergoes cycles of glaciation. It follows that it should be easier to measure warming or cooling by studying temperatures at high latitude. Back in 2000, Richard Alley published a paper on temperatures in Central Greenland at a latitude of 73N: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html This paper shows a number of interesting things, at least for central Greenland. 1. The temperature swings ARE much greater than shown in reconstructions for low latitudes. 2. Current temperatures are higher than during the LIA. 3. Current temperatures are lower than during the MWP and various earlier warm periods. 4. The temperature has been higher than today for 8,500 years out of the last 10,000. 5. Ice accumulation increases during warm periods so declining ice volume is not necessarily evidence of warming.
  26. An underwater hockey stick
    Thanks scandenp #62. That's what I was looking for.
  27. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    But there is a danger in giving bureacratic agencies legislation which classifies something as a 'pollutant' which is also necassary for society to function. Like, say, oil in tankers and pipelines. Goodness knows, the petroleum industry willingly did such good a job with self-regulation, the as-usual-vaguely-characterized-government-bureaucracies have been simply dangerous in their overweening regard for keeping oil inside of the various things oil is supposed to be inside of. I tend to agree with Lonborg that money would be better spent on alternative energies and mitigation effects... Sounds like a believer. To get a broader perspective on economics of mitigation, etc. see Real Climate Economics (not related to "RealClimate")
  28. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    @Ned: no problem, we provided two different links, thereby adding weigh to our shared position.
  29. We're heading into an ice age
    @TL: "Ah, me thinks the idea of Milankovitch cycles borders on blaming astrology for the ice ages." Cute. Completely wrong, but cute. "There is a much better explanation and it is lighting up the skies over both hemispheres ever more with each year." TSI has been going down, and we are past the Holocene Climatic Optimum. If it was up to natural cycles, we should be cooling, not warming up.
  30. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Argh, beaten by one minute. Congrats, archiesteel.
  31. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    thingadonta ... you may think you agree with Lomborg, but Lomborg has apparently reconsidered, and he no longer agrees with you.
  32. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    @thingadonta: You seem to be behind on the news: Bjorn Lomborg now admits that Global Warming to be one of the world's greatest threats. In the case of Anthropogenic Global Warming (which it seems you believe now), the bad outweighs the good.
  33. We're heading into an ice age
    Oh, don't get me going on the widespread cold in the northern hemisphere... Agreed, it's apparent there would be little point in that, so please don't start. Clearly you're not a fellow to be swayed by collated data permitting of useful conclusions, meanwhile the strong preference here is to stick w/exactly that sort of information.
  34. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom Loeber writes: Ah, me thinks the idea of Milankovitch cycles borders on blaming astrology for the ice ages Please don't be a troll. The association between Milankovich geometry and glacial/interglacial cycles is very, very well established. The mechanisms by which this works are not completely understood, but we do know a lot about it. The very short version is that a reduction in seasonal insolation during high-latitude Northern Hemisphere summers allows snowpack to persist through the summer, leading to the inception of ice sheets. When summer insolation around 65 North begins increasing again, this process reverses itself. If you don't understand how this works, check out Bill Ruddiman's textbook (Earth's Climate) or David Archer's eminently readable book (The Long Thaw).
  35. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    The nature of "pollution" and what it means is where alot of greens go wrong in science. The question is not whether something does 'bad' to the environment, the question from a human nd ecological perspective is whether the bad outweighs the good. Using the argument that everything that is 'bad' for the envrionment is no good would mean no houses (cuts down habitat), no roads, no mines, no anything. The question is one of balance, and that mean looking at things from a broader perpsective. This is general government policy in Australia, weighing up the environmental, social and economic costs and benefits of various policy decisions. With regard to 'pollution', the issues are the same. A pollutant can also be 'good', it depends on the degree of the relative effects. Eg DDT saves lives, and causes cancer at the same time. Mines damage an area and create jobs. Radiactivity creates energy and causes cancer. etc etc. This is also the general argument of the Skeptical Environmentalist by Lomborg. C02 obviously is necessay for life, but too much might not be good. But there is a danger in giving bureacratic agencies legislation which classifies something as a 'pollutant' which is also necassary for society to function. Have a look at the first definition, it is completely circular and doesn't define what a pollutant actually is: "The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent..." .......ie 'a pollutant is a pollutant'. the 2nd definition, doesnt weigh up the costs and benefits: "....anticipated to endanger public health or welfare". So do cars. This is not the issue, it is "whether the danger to public health or welfare" outweighs the benefits. Again, it is only half a definition. The third: "in some harmless form", which again fails to mention the cost/benefit issue. It only refers to whether somethng is harmless or not. By this defintion cars would have to stay in garages, otherwise they would be harmless. It is not about whther or not something is harmless, but whether the 'harm' outweighs the benefits, in other words, is a certain amount of harm acceptable, or can the hamr be reduced to an acceptable level? The argument over c02 as a pollutant depends on whether the IPCC worst-case scenarios turns out to be correct, and whether there is any practical way of mitigating greenhouse gas warming by other methods (eg large scale c02 extraction from the atmosphere and suitable capture). I tend to agree with Lonborg that money would be better spent on alternative energies and mitigation effects, than various other policies such as Kyoto nad issues relating to eg 'pollutants'. etc
  36. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    KL #133 Just to clarify: if you come up with something that has good validity with sound logic and empirical support then I'm happy to accept your argument. However the two main arguments that you repeat constantly are both fatally flawed with poor logic, lack of empirical support and confirmation bias. Yet another example of confirmation bias is that you take my statements on the empirical validity of your work and make the assumption that there's some non-empirical reason that I find your argument lacking. Anyway, as others have said, I'm not sure where this stuff is on-topic where it hasn't already been done to death.
  37. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Updated OHC posted at NODC: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ A blink comparator of the old vs new heat content values: http://i54.tinypic.com/24178ur.jpg from Bob Tisdale's blog: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/
  38. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    Re: ocrow (31)
    "I keep seeing articles that refer to particular atmospheric CO2 levels corresponding to particular global temperature changes. Is there a graph that shows the relationship between the two?"
    Depending upon what you're interested in: Near-Term (Recent History) Mid-Term (The Age of Civilization; i.e., Old-As-Dirt) no CO2 levels on this one, but gives a neat perspective. The Last 5 De-glaciation Events superimposed on each other for comparison. Kinda Old (400,000 BP) Paleo (Really Old - 800,000 BP) Leave it to the public servants at the EPA to give us something useful. Note that while other forcings exist (some positive, some negative), the resulting temperatures comes from the summary balance of all of them, and forcings can and do change over time (albeit slowly). Until humans messed with the biggest control knob of temperatures. The Yooper
  39. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    The Inconvenient Skeptic writes: The warming at the end of the last glacial is a serious problem for computer models that depend on CO2 levels. If the feedback of the global climate is so sensitive to CO2 levels then the any change in CO2 would cause unbounded feedback and thermal runaway. Since the Earth is stable (within a temperature range, +/- 7C over the past 1 million years) there has never been a thermal runaway. The reason is that the Earth is a stable system. The idea that positive feedback implies an "unbounded" increase in temperature (or "thermal runaway") is both common and completely mistaken. See the article on Does positive feedback necessarily mean runaway warming? for an explanation. Positive feedback will not lead to a "runaway" increase if the feedback factor f is less than 1. And, in fact, modest (f < 1) positive feedbacks are a necessary feature of the climate regime as seen in the glacial/interglacial cycles. So ... I'm sorry, but your ideas expressed in the quote I've excerpted above are pretty much completely wrong. I hope you'll continue reading this site. John Cook and the rest of the community here have developed an exceptionally high-value resource for exploring many of the common questions and misconceptions that persist around climate change issues.
    Moderator Response: And put comments about that topic on that page, not this one.
  40. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9370 might be of interest. The debate is no longer about whether temperature increase above pre-industrial temperatures can be limited to 2C. by 2100. Given our desire to burn increasing quantities of fossil fuels, we can be certain that temperatures will rise more than 2C by 2100 and that is unavoidable. The effects will of course include accelerated melting of the polar ice sheets and, as noted by others above, a sea level rise of at least 1m by 2050 and over 2m. by 2100. The effects on river delta’s sustaining much of the global population is also well known. It is already evident that global warming is responsible for accelerated retreat of glaciers. Normally, glaciers store and release fresh water which flows into rivers and underground aquifers that are drawn on for agriculture and human consumption. This source of fresh water is imperiled by retreating glaciers and by burgeoning population growth. We will not have to wait until 2100 to observe the combined effects of rising sea level and retreating glaciers on the ability of humans to feed themselves. We are starting to see those affects now. They will certainly become increasingly obvious over the next 20-30 years and catastrophic long before 2100. And we still cheerfully increase the level of CO2-e greenhouse gas we pump into the atmosphere, despite repeated warnings by scientists of the consequences. Why?
  41. We're heading into an ice age
    Ah, me thinks the idea of Milankovitch cycles borders on blaming astrology for the ice ages. There is a much better explanation and it is lighting up the skies over both hemispheres ever more with each year.
  42. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    I did notice the second quote, I just thought the idea was poorly expressed. When the facts change, I don't "change my mind" - I just go where the evidence leads. I get sick, the doc says here's what we have to do, I do it. I get better, I get up and get on with life. If the "facts" change in relation to climate science, I'll evaluate them. 25-30 years of declining temperature, coral reefs rebuilding, Arctic ice several metres thick, I won't just evaluate, I'll relax and enjoy.
  43. We're heading into an ice age
    @Tom: I'm not sure you understand what "anecdotal" means. In any case, there is no indication we are about to enter a very cold period. There were more heat records broken than cold records last year. The warming trend is strong, and shows no sign of reversing. Glacial periods are most likely the results of Milankovitch cycles, not of delicate "tipping points" that would be reached by increasing heat. You don't seem to be making much sense, I'm afraid.
  44. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    The Blue Moderator wrote: As was mentioned earlier, the "Latest Posts" list at left is a convenient way of discovering where the crowd has gone. The "Latest Posts" list will tell you what the latest posts are, but the "Recent Comments" link at the top will tell you where the crowd has gone.
  45. We're heading into an ice age
    I think it was Professor Hansen stating that mantra that weather doesn't indicate climate about the record cold in the US NE and Europe not too long ago while actually there was record cold on all six continents at the time. Anecdotal evidence only pertains so far, you know. You can be killed by an anecdotal occurrence. If it is anecdotal that the whole planet is being pushed to collapse into the more stable set of conditions as evident by its holding way over 90% of the planet's existence at least in the last million or two years, well, heck, quick snap to major ice age conditions will be but an anecdotal odd and absolutely not average happening. Get it right. What I'm suggesting is that the record global warming is leading to a propensity to snap into extreme widespread cold. I'm not denying that there was record heat but I think the idea of a tipping point should be considered. What does the planet tip to? Just look at the record. Interglacials come and go. They are the transient phenomenon. The planet apparently gets tipped into its most stable set of conditions, ice age conditions, and they come on anecdotally and rapidly, beating the average trends quickly. I know it is a difficult concept. The ways to avoid global warming make sense to avoid quick snap to extreme global cooling except for the idea of using Hydrogen gas as a fuel. That would most likely lead to more of those noctilucents as suggested on the Wikipedia on the phenomenon. Hey, earth's climate system is not a linear process. It is dynamic with repeated seriously differing cycles. The change to something serious, what ever we might be tipping to, will be anecdotal. It will not be an average outcome. It will be new and looks like it is going to catch most quite off guard. Good luck all!
  46. An underwater hockey stick
    CBDunkerson at 10:36 yet you are drawing a conclusion, that water at ~400 m warmed more than surface waters, which assumes they are. Well unless there has been a reduction in entropy, the warming has not come from the atmosphere in the region, we have their temperature anomalies. And you are looking at less than a degree, whilst the water temperature has increased more than a degree... at 400m. It has nothing to do with the atmosphere in the region, it is showing the relative strengths of warm and cold currents, which correlate well to hemispherical temperature anomalies.
  47. We're heading into an ice age
    Tom, picking local cold spell doesnt mean anything. Look at the global average temperatures. As to the storm that hit here - well it was bad but it was just a storm, unfortunately at bad timing after a very mild winter and otherwise early spring. Effect on NZ annual average temps - not much. Global warming does not preclude cold spells. There is more energy in the weather systems, more humidity, and if temperatures go below zero, you will get heavier snow.
  48. What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
    adelady, believe it or not, I also care - otherwise I wouldn't be hanging around this site. I'm not a contrarian who just wants to argue for the sake of it. You didn't notice my second quote from Keynes which is much more important than the first: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?' Doug, you ask of RSVP, 'Does being a refugee sound good?' I come from a family of refugees created not by climate but by the poisonous geopolitics of the 1930s. I've never been a refugee myself but the notion is embedded in my DNA. Currently, our refugee problems worldwide are not the result of climate change but the outcome of nasty governments and equally nasty revolutionary movements. I'd hate to see climate changed added to their burdens but so far that hasn't been happening. That of course doesn't mean it will never happen but as the Latin tag goes, 'Homo homini lupus' - literally 'man is wolf to man.'
  49. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    JohnD - also please explain how to change winds independently of temperature.
  50. We're heading into an ice age
    @Tom: And yet 2010 is on par to be the second hottest year in the Southern Hemisphere. As for a cold winter in the NH last year, you certainly didn't come to Canada. It was very mild overall. The problem is that you seem to believe anecdotal evidence trumps measured averages. It doesn't, and therefore your theory that we are in a cooling trend does not stand scrutiny.

Prev  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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