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  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  Next

Comments 108151 to 108200:

  1. It's the sun
    One more note from the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) website: " The de-facto redundant, overlap TSI monitoring approach that has provided a contiguous record since 1978 resulted from the deployment of multiple, overlapping TSI satellite experiments. The traceability of this database is at the mutual precision level of overlapping experiments. ... A carefully implemented redundant, overlap strategy should therefore be capable of producing a centennial TSI record with traceability of ~ 500 ppm, providing a useful signal to noise ratio for assessing climate response to TSI variation. • A redundant, overlapping TSI measurement strategy using existing ‘ambient temperature’ instrumentation can provide the long term traceability required by a TSI database for climate change on centennial time scales." They seem very confident in their ability to establish accurate TSI information. And even more confident in their ability to measure changes in TSI.
  2. It's the sun
    I found an interesting comparison at the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) site of various TSI's over time, using different satellites: This states that: "The results of TSI monitoring experiments are reported on their 'native scales' as defined in SI by the ‘self-calibration’ features of their sensor technologies. Systematic uncertainties in the metrology used to relate their observations to SI caused the ± 0.25 % spread of results during the first decade of monitoring. The tighter clustering of results after 1990 is attributable to dissemination of more accurate sensor metrology among the various experiments and national standards labs. The causes of the ~ -0.35 % difference between the ACRIM3 and VIRGO results and the SORCE/TIM results are not presently understood in this context." It does appear that different satellites measuring TSI have inter-platform calibration issues, Ken - you are correct in that. I would encourage you to look at that site, though, and consider the work done on composite TSI time series, where this is addressed to some degree. So perhaps an absolute TSI number is not as fixed as we would like. A major question here, though: Do the absolute value of TSI, IR radiation, etc., matter? Or can we determine what's having an effect by looking at well established changes of these values? We know the history of TSI changes pretty well over the last 800,000 years, between satellite measurements, sunspot observations, isotopic analysis of ice cores, etc. - the correlation of these measures to absolute values isn't as good as we would like, but the ability to track changes is excellent. The situation is rather a lot like tracking the carbon cycle. We have a rough idea of total carbon sources (natural and manmade), we have a rough idea of carbon sinks (ocean/vegetation/weathering), but we have a really really accurate measure of how atmospheric CO2 changes, and how that relates to man-made CO2. Thus we can state that man-made CO2 is contributing ~2ppm/year to atmospheric CO2. We know how it's changing. So, while we may not know absolute TSI as accurately as we like, we know how it has changed, and it's clear that it has not changed in a manner sufficient to account for late 20th century warming. We know accurately how the inputs to the climate system have changed over quite a long period. We also know accurately how the outputs (temperature) have changed as well. Even the simplest black-box model of climate will then tell us which stick has poked the box inducing those correlating changes. Your "absolute value" issues are really not valid.
  3. Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
    Re: jadesmith (21) CO2 is a well-mixed gas; it's greenhouse effects takes place primarily well above the surface layer, so any localized concentrations near emitter sources get redistributed fairly quickly. See Comment 1 at this thread for some nice animations showing the mixing effects of CO2 over time. The Yooper
  4. It's the sun
    kdkd #678 "The value will decrease if you use it to promulgate your sceptical agenda though - save that for a different post." Is that a banned political comment kdkd? May I only play in this sandpit with you as gatekeeper of pure AGW thought? Regarding TIMS - this illustrates the point that BP has made many times - satellites have high precision but low accuracy. Good for day to day or month on month variation but not for absolute values. The earlier satellites were reading TSI at around 1366W/sq.m - TIMS is 1361.5W/sq.m. Which is right? Now notice how no-one is trying to splice TIMS to the earlier satellites because the TSI would have a huge offset correction yet SLR satellites are being spliced eg TOPEX-Jason with a claimed zero offset due to extensive intercalibration. The TIMS people also produced an energy balance based on 1361.5W/sq.m which Dr Trenberth said was wrong in spades. It does seem strange that while up to date TSI charts are on the SORCE website - the comment on the minus 4.5W/sq.m discrepancy has not been updated since 2005. 5 years seems a long time for the "difference being studied by the TSI and radiometry communities" without some resolution.
  5. It's the sun
    archisteel #675 Here is the Wiki chart for CO2 concentration for the last 1000 years and last 400000 years: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png When was it last at 180ppmv archisteel? Looks pretty close to 280ppmv for the last 1000 years or so. Happy to argue on a baseline which gives no warming or cooling of the Earth for any forcing. Warming and cooling in pre-industrial times was caused by Solar variation - output and orbital exposure of the Earth to the sun. CO2 lagged Solar warming as a feedback mechanism on interglacial time scales. Of course at some point warming was arrested by IR radiative cooling and a cooling phase followed.
  6. The sun upside down
    #13: "There should be such caveats in all climate science papers. I'd encourage people to be sceptical about papers that don't know their limitations." Wouldn't it be nice if that rule applied in deniersville? Imagine reading the headline 'Its cooling and Arctic ice is at an all time high!' followed by the caveat: 'readers should recognize that our use of only 3 data points leads to 100% uncertainty in our conclusions'.
  7. The sun upside down
    I hope they realized the thing was going to space when calibrating it... anyway an interesting set of data. I actually tried to find the piece from univ library only to find out they put out the papers on a later date.
  8. Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
    And then there's all those arguments I've seen elsewhere about more concrete and other urban land use changes increasing local albedo. There may be particular places where there is a definite effect one way or the other, but the graphs in the post tell us that for these researchers and these regions, the swings and roundabouts have apparently balanced each other.
  9. It's freaking cold!
    Re: Tom Loeber I do want to step back and issue a general, heart-felt compliment to you, Tom. Your ideas about noctilucent clouds, tipping points and sudden ice ages is certainly one of the most unique and interesting ideas I've heard in a while. You should really try to present it in a more formal fashion here, with cited sources, etc. I think you'd find a much better, dialogue-based, discussion of what you bring to this table. I would look forward to reading such a presentation. The Yooper
  10. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    GC #155: I find it depressing that so many 'skeptics' play semantic games (e.g. ignoring the common usage and legal definitions of 'pollutant' to come up with one which excludes carbon dioxide - which they then argue should be used in place of the legal definition when making legal decisions, insisting that 'acidification' only applies once the pH drops below 7) rather than addressing the actual science. The EPA is going to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. 'Skeptics' say they can't because it isn't a pollutant under 'definition XYZ'. However, by the definition of the term in the legal documents binding EPA action carbon dioxide IS a pollutant. So this redefinition nonsense is just a shell game. The relevant definition for the EPA is the definition in the law. That should be obvious. So why do skeptics continue to make an argument that is obviously wrong?
  11. The sun upside down
    HumanityRules... haver you read any academic papers lately? They are liberally spread with uncertainties and caveats, it's part of the job. Can you point out climate science papers that do not indicate uncertainties in results? Uncertainties tend to get filtered out, invariably to the detriment of the paper, when media report on science issues.
  12. Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
    BP #24 (again) My hypothesis is that the urban heat island effect will cause an increased variance of local temperature rather than an increase in absolute value due to decreased heat capacity and reduction of the capacity of vegetation to buffer temperature changes.
  13. Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
    BP #24 Pretty much a duplicate of my post #23, except you seem to be implying that the effect size must be large and significant, whereas I enquire about the empirical evidence that there is an effect, and what it's magnitude is. See how the two approaches differ? Which do you think is more likely to provide an objectively correct answer in the long run?
  14. Berényi Péter at 21:18 PM on 12 October 2010
    Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
    #22 adelady at 18:19 PM on 12 October, 2010 If an urban area is always or usually a degree or two above a neighbouring rural area, that's fine. What matters is not whether one or the other is higher or lower, but whether the temperature increase or decrease is similar or wildly different. Keep in mind each urban area started off as a rural one some time in the past. Let's consider two nearby sites, one is urban the other is rural, the urban one being a degree or two warmer, as you say. If trends are the same at both sites all over their history, even if we go back in time until both sites are found to be equally desolate, the would-be urban site is still a degree or two warmer. How can that be? I bet weather is not endowed with precognition, therefore the only remaining possibility is the urban heat island effect has nothing to do with land use, man made structures and the like but people simply prefer natural hot spots for settlements. Is that what you claim?
  15. The sun upside down
    HumanityRules the first impact I see is on solar science. Haigh 2010 and Lean 2000 cannot be both right unless in the former the new phenomenon just happens sporadically. Having said this, I'd invite you to consider the magnitude of the effect. As in my comment #6 above, it's quite small in the visible range and the impact on forcing should not be exceedingly large. Though, it could make a difference (several %, not tens) in the stratosphere where UV is absorbed.
  16. The first global warming skeptic
    RSVP yes, the emission spectrum will be broader too, and that's why it will more easily go through regions with narrower absorption.
  17. The first global warming skeptic
    I assume it can be allowed that as the absorption spectrum broadens, so in turn does the emmision spectrum. Angstrom may have been the first, but definitely not the last skeptic.
  18. It's freaking cold!
    Tom Loeber wrote : "2/3 of Peru under state of emergency for cold not widespread enough for you?" Once again, you are caught up in the type of argument/belief where you see only part of the answer (the answer you WANT to see) and ignore everything else. With regard to Peru, you also have to bear in mind that it wasn't simply the cold weather that led to the state of emergency - it was also due to the effects of that cold on a poverty-stricken people who had previously suffered from everything from extreme downpours to extreme drought. The deaths were largely respiratory infections in children, sadly, but such deaths (and, therefore, such a state of emergency) would not have been so widespread in a wealthier country with a more effective health system. Tragic and extreme but not as doom-laden or prophetic as you seem to think - at least, not unless it becomes a regular occurrence in future. You obviously need to become more aware of something you yourself stated previously : "I think more important than depending on hear-say and the like,..." ...and become less keen to be led along too quickly by the rest of that sentence of yours : "...attempt to get a grasp of the data yourself and draw your own conclusions." Drawing your own conclusions has led you to your 'coming ice-age' belief. Why not step back, look at all the evidence (and in more detail at the stories you are using to 'back-up' your assertions), and see what the reality is as it stands at the moment - cold weather, even very cold weather, is still possible (perhaps more likely in certain areas) in a warming world which isn't heading towards an ice-age. Oh, and you would look more credible if you were to post less of your conspiracy-theory/censorship thoughts.
  19. Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
    adelady #22 But theoretically increasing urbanisation can cause an increase (or decrease) in the trend independent of the baseline value. I'd be interested in hearing of experimental work of the effect of concrete surfaces of different sizes on temperature maxima and minima.
  20. The sun upside down
    Riccardo, I like the caveat. There should be such caveats in all climate science papers. I'd encourage people to be sceptical about papers that don't know their limitations. Polemical point overwith I've got a question about the science. This paper seems to have implications that go beyond the upside down response you describe. I'm speculating below, do you know in what ways this may cause us to reassess some past work? For example all Hansen's model predictions in the IPCC docs rely on Lean 2000. Are we meant to conclude that Lean 2000 is plain wrong? Lean 2000 is cited by 200+ papers according to Google Scholar. This must have an impact on work that looks at change spectra given that these are generally based on snapshots comparing year X with year Y. It's not just the sign of these changes but the magnitudes at different wavelengths that seem important. If as this paper suggests the solar spectrum varies in completely unexpected ways there may be natural variance that are completely ignored in these papers conclusions.
  21. Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
    But we're only interested in the trends, not the raw temperatures. These analyses work whether the comparison is from tropical, polar, ocean, urban or rural areas. The trend is picked up regardless of the records averaging around -30C or +25C. If an urban area is always or usually a degree or two above a neighbouring rural area, that's fine. What matters is not whether one or the other is higher or lower, but whether the temperature increase or decrease is similar or wildly different.
  22. Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
    The increase in urban heat is not only by the natural causes in climate change but the Green house gases are the main cause of global warming. The gases like Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are the main hazards to the global warming which are mainly found in the Urban atmosphere than in the less polluted rural areas. Effects of Global Warming
  23. It's the sun
    KL #677 Pray please explain your interpretation of the phrase "There remains an unresolved 4.5 W/m^2 difference between the TIM and other space-borne radiometers, and this difference is being studied by the TSI and radiometry communities" from the link that you provided. Personally I feel more comfortable with the empirical surface data, which shows pretty clear anthropogenic warming from multiple angles. If you can explain the TIM/TSI issue in layman's terms (i.e. no jargon) without attempting to overlay your own preconceptions/interpretations on what's happening, that would be useful and valuable. The value will decrease if you use it to promulgate your sceptical agenda though - save that for a different post.
  24. The sun upside down
    Agnostic I'm not in a position to answer to all of your questions properly. What I can say is that the SORCE spacecraft hosts new spectral and the total irradiance monitor instruments, which greatly improve the quality of the data. This, of course, by itself cannot rule out undetected issues with the instruments. The three years period is definitely too short, as Haigh herself says. If scientists have overestimated the solar contribution to warming, it's not just greenhouse gases contribution that need to be re-evaluated; it is the climate history of the last couple of millennia being involved. We are left with speculations. There is nothing wrong in thinking of the consequences of these new finding, albeit with a big "if" as a premise.
  25. It's the sun
    KR #674 Here is the link - have a look for yourself. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm Seems that the Monitoring community has been stumped over this -4.5W/sq.m discrepancy since 2005.
  26. It's not us
    Will somebody please post a link to a paper that concludes that an increased greenhouse effect should increase Tmin faster than Tmax. That claim is NOT supported by the papers that are posted here. Instead the papers that are used as references either A) Don't attempt to attribute DTR changes or B) They attribute DTR changes to clouds, aerosols, or land surface changes. e.g Paragraph 15 of the paper cited above Braganza, K., D. J. Karoly, and J. M. Arblaster (2004), Diurnal temperature range as an index of global climate change during the twentieth century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31
  27. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    GC #155 That's a rather odd comment. You are aware that the EPA has done a rather comprehensive review of the scientific information available, and responded to submissions? So the anti-scientific assertion seems to be incorrect.
  28. gallopingcamel at 16:05 PM on 12 October 2010
    Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Given that this is supposed to be a science blog I find it depressing that so many of you use the "Clean Air Act" and anti-scientific nonsense published by the EPA in support of your arguments.
  29. It's the sun
    KL #673 "Again the absolute values need to be used above a theoretical 'zero' equilibrium to quantify the energy gain or loss from each forcing." You appear to have the concept of a 'baseline' confused - it is not the same thing as a 'theoretical zero equilibrium' whatever that means. This is perhaps the root of the problems you are having with your illogical and confused argument.
  30. It's the sun
    @Ken: "What you don't get is those WMGG were not in theory 'forcing' (warming or cooling) the planet." Of course they were warming the planet, otherwise it would be much colder. The fact that it was relatively stable doesn't mean it had no effect, and in fact temperatures were far from stable pre-1750 (LIA, MWP, etc.) - they simply didn't go as high as the current trend is reaching. Furthermore, concentration wasn't stable at 280ppm, but varied between 180 and 280ppm. Again, the point is moot, as the graph does not show absolute values, but deltas. The fact you continue to claim otherwise shows that, despite using all the trappings of scientific discourse, you struggle to understand some vary basic concepts about the science.
  31. It's the sun
    Ken Lambert - Are you certain of your numbers, 4.5W/m^2? Because looking at the graphed data (sorry, can't get to the original behind the paywall), the difference is on the order of 4-5 mW/m^2, not W/m^2! That's 0.0045W/m^2, just to make it clear. Again, that's several orders of magnitude too small to be the major issue with late 20th century warming. I could be mistaken - I don't have access to the original paper - but the effect appears to be very small. If I'm incorrect, please provide a link to the portion of the SORCE website (I spent some time, couldn't find it) that indicates such a major measurement error. It certainly doesn't appear to be visible in Haigh et al 2010.
  32. It's freaking cold!
    Tom Loeber - The topics of cloud feedback (including noctilucents) and of sudden regime changes in climate are both interesting, and it would be worthwhile to discuss those. I myself have suggested a thread on cloud feedback; unfortunately, I don't consider myself well enough informed on the topic to contribute that myself. Until we have a thread, though, I'm not going to ramble on regarding that topic on an unrelated thread. In regards to localized cold events, the data for the world shows 2010 tied for the hottest year on record. There will always be record highs and record lows occurring - that's the nature of variability. But the data indicates there are far more highs than lows (see this link, which I pointed you to before), showing that the mid-point, the climate, is moving up. Climate reversals: Perhaps there is some chance of a Younger Dryas type event, although that appears to have been a Northern Hemisphere occurrence, not a global one (perhaps a shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation?). But given that we don't know exactly why such events occurred, we don't have any evidence to suspect a climate reversal. What we do have is significant evidence and known risk factors for amplification of warming - methane release from permafrost and sea-floor clathrate accumulations, for example. Those would have global effects, not regional. Given what we know, those are significant risks down the line, not reversals.
  33. It's the sun
    KR #672 "You have presented exactly zero evidence for any mis-measure of TSI at any point in this discussion, and hence have no support for your apparent theory of TSI causing global warming." It is well established that Solar forcing in the range of 0.2 - 0.5W/sq.m was responsible for a a substantial portion of warming at least in the first half of the 20th century when theoretical CO2GHG forcing was much lower - by the equation I quoted in #672 above. Again the absolute values need to be used above a theoretical 'zero' equilibrium to quantify the energy gain or loss from each forcing. If you want a mis-measure of the current TSI - go to the SORCE website for the latest TIMS measurements - only out by a lazy -4.5W/sq.m.
  34. Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
    Re: adelady (15)
    "I really do not want to see what might happen if there were no record cold temperatures showing up anywhere in the world."
     Probably the most insightful comment I've read today (and there were many). Thank you. The Yooper
  35. Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
    adelady @ 15 & Michael Sweet @ 16: all very valid points :-)
  36. It's freaking cold!
    Re: Tom Loeber (33) I'm simply at a loss for words (and that almost never happens)... Twice now (here and here) I've offered up advice on how to be a positive contributor here so that we all can benefit from the knowledge you bring to this table. Other than that, I've tried to stay out of the discussion, to see the merits of your position from your point of view, free from being a direct part of the action. But time and again, you veer off into dissembling, blaming and impugning the integrity of the moderators here. Tell me, do you work at being difficult or does it just come naturally? Because, honestly, I can't tell the difference. Many of us are intimately aware of dysfunctionality. Either we've grown up with it, lived it or witnessed it close at hand. I'm certainly not perfect and I really try to make allowances for the imperfections of others. But frankly, I resent your implication that by being a commenter and frequenter of this place that I'm a party to this quasi-conspiracy against you. Grow up. Become a resource for us here. Or just ramble on. The Yooper
  37. The sun upside down
    My initial reaction to the results obtained by Haigh et al is that they are counterintuitive and puzzling. My second reaction is that their results raise a number of questions, the most obvious being: Is the satellite data producing their findings accurate and consistent? Is the model they are using reliable and properly tested? Is the three year period used sufficient to produce credible results? How do their results explain recent global warming? If, as suggested by Haigh, the findings suggest that hitherto we have overestimated the role of the sun in bringing about global warming, does this mean that we have underestimated the role of greenhouse gases as causing it?
  38. It's the sun
    archisteel #670 "In fact, by saying that "well-mixed greenhouse gases" is the same as "positive AGW forcing," you confirm the point I was making - and admit it's false to claim that it was a zero in 1750, because there *were* greenhouse gases in the atmosphere back then" Of course there were 'well mixed greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere back in AD1750. I never claimed otherwise. What you don't get is those WMGG were not in theory 'forcing' (warming or cooling) the planet. The 'forcing' equation for the main GHG - CO2 is quoted as 5.35ln(CO2a/CO2b)where CO2a is the (well mixed)concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at any time and CO2b is 280ppmv - the pre-industrial concentration. You can see that that if CO2a = CO2b = 280ppmv there is no theoretical forcing from CO2.
  39. It's freaking cold!
    2/3 of Peru under state of emergency for cold not widespread enough for you?
    No. 0.17% (1,285,216 / 510,072,000 * 2/3) of the globe does not refute the other 99.83%.
  40. It's freaking cold!
    Sorry Tom. We are guests in someone's living or dining room. I take my shoes off if those are the rules when I visit some people. If I don't like what's been served for the meal I simply shift the unpalatable to the side of the plate - I don't tell the cook he's incompetent. I don't tell the other guests their enjoyment is all wrong. I use the bathroom in the hall, I don't wander through the host's bedroom to use their ensuite unless I'm invited to do so. The fact that a site like this is an 'open house' invitation doesn't alter the fact that there are always some rules about acceptable behaviour.
  41. It's freaking cold!
    Hey, Tom, I thought Hamaker said that the tropics would receive most of the warming, causing an intensification of the tropic-to-polar water cycle, increasing polar glaciers and ice caps. The reverse is happening. The Arctic is warming more rapidly than any other part of the planet. Maybe someone needs to write a Hamaker article.
  42. It's freaking cold!
    Tom #33: Widespread cold records during the (tied) hottest year, globally on record is consistent with the ideas presented in the Nature paper Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Technically we would describe this as a signal showing increased variance of a complex system.
  43. The human fingerprint in coral
    @15 Stephen Baines -- thanks, it makes sense that the calcium carbonate formation has less isotopic fractionation. I had seen some papers regarding foraminafera and the problem of assuming stable isotopic ratios in samples from late paleocene. D'Hont et al '94 and Houston & Huber '98, and thought perhaps those processes of localized depletion of C12 might be at work as well as the change in atmospheric isotope ratios.
  44. Newcomers, Start Here
    I consider myself reasonably scientifically literate, but not in the disciplines of climate science. My career was in measurement research. I have been watching (lurking)on this site for some months now and it has really helped my understanding of the subjects. I am rather overwhelmed by the expertise of some of the people who post here. I hope that I am typical of a large number of people who just look and gain from the discussions. The exposure to all the expert comment,has exposed the paucity of many arguments. I find it very regrettable the way some people post comments that seem to have no purpose than to obfuscate and to waste the time of others. I do really enjoy discussions where points of real uncertainty are brought up and thrown around. Science in action. I do not enjoy wading through refutations of tired old arguments that have long been comprehensively dismissed. Especially annoying are the plaintive requests to explain something which is thoroughly discussed elsewhere on the site. Pure time wasting. Thank you John.
  45. It's freaking cold!
    2/3 of Peru under state of emergency for cold not widespread enough for you? Multiple SA countries experiencing record cold not widespread enough for you? There was more too but it only takes one to counter your claim. KR, I am not saying that individual weather events are climate. All I was saying is there is evidence that the weather could snap to cold conditions with little or no warning. As far as I can tell the Hamaker hypothesis holds more credibility than the Milankovitch theory which is what I was and am still addressing. This is not the proper thread for that but as long as the moderators disagree and they cater to the idea that might makes right, perhaps the major fallacy of epistemic relativism along with "what you don't know can't hurt you" and "ignoranc is bliss" and "killing the messenger invalidates the message" they will continue to practice dysfunction. As far as that last goes, the mods somehow got the posts I made to the other thread to show up days after they had been posted, more pointed critique of the paper Mr. Bostrom linked to discounting noctilucents as a possible sign of climate change. I was presenting a possibility that the noctilucents are the missing piece of Hamaker's hypothesis that suggests global warming leads to a rapid climate change eventually with little warning trend, to ice age conditions. The mods went back after getting those posts to show and deleted them unless that too was a bug. I posted other recent research that found solar insolation is not to blame but actually earth's albedo and carbon dioxide concentrations are complicit with ice age starts, right in keeping with the Hamaker hypothesis. This selective recall of yours does not help. I mean, give me a break, you are inferring I'm quite the total idiot and it might just be fine and dandy with the mods for ad hominem to predominate against a person who does not kiss ass. I am very much into being open and honest and many do not have a world model that incorporates the utility of that. As far as I can tell this message board is dysfunctional, the mods are exhibiting dysfunctional behavior and many of the participants keep on arguing apples to oranges to suggest the place caters to the dysfunctional. Well, as a Homo sap on planet earth the lack of wherewithal of my fellow human beings is my failing too so I too am dysfunctional as I do not exist in a vacuum. I have even been know to make mistakes and I have tried to correct them here and in the other thread. The "lets all gang up on the one who seeks to be logical" scenario I seem to be witnessing here is, again, a consequence of this idea that majority opinion determines truth. If anyone is truly interested in pursuing a better understanding of what is going on and what we should be trying to prepare for and avoid, those who disagree with the adopted stance, as long as they are not totally wacko, should be given lots of room, see past my frailties as a human being and see that quite possibly, the long term predictions for extreme cold and harsh winters ahead are not just a bunch of baloney. Maybe some of those are based on sound information that we shouldn't just ignore due to their not fitting in with the theory that lets the fossil fuel profiting companies off the hook. Did you see that Project Censored item that the US pentagon is the top polluter on the planet? The description of what the "Policy" is here seems to be a list of what the mods think is okay for them to do and for anyone else who plays into supporting their perspective. Like many laws they are used against those who attempt to speak truth to power while letting the powerful get away with breaking them continuously and often. So it goes.
    Moderator Response: The Comments policy defines what is and is not acceptable on this site. Avoid irrelevant personal attacks, stay on topic, and don't stray into politics and you'll be fine.
  46. The sun upside down
    I would be looking harder at the implications of the greater variation of UV, on climate, than direct forcing from variable TSI. Paper on modeled UV stratosphere/troposphere effects There is a fair bit o literature focused on it... and if the variations of UV are greater than what has been previously assumed, this will be quite an interesting lil discovery.
  47. The sun upside down
    I think it's quite unlikely this would be true over all solar cycles, because there is a detectable solar cycle influence in global surface temperature and and it's the way round you'd expect. Perhaps this is unique to the current cycle, but my guess is that it's more likely to be just wrong.
  48. It's freaking cold!
    Tom Loeber - you were asked on that thread "Do you have any evidence for any of those claims of "wide spread record cold" ". You responded with multiple lists of individual locations that had experienced cold spells, not with anything indicating wide spread effects. As individual weather events are not climate (as was covered by several people responding to you), this thread on "Does cold weather disprove global warming" is entirely appropriate for that discussion. Your response to the question of evidence for "wide spread record cold" did not demonstrate what you wished - I'm just left wondering why that wasn't apparent from the multiple posts responding or the numerous moderator remarks directed to you. If you didn't note my response on extrema or the redirect, I can only presume you weren't reading the posts in the thread or the moderator notes to you.
  49. It's the sun
    Ken Lambert - You incorrectly state that I "confuse Temperature trajectories with forcings". What I said was that non-zero temperature trajectories indicated non-equilibrium climate states (energy imbalance, to be more clear), and zero or non-zero, the state and trajectory of the climate include the effects of forcings at that time. Forcings are never zero (unless looking at some hypothetical object at 0°K). But when looking at how the climate has changed the we can compare changes in forcings (deltas). You have also yet to address the fact (shown in the data you've presented, as well as in mine) that changes (note: changes) in radiative forcings due to greenhouse gases since the beginning of the industrial era are an order of magnitude greater than changes of insolation. And that they correlate quite well with the heating since the 1970's. You have presented exactly zero evidence for any mis-measure of TSI at any point in this discussion, and hence have no support for your apparent theory of TSI causing global warming. Again - it's not the sun.
  50. It's freaking cold!
    This is not the appropriate thread. I was not posting that cold weather disproves global warming at all. It was not your post that alerted me as to where the conversation was happening, it was JMurphy's who started it out with my name. This place is too dysfunctional to facilitate understanding especially as the moderators appear to have a heavy hand with any one who does not adhere to their theories.

Prev  2156  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2025 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us