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  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  2172  Next

Comments 108201 to 108250:

  1. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    NETDR ".. beliefs ..debate ..opinions ..points of view.. arguments. ..argument XYZ .. refutation .. point." This is not a debating society. Nobody ever refers to argument XYZ. We all read or refer to papers, reports, statistics, articles, graphs. There may be an argument about which is more relevant or useful, but it's never an argument in the way you're describing. Back to "Uncertain times.." I know that there is no change in the RS's position about the science. However I do think the restatements and the emphasis on uncertainties is a classic example of the Freudenberg & Muselli "Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge" problem. There is no change in the science nor in the RS view of the science, but the RS's most recent document differs significantly =in tone= from the 2007 public statement. No matter how much anyone repeats the mantra about there being no change in the science or the stance. For the people who poked and prodded the RS into producing this, it is a vindication of their approach. I would have been a lot happier if the RS had said they have examined the scientific papers published since 2007 and statistics since then. These indicate that the earlier statement should now be stronger in these ....... various/particular/different ways.
  2. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Oh jeez, here we go. "If this is a site dedicated to teaching neophyte true believers their beliefs I will leave you to your beliefs. If it is a site willing to debate the opinions of others I an willing to oblige." It's neither, actually. It's a site to debate science. Not opinion. Not politics. Science. Just the type of language you use ("true believers," etc.) shows you're not really interested in learning the science, but only in picking up fights because, well, you decided you didn't believe in AGW and nothing will make you change your mind. "I think that much is to be gained by sharing points of view and arguments between skeptics like myself" You're not a skeptic, you're a denier. There's quite a difference. "and true believers [or whatever you call yourself] such as yourself." Just call me someone who understands a bit of the science and who listens to those who no more in order to understand it better. "I am tired of posting on skeptical sites because it is like preaching to the choir." I don't think you know what "preaching to the choir" means. While you figure it out, I suggest you quit posting the same debunked talking points over and over again. "Don’t expect me to bow before your particular study there may be serious problems with it and I will point them out if I am able." Translation: I will disbelieve anything you show me in advance because I'm convinced I'm right. "I have read many articles on this site and found gaping holes in many of them. Possibly they were just too basic and omitted knowledge I already had !" Yeah, right. Do you think *anyone* will buy that here? This isn't WUWT, you know? People here actually understand the science. "I expect you to object and bring forth your best arguments. I follow [immature and unconvincing chest thumping deleted] Make the argument if you are able." Is this the scientific equivalent of the "Internet Tough Guy" challenge? :-) "The missing heat is still missing and despite the XBT study trying to find it still lost." The recent studies showed that we have an incomplete picture of abyssal depths, and that much of the heat is probably in such places, i.e. below the range of ARGO buoys. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "Without it the 3 ° C warming for a 2XCO2 is a fairy tale." The 3C climate sensitivity value is pretty solid, and so far you've presented *no* evidence that indicates otherwise. "So far it isn’t happening as your own article admits." Huh? Where did you get that idea? "I invite you to post your arguments on wattsupwiththat.com if you feel capable and don’t mind getting roughed up." I was arguing online when you were still in elementary school. I'm just not interested in spending time with pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists. Goodbye, troll. No more feeding you.
  3. There is no consensus
    BP #231 Your search is misleading. That's local government agencies who have decided to participate in the campaign, not providers of sponsorship. I hope your extreme libertarian statement is meant to be satirical by the way, as in any other context it makes no sense at all.
  4. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    Noel, I'd guess 1# No water vapor. A huge part of the green house effect, 2# Thinner Atmosphere, which doesn't hold the heat in, which most of it escapes to space and 3# much further from the sun and gets far less solar input then earth. Pretty much Mars Atmosphere because of its size is not enough to hold onto heat or a respectable Atmosphere.
  5. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    Try a glass of the ole H20, Noel. And before you ask the next logical question, go here.
  6. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Archiesteel If this is a site dedicated to teaching neophyte true believers their beliefs I will leave you to your beliefs. If it is a site willing to debate the opinions of others I an willing to oblige. I think that much is to be gained by sharing points of view and arguments between skeptics like myself and true believers [or whatever you call yourself] such as yourself. I am tired of posting on skeptical sites because it is like preaching to the choir. . Don’t expect me to bow before your particular study there may be serious problems with it and I will point them out if I am able. You are free to do the same. . I have read many articles on this site and found gaping holes in many of them. Possibly they were just too basic and omitted knowledge I already had ! I expect you to object and bring forth your best arguments. I follow up and read many of the links you post but I have read many of them before. I have read several books and several hundreds of articles most of them explaining the non skeptical arguments. I probably know them as well as most of you so it is patronizing to tell me to read argument XYZ as if it were a refutation of my point. Make the argument if you are able. . Name calling and saying that my arguments have been debunked while satisfying to you is pointless and untrue. . The missing heat is still missing and despite the XBT study trying to find it still lost. . Without it the 3 ° C warming for a 2XCO2 is a fairy tale. So far it isn’t happening as your own article admits. There is no reason to believe warming will suddenly accelerate. Until the missing heat returns it won’t. So go back to reinforcing each others misconceptions and ignore me if you prefer. I invite you to post your arguments on wattsupwiththat.com if you feel capable and don’t mind getting roughed up. If there are unwritten policies like “one argument per post” let me know I will comply.
  7. Berényi Péter at 11:49 AM on 2 October 2010
    There is no consensus
    #230 doug_bostrom at 10:51 AM on 2 October, 2010 I'm wondering if 10:10 is hiding government sponsorship. It does. About 35,400 results (0.06 seconds) And yes, I agree wholeheartedly, government sponsorship of all private enterprises has to be stopped, including fossil & biofuels, wind, solar, nuclear and oxen energy. Obviously some taxpayer's money should go into basic research, but only if appropriate institutions are installed to make sure politicians don't have their say in how it is distributed. And no IPR tricks, papers written on research done using public money should go into the public domain.
  8. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    And Noel, if you want to engage in a lengthy debate with someone who is willing to show you every scrawny detail in the physics of C02 and its status as a re-radiator of longwave radiation, go to scienceofdoom.com and engage to the content of your heart and mind.
  9. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    There is one overriding factor that is not mentioned in any discussion related to anthropogenic global warming. Every scientific report starts out with the assumption that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There has been no attempt to show that it is capable of warming a planet in any meaningful way. Even the IPCC publication Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change (Ed Houghton JT, et al) Cambridge University Press, in its summary of policy on page 17 starts out using the words:- "Increases in greenhouse gas concentrations ... followed by:_ "The atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, inter alia carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have grown significantly: ... It doesn't even provide a reference to the effect that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In pages 72,3 it adds: "1.2.3 Mars and Venus Similar greenhouse effects also occur on our nearest planetary neighbours. Mars and Venus. Mars is smaller than the Earth and possesses, by Earth's standards, a very thin atmosphere (the pressure at the Martian surface is less than 1% of that on Earth) consisting almost entirely of carbon dioxide which contributes a small but significant greenhouse effect. The planet Venus, by contrast, has a much thicker atmosphere, largely composed of carbon dioxide, with a surface pressure nearly 100 times that on Earth. The resulting greenhouse effect on Venus is very large and leads to a surface temperature of about 500°C more than it would otherwise be." There is one significant error and one significant problem associated with the above. The signifiant error is that Mars is not exhibiting any greenhouse effect. To the contrary it is several degrees C cooler than it otherwise should be, all other factors taken into consideration, despite having over ten times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than has planet Earth. Yes, Venus has an average surface temperature of some 500˚C above what it should have, no questions asked. However Venus has some 160,000 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than has planet Earth. In the absence of a non linear reference, this means that doubling Earth's CO2 concentration in its atmosphere would result in a temperature increase of less than 0.01˚C. That is hardly a cause for concern. Reference to the above calculations can be found at illustrates that CO2 does not have a frequency of absorption that could give rise to heat capture. Surely any scientific discussion on the effect of human induced CO2 emissions on the possibility of global warming should surely start out by clearly establishing that CO2 is capable of warming a planet. The above assumption by the IPCC's best scientists and its "proof" does not give a firm foundation for any scientific discussion. The rest merely becomes a lot of hot air as both sides seek anything to support its stance and generally question the integrity of the other side. The whole site is not skeptical science. It is skeptical debate! If there was a genuine scientific interest in establishing that CO2 (CH4, N2O) were definitely causing global warming, it should first establish that those gases are indeed capable of capturing heat. And that establishment should explain why planet Mars is many degrees C cooler than it should be despite having a much larger amount of CO2 in its atmosphere than planet Earth will ever get.
    Moderator Response: That's an old, tired avenue of discussion. As always, the "Search..." box at upper left is our friend.

    Please explore the observational evidence for CO2 as a GHG at the     How do we know CO2 is causing warming? thread. If your concern is more with saturation effects, comparisons with other planets, etc., avail yourself of "Search..." and thereby enjoy the benefit of cohesive, nonduplicative discussions.
  10. There is no consensus
    Perhaps an arrangement may be made wherein government sponsorship of fossil-fuel firms is withdrawn? Meanwhile, I'm wondering if 10:10 is hiding government sponsorship.
  11. Berényi Péter at 10:42 AM on 2 October 2010
    There is no consensus
    #227 doug_bostrom at 10:22 AM on 2 October, 2010 10:10 needs some grownup supervision. No. They need withdrawal of corporate and government sponsorship.
  12. There is no consensus
    Here's a much more useful video:
  13. There is no consensus
    That video is not only disgusting, it's unscientific, completely ignores what we know of effective risk communication. 10:10 needs some grownup supervision.
  14. Berényi Péter at 10:08 AM on 2 October 2010
    There is no consensus
    #1 roverdc at 17:32 PM on 27 September, 2007 Concensus only has meaning if there is no pressure to conform in either direction. No pressure, indeed.
  15. An underwater hockey stick
    Im speechless... this purported anomaly represents an utterly mind blowing amount o energy in the space o 50 years! This must be a local thing! It cant possibly be representative o the North Atlantic water temperature!
  16. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ned #108 Regarding statistical significance stuff, this is actually a limitation of the application of central limit theorem to the correlation coefficient. While one can do lots of very interesting things with correlations (with the help of multidimensional geometry, linear algebra, and yes, central limit theorem), by themselves they're a pretty blunt, insensitive instrument and not terribly informative.
  17. An underwater hockey stick
    Im going to point out the obvious... You are seeing a much larger anomaly in ocean temps... leading atmospheric temps, this would be consistent with shortwave warming... not long wave. Overlaying the graphs(Moberg vrs NAWT), also shows ocean temps leading atmospheric in the modern era... There needs to be more reconstructions to really say anything definitive, oceans being oceans, this could be a coincidental current shift... but the ocean anomalies should NOT be leading, or greater than atmospheric anomalies. What are the local atmospheric temperature anomalies at the location in question?
  18. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    @Ken Lambert #98 "If the Solar forcing curve were to start not at (0,0) but say (0.1W/sq.m, 0) - a slight positive forcing" As you appear to want to believe that there was/is more solar forcing than most believe, so that you can attribute some of the observed warming to something else than the inexorable rise in greenhouse gases, then consider that that extra solar forcing added to the expected forcing from increased CO2 plus feedbacks will likely make whatever global warming that's coming to us worse than expected. Do you feel lucky?
  19. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    @johnd: I can't count the number of onlin forums (which includes comment sections) I've participated in since I started back in the day of BBSes. This long experience has given me the ability to spot a troll a mile away. Now, you may want to engage this individual yourself and try to have a coherent discussion, but my *humble* suggestion to those who'd be tempted to keep re-explaining the same things to him (even though he's clearly not interested in "accumulating knowledge") is to just ignore him, or kindly point him to the appropriate argument in the list, but not waste time writing long rebuttals he's not even going to read. That's all. BTW, I haven't heard any of the serious AGW critics here denounce the weak scientific arguments repeatedly pushed by such commenters as NETDR, thingadonta and cruzn246. You have to realize that, ultimately, such crude attacks on the science hurt your side of the debate more than mine...
  20. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    archiesteel at 07:45 AM, whilst your warnings are obviously directed at those with limited capacity to assess such matters themselves, the object of sites such as this is to allow readers on both sides to both present and accumulate knowledge on the subjects being debated, and as such should be left to the participants and ultimately the moderators to decide on the relative value of any contribution without having to be told what value any may or may not be contributing.
  21. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    Ned, I recognize that the difference between the last glacial maximum and now was 8C. Nonetheless, I do not understand it. The science is proven, but it does not mean that I understand the science. Do you have a Climate Science 101 answer or reference for why small changes in average temperature have such a large effect on the climate?
  22. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Our understanding of what drives the climate is so good we can say it's very likely we can't afford to wait another 30-40 years before we react to this threat.
  23. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Folks, NETDR is a troll. It's obvious from the way he misrepresents facts and fails to stay on-topic, presenting a mish-mash of half-baked arguments that fall apart under the shallowest of scrutinies. His goal is to waste our time by restating the same arguments over and over again, hoping to create enough chaos on these threads to prevent any reasonable scientific discussion. There's only one way to deal with trolls: ignore them. Don't respond to their trolling, and they'll go away. Anyway, people genuinely seeking serious scientific information will be turned off by his political references, and there are moderators who can prevent him from going too much off-topic.
  24. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    NETDR:
    Ok if you want to say 3 ° C so be it but when the scientists want to scare the public they use the higher number.
    So, you're willing to believe 3 degrees because it's not as scary as 6?
  25. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    Searching for a new rhetorical device, Doug and I simultaneously come up with the same idea: Doug: One of way of thinking of this, mfripp, is that if my house should burn down ... Me: ... my home being buried under 2000+ meters of ice. Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. (Robert Frost) What's next ... muoncounter's house destroyed by a volcano?
  26. An underwater hockey stick
    Well.... considering the BIG jump in 1900... and the relative increase in radiative forcing then... This paper brings up quite a few BIG questions...
  27. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    You just gotta love the Daily Mail headline: "Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits there are 'uncertainties' about the science" That's like saying, "Scientists admit to eating breakfast in the morning."
  28. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    philc, I don't think you have it quite right. The quote in your first paragraph looks like it comes directly from WIKIPEDIA (if so, it's always a good idea to reference your sources, especially when you are highlighting it as a quote), so perhaps we should see what else it has. The next paragraph is : The treaty itself sets no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. In that sense, the treaty is considered legally non-binding. Instead, the treaty provides for updates (called "protocols") that would set mandatory emission limits. The principal update is the Kyoto Protocol, which has become much better known than the UNFCCC itself. And, a few paragraphs later : The UNFCCC is also the name of the United Nations Secretariat charged with supporting the operation of the Convention... The Secretariat, augmented through the parallel efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aims to gain consensus through meetings and the discussion of various strategies. How does that "presuppose the results" ? And, in fact, the IPCC was set up in 1989, three years BEFORE the UNFCCC convention was adopted. So, why was the IPCC set up ? Why not read about it : The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences. Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive. But you obviously don't believe all that, right ? Which "founding documents" were you suggesting we look up ?
  29. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    "This warming has... been largely concentrated... from around 1975 to around 2000" I have to say that I'm very disappointed that even the Royal Society can be fooled by one outlier year. Does no-one know how to do a moving average any more?
  30. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    2-3 C sounds like a little temperature change ... but that's misleading, because a small temperature change averaged over the entire globe is actually a huge change in the climate. For comparison, global temperatures at the last glacial maximum were about 8 C lower. So that 2-3 C is about a quarter to a third of the change between my home being in a comfortable temperate forest and my home being buried under 2000+ meters of ice.
  31. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    One of way of thinking of this, mfripp, is that if my house should burn down, I will not be able to comfort myself with the thought that my neighborhood did not noticeably warm up. Some of the problem is indeed with "wild weather"; presently there's an extra accumulation of something like 4000 petawatt hours/year of energy on Earth happening and unless it's really smoothly distributed the effects are expected to be noticeable in visibly dramatic and kinetic ways. That translates into things like this: For example, the "hundred year flood" was once something that you had better be aware of, but it was not very likely soon and you could get reasonably priced insurance. But the probability distribution function does not need to shift very far for the 100-year event to be occurring several times a century, along with a good chance of at least one 500-year event. -- NASA-GISS: 2010 — How Warm Was This Summer? Speaking of weather, Kevin Trenberth says: I find it systematically tends to get underplayed and it often gets underplayed by my fellow scientists. Because one of the opening statements, which I’m sure you’ve probably heard is “Well you can’t attribute a single event to climate change.” But there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change. And the prospects are that these kinds of things will only get bigger and worse in the future. -- NCAR’s Trenberth on the link between global warming and extreme deluges The "vitriol" about convection is reflective of frustration with the idea that so much energy can be wished away.
  32. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    philc writes: The bottom line takeaway is wait another 30-40 years and we will have a much better idea of what drives the climate. Actually, we've already got a pretty good understanding of what drives the climate.
  33. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    The IPCC was founded by politicians who were trying to show that there was not a scientific consensus that AGW was a problem. The politicians thought that the scientists would not be able to reach a consensus and that nothing would have to be done. The reality is that QGW is so obvious that scientists quickly reached a consensus. We need to act to prevent future problms.
  34. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    RE: doug_bostrom [6] Posted: Lest anybody be confused by NETDR's rarefied treatment of ocean heat, here's a synopsis of the latest thinking on OHC measurements, "Robust warming of the global upper ocean" where the matter can further be discussed. ************ Lest anyone be confused by Doug’s study of ocean heat. The XBT which this study is based upon only goes 460 Meters deep[for most measurements] while the more accurate Argo buoys go 2 kilometers deep. The XBT’s are launched from ships and so are weighted toward warmer shipping lanes. There are 3000 Argo buoys which sample the whole ocean except under the ice packs. Which s more accurate ? The Argo buoys have found cooling since 2005. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ There were several people who objected to my using 6 ° C for a doubling of CO2 which was taken from Dr Hansen 2008. He had a short term value of 3 ° C also if that is more pleasing. We aren’t warming nearly that fast either. The earth s a long way from being on track for even 3 ° C of warming in 100 years. The article The decade 2000-2009 was, globally, around 0.15 °C warmer than the decade 1990-1999." This projected warming would be 1.5 °C in 100 years which is not enough to spend tens of trillions of dollars to avoid. Don’t get me started on models. I coded them professionally and am less than impressed with “hindcasting”. It is a good start but only a start.. They have to insert a huge plug to insert natural cooling to account of the warming which isn’t happening according to prediction
    Moderator Response: A more comprehensive discussion of OHC may be found here, "Robust warming of the global upper ocean."

    As a general note to anybody making comments here on Skeptical Science, if you find yourself writing an extended comment on a specific avenue of inquiry, be sure it's posted in a place conducive to coherent, nonduplicative discussion of the particular research topic you have in mind.

    Not to pick on NETBR in particular, but the above comment is an excellent example of producing an intractable salad of issues, each of which are deserving of separate discussion.

    As always, the "Search..." box at upper left is your friend when it comes to locating opportunities to continue conversations as well as avoid rehashing issues in a myriad of different locations.
  35. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    philc writes: We can't even get good solid measurements out of the current measuring network because measurements as little as 5-10km apart can be significantly different. That doesn't matter, because temperature anomalies are correlated over very large distances (hundreds of km). Nick Stokes showed that you can reconstruct the global temperature trend with as few as 60 stations.
  36. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    There is no point in trying to graft measured temps over the last 100 years to proxies collected over hundreds to thousands of years. The estimated proxy temperatures can't be calibrated with the measured "current" temperatures because none of the measuring points are co-located. None of the proxies are co-located either. We can't even get good solid measurements out of the current measuring network because measurements as little as 5-10km apart can be significantly different. We need much better current data.
  37. actually thoughtful at 05:17 AM on 2 October 2010
    An underwater hockey stick
    Yay! Thanks for this paper based post (I enjoy all of them, but do appreciate a diet rich in peer-reviewed science!)
  38. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Always worth remembering, while they may provide information on expectations, reconstructions of past climate do not presume to be explanations of what drives the climate. Philc, when you say no reconstructions of past temperature do not provide much usable information, what do you mean? Are you saying they provide no cues on likely boundaries? If your conclusion is that they show temperatures as generally having been constrained within a range of perhaps 0.6 degrees C, how is that not useful?
  39. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    johnd #44: "choosing an apple to make a point was perhaps not the best choice as it focuses on the fruit and not the tree." Last I checked, people do not eat trees.
  40. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Interesting graph. Doesn't look much like this one: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html The most notable conclusion I can make from all the paleo reconstructions of temperature is that none of them provide much usable information. All of them show that changes of ~.5-.6 degC over periods of 10 years or so are to be expected. The bottom line takeaway is wait another 30-40 years and we will have a much better idea of what drives the climate.
  41. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    This article is basically good, but it takes too long to state its 'thesis' in the proem, and its lack of vigor in stating the final conclusion reminds the reader of wilting plants.
  42. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    Sorry to break into the vitriol with a real question... But I do not understand. The implication of the main article is that the 2-3C temperature rise is not the main problem. As the article states, a small temperature change is not something to be bothered about. Instead, is the real issue with the increase in wild weather? Is the temperature rise simply a proxy for representing a bunch of other climatic events? I have to confess, I have never really understood why a small change in temperature could have such a big effect on civilizations. If, however, temperature was a proxy for storm energy, then this would be a different understanding. Thoughts?
  43. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    "The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC) is an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. The objective of the treaty is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." Since the IPCC was founded by the UNFCCC treaty, with the purpose of summarizing research into stabilizing "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate Dr. Spencer's criticism is totally true. Scientific research does not assume a conclusion and then try to prove it. The IPCC reports are fundamentally UN-scientific simply because they presuppose the results. Look it up in the founding documents if you don't believe it. The IPCC is a political organization founded to promote the hypothesis that human emissions of C02 have caused dangerous changes to the climate. Case Closed!! It cannot produce and unbiased report simply by definition.
  44. ClimateWatcher at 04:24 AM on 2 October 2010
    IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    "Sea-level rise is accelerating faster than the IPCC predicted." Sea level rise does not appear to be accelerating at all: "Each Arctic summer, sea-ice is melting faster than average predictions in the last IPCC report." Of course there is a dynamic loss of sea ice which explains much of the decline: http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/IceAge&Extent/ See the movie: http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/IceAge&Extent/Rigor&Wallace2004_AgeOfIce1979to2007.mpg "The Arctic is experiencing a long-term loss of multi-year ice which is also accelerating." Sea ice seems to have a 'memory' at a period which may exceed the duration of the satellite record. But given the unusual warmth in the Arctic during the 1930s, it's possible that such a similar decline occurred then. When sea ice is reduced, more heat escapes from the Arctic water and this would explain the 1930s anomaly. The proximity of the Beaufort Gyre and the Arctic Throughflow set up a possible mechanism for this. When the gyre dominates, ice spins around and accumulates. When the through flow dominates, ice is lost to the Atlantic and declines.
  45. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    ClimateWatcher, you would be more credible if you gave the whole quote, thus : Progress since the TAR enables an assessment that climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. Which is not based on "those climate scientist [who] happen to be part of the IPCC", but a vast body of work given here : Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis 8.6 Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis 9.6 Observational Constraints on Climate Sensitivity Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis 10.5 Quantifying the Range of Climate Change Projections (I have also posted this over on the Climate Sensitivity thread, which is where this should be)
  46. Climate sensitivity is low
    ClimateWatcher (on another thread), you would be more credible if you gave the whole quote, thus : Progress since the TAR enables an assessment that climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. Which is not based on "those climate scientist [who] happen to be part of the IPCC", but a vast body of work given here : Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis 8.6 Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis 9.6 Observational Constraints on Climate Sensitivity Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis 10.5 Quantifying the Range of Climate Change Projections
  47. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Sorry for continuing the off-topic discussion. I won't comment on it here any further.
  48. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    @CW: 1.8 is not under low estimates, it is exactly on the low estimate. You've been trying to push that canard in a different thread, but it's still as false here as it was there. "Unless those climate scientist happen to be part of the IPCC, in which case they do. "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C" "Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded"" No, they don't. These two statements are correct. You're simply trying to muddy the waters here. As far the broad-spectrum ORL showing an increase, that is also an indication that AGW is happening. In fact, it's well explained on this very web site. You should learn a bit more about the science before playing the role of contrarian, your errors are too easy to spot.
  49. Newcomers, Start Here
    CW, you're projecting on that critical thinking comment. You know the onset of warming is much more rapid now than for the HCO. You know that adaptation is more difficult in rapidly changing conditions. You know that human environmental restructuring was, compared to today, insignificant during the HCO. You don't know what the sea ice extent was for the HCO. You don't know whether or not summer sea ice disappeared for long periods of time during the HCO. Yet you still persist in shrugging off current conditions as "been there, done that, no major bio-change." Science doesn't agree -- 15-37% of species committed, by 2050, to extinction if present trends continue. The polar bear is probably already committed, even with significant mitigation efforts. Who cares? After all, for most people, a polar bear is a fantastic creature most will never actually see in its natural habitat. It might as well be something from Tolkien's imagination. yet a flippant attitude toward this top predator (well, "top" doesn't mean anything, since bacteria etc. will eat the dead body of the bear) suggests a flippant attitude toward dying and rapidly expanding species that will (and are) having a direct impact on every day human life. This warming is different--more akin to the rapid extinctions that punctuate the fossil record. It's not the pathetic, slow deaths of the woolly mammoth and sabretooth tiger. It's the discordant rapid loss and rapid expansion of habitat.
  50. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    ClimateWatcher, I refer you to How do we know global warming is still happening, particularly the discussion of Earth's global energy budget and top of the atmosphere imbalance of 0.9 W m-2.

Prev  2157  2158  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  2172  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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