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  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  2172  2173  2174  Next

Comments 108301 to 108350:

  1. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    @KL: "that 'flattening' wiggle at the end of Albatros' (Post #55)temperature curves for the last 10 years is difficult to ignore." That flattening isn't statistically significant. It is not very different from the dip in the mid-80s, or other slight "corrections" of the temp increase (to use a financial term). Cherry-picking time frames in the historical record, one can find many examples of flattening, dips and the like - yet, temperatures have kept going up. About SLRs, it seems you are wrong as well. From the Pew Center on Global Climate Change: "More accurate satellite measurements indicate that global sea level has risen by 1.2 inches over the past decade, about 70% faster than the 20th century average." As far as OHC goes, the Purkey and Johnson study gives a good hint as to where the "missing heat" is hiding (with troubling implications).
  2. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    @NETDR: you failed to address a *single* of The Ville's counter-arguments.
  3. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    @johnd: "So whilst you may consider that science is not about opinions, how different contributors select and present supporting arguments on this site is most definitely all about opinions." You're stretching the meaning of "opinion," here. There's a difference between citing scientific work because you have the opinion that it addresses a certain point, and basically stating your opinion that (for example) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas without providing actual evidence to support that opinion. For example, you objected to my earlier post where I gave my opinion that NETDR is a troll. That is an example of an opinion that, according to you, has no place on Skeptical Science, and to a degree I do agree with that evaluation - I wish I didn't have to make those kind of posts, but when trolls start to take over comment sections you have to act. I'm curious, though: can you explain how NETDR has helped move the scientific discussion forward? Do you agree with the arguments he's posted? If not, why didn't you say so? Could it be because of the unspoken rule among contrarians that you never argue with someone on "your side," even if they say thing that are clearly false? I would expect serious skeptics like you, BP and others to be the first to correct erroneous claims from posters like NETDR - after all, their unsupported attacks reflect badly on *all* skeptics.
  4. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ken #116 You'd be better off admitting you got it wrong. If you like you can look at it as an estimated baseline. Still nothing to do with equilibrium. It's a point estimate. By definition the rate of change of a point estimate is zero, because it has precisely 1 dimension. One could run a model to estimate what the climatic response to a constant CO2 concentration since 1750 would be. I would imagine that a reasonable answer would be forthcoming from such a model. You can probably dig around the literature to work out what value that would be if it's of interest to you. However this is still nothing to do with your illogical search for the mythological equilibrium. You have misunderstood how the system is modeled.
  5. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    To say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is as meaningful as stating that air acts as a heat or electrical insulator, or that salt water acts as an electrical conductor. While these words contain truth, the facts in themselves are insufficient for making system level determinations. Yet this is exactly how AGW was originally formulated and currently being defended. Aside from all this, would'nt it have been easier for the IPCC to have simply restricted itself to past climate history, instead of making projections for the future? If a chemistry investigation leads to knowing that a particular product or chemical causes cancer, that information is plenty for people to take action. I suspect in the case of climate change, even though warming has already impacted our lives, these changes have not been dramatic enough relative to other negative stresses. Therefore in order to gain attention, pessimistic projections into the future are required.
  6. An underwater hockey stick
    Surprising how fast the oceans respond? I don't know about fast. But I am a bit concerned about our current inability to determine if or when another 1998 style el Nino could come roaring out of the oceans. Another jolt to remind us to get on with the job of measuring just how much energy can accumulate down there. I'm not terribly keen on seeing another spike like that.
  7. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    CBD #114 CBD - "A forcing of zero indicates no CHANGE in temperature... not no temperature." Strictly no CHANGE is energy added or removed. Who is claiming 'no temperature'?? CBD - "If we choose the total solar irradiance in 1750 as the baseline then the climate forcing for solar irradiance in 1750 is zero... by definition." The TSI is AD1750 is not accurately known - so the problem is twofold - what was it then, and what value of TSI was required to get no heating or cooling of the Earth system in the absence of any AG forcings. Or put it this way - if the industrial revolution never happened and the CO2 was still at 280ppmv today with other GHG unchanged - would the Earth have warmed or cooled since AD1750?
  8. Irregular Climate podcast 11
    John T Here's a side by side picture of Arctic sea ice for 20 August 1980 & 2010. Notice anything different over the 30 years on say the east of Greenland or in the Canadian archipelago? Or perhaps the amount of ice cover itself?
  9. Irregular Climate podcast 11
    "The Arctic ice result isn't what you claim. The Antarctic is not either." JohnT, The post's claim is that "Overall, Arctic sea ice is getting thinner." Presumably, you believe it is not. Evidence? Here is sea ice concentration (30% or more) and extent for two dates 20 years apart. Spot the difference?
  10. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ned #108 We have done this extensively elsewhere - but that 'flattening' wiggle at the end of Albatros' (Post #55)temperature curves for the last 10 years is difficult to ignore. Oh I know that you need 14 years to be 'statistically significant' or whatever, but Jason SLR is also flattening over the last 8 years, and linear temperature trends are probably approximations of a non-linear system in any case. OHC since Argo is certainly not confirming anything but flattening.
  11. gallopingcamel at 23:47 PM on 2 October 2010
    Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Ned (#34 etc.), "I know that "skeptics" like to claim that the only choices are burning fossil fuels or de-industrializing." I think you are making an unjustified generalization about "skeptics". Some of us advocate a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions without destroying our energy based civilization. This blog is not into "solutions" so I won't elaborate other than to say that the solution is to "build a Nuke a day". For those interested check out a typical thread on "Brave New Climate": http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/28/2060-nuclear-scenarios-p1 Here is a link to a paper by George Sanford et al. that contains some amazing speculations: http://tinyurl.com/jtop6
  12. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ken #113: "Well Ned, if there was zero forcing for GHG's in AD1750, is not the conclusion that the Earth was neither heating or cooling from GHG's?" No. A forcing of zero indicates no CHANGE in temperature... not no temperature. "My point is that since the Earth has warmed a claimed 0.8 degC since 1850, a finite amount of energy has already been absorbed to effect that warming and the proportion of that energy attributable to Solar forcing is underestimated if such forcing was above zero in AD 1750." If we choose the total solar irradiance in 1750 as the baseline then the climate forcing for solar irradiance in 1750 is zero... by definition.
  13. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ned #104, CBD #105 "You're right, the forcing for GHGs in 1750 is 0 ... because we've chosen 1750 as a baseline! It's not because there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in 1750, nor because they were at "equilibrium" in 1750." Well Ned, if there was zero forcing for GHG's in AD1750, is not the conclusion that the Earth was neither heating or cooling from GHG's? For sure - GHG's are in the AD1750 atmosphere at aro 280ppmv for CO2 etc. but at that long term level the Earth has reached an 'equilibrium'. If there were GHG forcing above or below zero, then the curve for GHG forcings would start at that positive or negative offset above or below the 'equilibrium' baseline. This is unlikely as most of what I have read assumes zero or negligible forcing from GHG in AD1750. Ned #107 CBD #105 NP #111 I am following the methodology of IPCC AR4 Fig 2.4 in looking at each AG radiative forcing. My point is that Solar is not necessarily baselined to zero where the other AG forcings are - and the time integral of these various forcings will sum the total radiative energy applied to the system since AD1750. Climate responses - (1) IR radiative cooling and (2) WV and ice albedo feedback, will have their own curves and the time integral of these will add or subtract energy from the AG and Solar energy applied. At the present (Dr Trenberth's Aug09 paper) these sum to a forcing of minus 0.7W/sq.m (IR: -2.8 and WV & Ice Albedo +2.1). Since the IR cooling is exponential with T^4, this cooling term will rise rapidly so the Earth system will tend to reach an equilibrium as the forcing gap closes. WV and Ice Albedo are not defined by an equation I can find. My point is that since the Earth has warmed a claimed 0.8 degC since 1850, a finite amount of energy has already been absorbed to effect that warming and the proportion of that energy attributable to Solar forcing is underestimated if such forcing was above zero in AD 1750. In that case the energy attributable to CO2GHG forcing must be less, and CO2GHG warming also less than claimed.
  14. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    The Ville 46 Wrote You are NETDR fooling yourself if you believe uncertainties are a reason to pull back. Such thinking does not occur in modern engineering and if it does you get oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and other similar accidents. ******* Here we have the famous precautionary principal which is primarily used to justify massive expense that the science is too weak to support. The earth will be hit by a comet or asteroid large enough to destroy civilization. The question is not if but when. We should be practicing moving rocks in space right now to avoid this, in my opinion, far more likely catastrophe. The damage done to society in the form of diverted resources is far less and the benefit is greater, so where are the space ships? CAGW will have to get in line with all of mankind’s other problems. If we divert the tens of trillions of dollars from mankind’s real problems for an unlikely alternative you get starvation and even death for some. Since the subject of this article is "uncertainties" how to deal with them is in my opinion on topic.
  15. gallopingcamel at 23:22 PM on 2 October 2010
    Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    I read the RS report and can't see what all the fuss is about. I can't improve on what doug_bostrom said (#43): "Disagreement over communicating uncertainty was the impetus for an update to the RS report yet the report entirely fails to address uncertainty as a key topic." Even with the changes, the RS position is still almost indistinguishable from that of the IPCC.
  16. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    #40: "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? " I thought Ned made that point in #38: "a small temperature change averaged over the entire globe is actually a huge change in the climate", ie, the heat energy equivalent of 2-3C throughout the volume of the atmosphere is quite large. We're already seeing big-time changes in a mere 1C. As far as #39 "muoncounter's house destroyed by a volcano?" is concerned, I'm riding happily on the margin between stable craton and gently subsiding miogeosyncline. I'm far more likely to go due to a late-season hurricane.
  17. Irregular Climate podcast 11
    Cryptic? No. Clearly JohnT is saying that the claims about the Antarctic in the article are not true. Of course... the article doesn't mention the Antarctic at all, but that doesn't make JohnT's post 'cryptic'.
  18. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    @Albatross #8. Yep, probably was. Well found. But my point remains: I'm surprised that I haven't seen more of this sort of demo and discussion. To my mind it more-or-less bypasses any discussion of historical temp records.
  19. 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." Who is 'the scientists'? But in any case, the higher number is possible. It's like any engineering project, a component will have a range of tolerances within which it will work. The upper tolerance may result in a failure, but only 1 in say 10,000 components may be in the upper tolerence. So you can expect 1 in 10,000 products to fail due to that component. eg. the low probability of failure due to some components being in that upper tolerance band, doesn't stop some failures happening. In the case of climate temperature tolerances, we have the one range. If we use the climate 'component' we don't know if it is in the low or high range of temperature. Hence the issue isn't that 6c won't happen, it is the case that we are uncertain, but it could. Given that it could, however unlikely, we have to assess just what the damage would be for that scenario and weigh that up against it being less probable. Given it is likely to be seriously worse, that has to bring it into the more probable tolerance band as a risk to be considered. So is it 'alarmist' to consider the higher temperature ranges? No, because if we applied the same logic to say a nuclear power station, we would remove a lot of the safety mechanisms because the probability of a serious accident happening would be even smaller than a 6c temp rise. You are NETDR fooling yourself if you believe uncertainties are a reason to pull back. Such thinking does not occur in modern engineering and if it does you get oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and other similar accidents.
  20. An underwater hockey stick
    This a thought coming directly out of my mind which I can't support in any sound way. We are used to think of the oceans as a slow responding system but more and more studies report relatively fast responses. It looks like we're missing something important on ocean dynamic. Is it just me or is it really surprising how fast the oceans appear to respond?
  21. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    The reason for the existence of this site is primarily economic, JohnD, and that is why discussions here have a tendency to swerve away from science and into unfounded personal opinions, such as that thousands of petawatt-hours per year of additional energy retained on the planet will somehow result in no disruption to the accustomed behavior of our climate (your opinion, based on your many comments here). Ask yourself, where is the website frequented by members of the lay public where models of Earth mantle convection are hotly debated? The "energy flux" powering this site and the myriad other locations where discussions of climate science involve the general public is the future course of several trillion dollars per year, now concentrated in the hands of fossil fuel concerns but possibly to be redirected to other means of energy manipulation. That same energy is what has driven the Royal Society to revisit their statement on climate change.
  22. There is no consensus
    Oh dear, BP's comments were possibly not satirical - I missed the sensible comment among all the extremism ("And no IPR tricks, papers written on research done using public money should go into the public domain."). This is tending to be a requirement in NIH and EU funded research these days. I think we're a bit behind the times here in Australia, although I have an article going into a (free to publish in, and free to retrieve) open access journal sometime soon. But that's an industry-academic partnership body who are trying to raise their profile, so it's a bit different.
  23. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    The Ville at 17:55 PM, if all the contributors to this site were climate scientists, then perhaps the discussion here would be more about the science behind the research they are presenting and less about opinions. However almost exclusively all the work being referred to here by the contributors is the work of others, and the reason it is presented to support a particular argument is because, in the contributors OPINION, it is relevant and carries some authority for a number of various reasons. Often it is because they are of the opinion that the author of the study has credibility, and so all work he produces carries the same credibility even though the detailed science is beyond those who present it here, but that may not be the opinion of everyone. At other times the work may be, in their opinion, relevant to the argument, but again as we often see here, in the opinion of others, it is at times rejected as being of little relevance. At other times when the research is unable to determine with any certainty whether the nett result points to one outcome or another opposing outcome, and different scientists are able to make cases for both scenarios, the case selected by a contributor here will be based on their own opinion as to which scenario seems most likely or is most consistent with their own position, and so on. So whilst you may consider that science is not about opinions, how different contributors select and present supporting arguments on this site is most definitely all about opinions.
  24. There is no consensus
    Doug, I tried to work with your analogy but was defeated by the straight face requirement. Perhaps it's more like roads, tunnels and bridges. The authority or other developer's costs are met out of taxes paid by everyone, as are the maintenance costs. There is no restriction on how many kms are driven on those roads by any particular driver or vehicle, taxpayer or otherwise. The current system acts more like a toll road. Not a very wonderful analogy, but you get the idea.
  25. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Given the general level of treatment of this RS report, it seems geared to a lay audience. In light of that, what surprises me is how it commits an all-too-common error of omission by repeatedly referring to "uncertainty" without carefully explaining the meaning of the term when it is employed in scientific communications. This a pretty astounding oversight given that confusion over the meaning of the term "uncertainty" is a hurdle for the public when it comes to understanding science. Uncertainty is a didactic challenge we've known of for decades, has a particularly high profile when it comes to discussing climate change and in fact has been manipulated and exploited for rhetorical purposes by various entities interested in policy outcomes related to climate change. Disagreement over communicating uncertainty was the impetus for an update to the RS report yet the report entirely fails to address uncertainty as a key topic. Motivation for a redo hinged essentially on a perceived process problem with the first report, namely that the first report conveyed an exaggerated sense of risk. Beyond causative mechanisms, risk is about probability. Our ability to judge the probability of risk from climate change is rooted in the uncertainty of scientific findings having to do with climate change. Conveying a useful understanding of the risk we're exposed to by climate change thus absolutely requires a proper explanation of what uncertainty means in the scientific sense. By failing to accomplish this first and arguably most important task, the RS report fails to improve on the first attempt. Regardless of one's stance on climate change, as a communications tool this report is a failure right out of the gate when it comes to helping readers from the general public understand the significance of the scientific findings it covers.
  26. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    NETDR: "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." Surely science isn't about peoples opinions, if that were true then it people would be discussing whether humans landed on the moon or if UFOs exist. Anyone can have an opinion, the fact they do doesn't make it true.
  27. An underwater hockey stick
    Fascinating find, John. Full text of this paper is available here (pdf). Joe, be sure to check out section 2, "Regional Context," which suggests your intuitions about inhomogeneity seem to have some factual underpinning.
  28. There is no consensus
    BP: ...papers written on research done using public money should go into the public domain. There's broad agreement on that, at least. I'm no expert (on anything) but it looks as though the emerging model going forward is for research budgets to include boosted publication fees, those fees to cover the costs of making publications permanently accessible on a freely available basis. Trying to think of an analogy, the only one coming to mind is unfortunately that of purchasing a plot in a cemetery, where money for the plot pays for upkeep of the cemetery grounds, with no gate fee for those wishing to visit and pay their respects. Stretching the analogy past the snapping point, perhaps we may think of citations as being the equivalent of visitors leaving flowers...
  29. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Re: chriscanaris (40) A more direct article link for interested people to follow can be found here (see page 5). The Yooper
  30. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    One of the 'interesting' facets of the so-called sceptic argument is that there seems to be an insistence on trying to take the discussion back to first principles whenever it's expedient for them to do so. This itself is a form of 'Spin' and appears to be what Noel is up to, consciously or otherwise.
  31. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    Re: My comment at 41 above Upon re-read, my 2nd paragraph seems a bit obtuse. Sorry for that. Here's a re-try for clarity: Humans have whacked the carbon cycle with a mountain of carbon. This bolus, or "slug", has upset the natural balance between forcings and has driven the current upward "spike" in temperatures. Temperatures will continue to rise, due to the physics of radiative gases, until a new equilibrium is reached. Note: as long as the CO2 concentration continues to rise, achievement of temperature equilibrium will be delayed and temps will continue to rise. Thus, any further continued release of fossil fuel derived CO2 makes things worse. Even if CO2 emissions are immediately reduced to zero and maintained at zero for 30 years, temperatures would continue to rise due to the immense thermal inertia of the oceans, where 93% of the warming of the system has currently gone. This warming of the oceans is driving a reorganization of the climate system, which will continue to change as long as the CO2 emissions and temperatures rise. It is that lag in response wherein lies the danger. By the time incontrovertible evidence (to the layman) exists, it will be too late to avoid or even mitigate the worst of the changes still in the pipeline. And that only takes into account the short-term forcings. Longer-term responses (century to millennial timescales) include forcings which will effectively double any warming we will see in our lifetimes. The warming already in the pipeline may be sufficient to obliterate our ability to feed the world's current population. Thus, for some of those alive today, it may already be too late. Hence the calls for action and the existence of this and similar websites. That sounds a bit more clear, I think. The Yooper
  32. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    A general comment on the above appreciated discussion on my posts in this section IPCC Reports: Science or Spin? It would seem that the above are the types of comments skeptical science can come up concerning that most basic of requests - why is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Those who are skeptical about the whole of the CO2/global warming debate are going to smile broadly and know their belief in the fallacy of the basic science is entirely supported. The respondents have missed the point and can't come up with a few simple step by step points that show that CO2 has the necessary absorption frequencies to be a greenhouse gas. This type of information has never been made available to the general public who are only fed the line "CO2 is a greenhouse gas". They can understand a reasoned and well presented case that doesn't depend upon complex mathematics. Why not give one?
    Moderator Response: You were already pointed to the Skeptical Science post How Do We Know CO2 Is Causing Warming?, whose second paragraph has links to abundant laboratory evidence stretching back 150 years. Also you were pointed to the Science of Doom home page. Perhaps you did not search through the posts there to find ones answering your specific questions, so I'll help: Click the "Roadmap" link at the top of that site. Then read the series of posts linked on that page, all of whose titles start "CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas?"
  33. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    Re: mfripp (40)
    "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?"
     You essentially are referring to the sensitivity of the climate to forcings, both negative and positive, the net effects of which can and have changed over time. It is the recent admixture of human-derived fossil-fuel CO2 concentration emissions (which depart from the paleo record of the balance between the forcings which has driven temperature and climate changes in the past) which now drive a rate of warming change (read: euphemism for the "Hockey Stick") for which there exists no comparative example in the paleo record. I plugged "climate sensitivity" into the search box available at the upper left of every Skeptical Science page and got this. Of the resulting Skeptical Science posts available, this is the one probably most pertinent. If you would rather a source with a summary outside that of Skeptical Science, I plugged your quote into Google and found this site, which seems to offer a fair-balanced, relatively non-technical, summary as well. If you wish to further deepen your knowledge and understanding of Climate Science, I would refer you to Real Climate's Start Here page. Pay particular attention to Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming article; another virtually required viewing source is Richard Alley's talk on CO2: The Biggest Control Knob. Hope this helps, The Yooper
  34. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Sorry, I couldn’t get the link to work :-( . I’ll try again: Stephen Schneider and Julian Simon
  35. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    tobyjoyce @ 21 I don't want to go too far off topic but the thesis, antithesis, synthesis meme applies across a range of fields and especially in politics and policy which is where the AGW debate must play itself out. In science, we see it in terms of competing paradigms jostling for their place in the sun. Saying Hegel was a lousy scientist because he published a tract stating that there could not be more than seven planets on philosophic grounds is to apply to him the standards of a different era. Newton was said to dabble in alchemy and astrology (the latter is a matter of some dispute) yet none would deny him his greatness. Moreover, Einstein's physics are perfectly compatible with those of Newton. When dealing with velocities on a human scale, the distortions of time and space emanating from relativity become so negligible that Newtonian physics apply. Coming back on topic, I note that this has yet to happen in climate science not because of a dispute about the laws of physics but because of the complexities of the systems involved create uncertainties about the weighting to give to a plethora of feedbacks. This creates a tension between those who desire urgent action and those who see the uncertainties. The former fear that the latter undermine their cause. The latter include those who may honestly feel that the uncertainties are too great to warrant drastic steps and at the more extreme end some who would go so far as to accuse scientists of being prepared to lie or stretch the truth to advance their agenda. The issues are well captured by the controversy between Stephen Schneider and Julian Simon. For what little it’s worth, I am much more sympathetic to Stephen Schneider's take on the dilemma even though philosophically I would be closer to Julian Simon. (HERE)
  36. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    Noel Edwards, I have replied to your Mars comments on the more appropriate thread, Mars Is Warming. That thread is not a perfect match for your comments, but it is far better than this thread is. If you want to continue the Mars portions of this conversation, you should do so on that thread, not this one.
  37. Mars is warming
    This comment is a response to a comment by Noel Edwards on a different, less appropriate, thread. Noel wrote
    Moderator I have read most of your references. They indicate that CO2 is capable of absorbing radiation at different frequencies. Already known. But there is nothing in those references that indicate why Mars is cooler than it should be when it has lots more CO2 than Earth. There are no other issues associated with Mars, other than it has some 14 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than has planet earth. Its maximum temperature is the approximately the same as Earth's average temperature and its average temperature is the approximately the same as Earth's minimum temperature. The physics is similar.
    Noel, you are very, very incorrect, as dsleaton and Matthew pointed out to you. There is no basis for your claim that Mars "is several degrees C cooler than it otherwise should be." More details on why the water vapor feedback is so much smaller on Mars than on Earth are in David Archer's book "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast", pages 71-72. If you don't want to buy the book or borrow it from your library, you can watch his class lectures for free. If you insist on details, here is just one of several examples of calculations that Mars should in fact be the temperature it is: Forget, et al. (1999). A general-reader-comprehensible overview of modeling the Martian atmosphere purportedly is provided by Stephen R. Lewis's article "Modelling the Martian Atmosphere, though all but the first page is behind a paywall. If you really, really, want to understand the difference between Mars and Earth, get ahold of this book when it comes out (probably December 2010); it will have a workbook and computer models you can run: "Principles of Planetary Climate" by Ray Pierrehumbert.
  38. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    @Noel: the greenhouse effect is a well-known physics phenomenon. Anyone who tells you CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas is misinformed - for example, that web site you posted is full of poor and inexact science. Check here for more info.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. IPCC Reports: Science or Spin?
    Try a glass of the ole H20, Noel. And before you ask the next logical question, go here.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. There is no consensus
    Here's a much more useful video:

Prev  2159  2160  2161  2162  2163  2164  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  2172  2173  2174  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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