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  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  2172  2173  2174  2175  2176  2177  2178  2179  2180  Next

Comments 108601 to 108650:

  1. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    #127 Riccardo at 16:44 PM on 28 September, 2010 So, although it is indeed relevant for clouds (fractal or not), it's not for water vapour. In case of water vapor radiative properties in the thermal IR range it is not scattering, but absorption and emission. Let's consider a thin horizontal slab of air loaded with a fixed quantity of some "greenhouse gas" (one which has a nonzero absorptivity in thermal IR). For the sake of simplicity let's suppose absorptivity is independent of frequency in this long wave range (the stuff is "grey" here). Let molar density of this GHG along the surface of slab be d(x) where x is any point on the surface of the slab, expressed in mole/m2 units. Integral of d for the entire surface is clearly the total quantity of stuff, so it is constant as it is said before. However, otherwise d is allowed to vary along the surface. Opacity at point x is clearly 1-e-c·d(x) with some positive constant c. If |c·d(x)| is small everywhere (absorptivity of stuff is not too high and/or the slab is thin), second order approximation of it is c·d(x)-1/2·c2·d2(x). Overall specific opacity of the slab can be calculated by integrating this expression along the entire surface and dividing by area. Integral of first term being proportional to average molar density, as long as the second term is negligible, you are right, only the quantity of stuff counts, not fine details of its distribution. However, as soon as second moment of d gets significant (distribution is "rough"), it is no longer true. You can also see that integral of the second term is always positive, therefore if it's got subtracted from integral of the first one, specific opacity is always decreasing. It's also possible that second order approximation is not good enough. In this case higher moments of distribution also come into play. Specific opacity is a nonlinear (concave) function of molar density, so departures from uniform distribution tend to decrease opacity. For well mixed GHGs it is not an issue, but water vapor is not one of them.
  2. A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
    No Argus. It's fortunate that we live in the times that we do with all the advantages of scientific instruments unimaginable to earlier generations. It's worth reminding ourselves of that from time to time. It's not just dentistry and antibiotics that make this a good time for us. There's a whole infrastructure of scientific endeavour which we don't bother to look at most of the time. When we need it, it's there.
  3. A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
    "Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements." Somehow I stopped to think about the connotation of this sentence from the prolog. Question: Why is the word 'fortunately' appropriate in this context? (a) Because it is such a joy to be able to 'debunk' all skeptic arguments? (b) Because it would be terrible if somebody holding opinions other than ours would ever be right, plus it would be so embarassing if main stream climate scientists were ever wrong?? (c) Because if our climate was governed by outer space, there would be nothing we could do about it - now, all we have to do is stop burning coal and oil? (d) Because of other reason (please specify!) (Check one)
  4. 2010 Climate Change Resource Roundup
    Hilariously, Anthony Watts uses the above guest post as an example of John Cook 'embarassing' himself. Watts 1. Uses a misquote of Mr Cook from Sourcewatch to impune John's scientific credentials. A quick Google would have revealed that the SW quote was wrong or out of date. Each of his points is quickly debunked by a search of SS. Quality journalism! 2. Posts a link to the wrong article - he wanted to link to New Scientist on solar, he linked to Nature on Ocean Cycles. 3. From the tone of the original article it is clear he believed the guest post was by John Cook, he later resiles from this once it is pointed out, harrumphing instead about blog owners being responsible for their content. 4. Complains that this guest news roundup is not 'peer-reviewed science'. Straw Man, the science here IS peer-reviewed, nobody claims or expects news and editorial to pass a review process. 5. Doesn't like the word 'denier'. Ho hum. Some people, not me you understand, might find the hilarious string of gaffes rather more embarrassing to the gaffee than his target......
  5. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    I believe so, check the following links from the post - Khan et al 2010, and the paper cited in the graphic caption, Jiang 2010.
  6. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    hadfield: This article is intended to illustrate a mathematical fact, not to describe the dynamics of the real atmosphere. Please read the Note that has been there from the beginning: "Note: This model incorporates a number of features of the actual feedback mechanism for the enhanced greenhouse effect, in particular the dependence of radiative forcing on the logarithm of CO2. However, it is definitely not intended as a full model for the effect. It's only intended to illustrate the point that there is no contradiction for a system to have positive feedback, while maintaining self-limiting behavior. "
  7. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Berényi Péter, the fractal structure (if any) is irrelevant as far as absorption and scattering are concerned. The different scattering properties of a uniform vs an unven distribution of particles is due to a concentration effect which, at some point, starts to produce multiple scattering. Even an uniform distribution may produce multiple scattering if concetrated enough. So, although it is indeed relevant for clouds (fractal or not), it's not for water vapour. Unless you call water vapour micron size water droplets.
  8. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    As I stated, my comments about what the natural trend should be were from 1975 to now. However the figure I referenced shows the natural forcing from 1900. If you are trying a "its the sun" argument, argue it in the right place but also note all the detail there about it isnt. You wont find a C14 past 1950 that can tell you anything about solar - the atmospheric nuclear test regime overprints everything else, but now we have direct measurement of TSI anyway. Please try to stick to peer-reviewed science - that way you avoid the people who trying to fool you.
  9. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    Daniel Bailey @ 41 '...that does not preclude our being able to destroy the creation in the act of subduing it. Which we are busily engaged in doing.' As we have also been doing to one another since we first arrived on this planet. I've no argument on that one with you, Daniel.
  10. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    Re: chriscanaris (39) I believe in a loving God who made creation according to ordered principles and logic; a God who also endowed us with the free will to choose to overcome His creation and subdue it. However, that does not preclude our being able to destroy the creation in the act of subduing it. Which we are busily engaged in doing. The dark side of the free will thingy: You can't always get what you want. The Yooper
  11. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    snapple #12 "There is an important article in Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty about how the Russian energy companies are projecting their political power into Europe and "cultivating" politicians who will serve them. " What is the difference between that and multi-national oil companies (like BP) buying support in the US Congress?
  12. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    #122 Riccardo at 08:18 AM on 28 September, 2010 The vertical distribution of clouds does matter, but it's another story. Water vapour concentration rapidly falls with altitude anyway. It's the same story. General shape of clouds is a fractal right because distribution of water vapor was like this in the first place before condensation started. It is this way in both lateral and vertical directions. If opacity is distributed unevenly in a medium, in most cases transparency is increased. You can see through a lattice, but can't do the same with a plate.
  13. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    @BP, you have not presented a convincing case that climate sensitivity is lower than 3C. There is no strong indication that soot on snow, the UHI effect or ocean redistribution cycles are responsible for a significant temperature change (in fact, the UHI effect has tended to introduce a *cold* bias, not a warm one). Furthermore, you have repeatedly failed to address the criticism regarding your statistical analysis on a different thread. Until you at least attempt to clear your name, I cannot take anything you say at face value - if you can't admit making a mistake, then we can't assume that *any* of your analyses are correct.
  14. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    @cruzn246: "Well, with Venus you have a completely different situation. It's like comparing apples and oranges. That type of equilibrium, static, is next to impossible in our atmosphere system . We have what is called a dynamic equilibrium." Okay, now it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. "I'll ask you the question that Tom doesn't seem to want to answer. Naturally, without anthropogenic influence, should we be heating up or cooling now?" Cooling, most probably. The fact temperatures are still increasing tells you how large the anthropogenic influence is. "The funny thing is it really took off in the latter part of the 19th century. that pretty much coincides with the warm-up from that time till the mid 40s. It says the graph stops in 1950. WHY? Are they afraid to show what happened with carbon 14 after that? I would say yes." Are we back to conspiracy theories, now? The evil scientists are hiding the data, is that it? "I know this is not a carbon 14 measure" In other words, it is completely irrelevant. You just wanted to add a graph to give your innocuous post some credibility.
  15. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    Phila @ 37: 'Presumably, if you believe in "a loving God," you also believe in a God who gave us the ability to make intelligent decisions based on what science tells us about the world, and to take responsibility for our actions.' I absolutely concur. And 'scientism' represents human pride and its refusal to acknowledge our limitations as a species to which so many readers have eloquently alluded on this thread. 'Scientism' is not science any more than religiosity is religion.
  16. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    #118 KR at 06:32 AM on 28 September, 2010 modelled and empirical evidence indicates that the actual climate sensitivity is ~3°C for a doubling of CO2 It would be so if models would handle atmospheric water and turbulence properly (they don't) and if all the warming measured during the last several decades would be due to GHGs and none to soot on snow, UHI or ocean heat redistribution cycles. your increased inhomogeneity means lower local entropy, and is not a natural direction for the system to move in. Look again. It is not a closed system, but an open one, meaning there is a steady flow of energy through it. In such systems maximum entropy production is equivalent to minimum entropy contents under a wide range of conditions. Just consider the human body. You'll notice inhomogeneity in it on all scales, still, it is quite natural. At least as long as there is a steady flow of free energy through the system coupled to a high entropy production rate. Should the guy be starved to death or get suffocated though, homogenization of both body temperature and structure kicks in immediately.
  17. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    i believe that there has been an update to the grace data, due to incorrect calibration for continential rebound... is this post with the updated data?
  18. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    Folks, click on the basic tab above and look at the charts in the Limited History section. The carbon data is all over the place clearly showing the Little ice age big time, but hockey stick Mann claims it wasn't a NA event. Please. Note another thing. The LAST part of that carbon chart shows the highest levels of carbon 14! The funny thing is it really took off in the latter part of the 19th century. that pretty much coincides with the warm-up from that time till the mid 40s. It says the graph stops in 1950. WHY? Are they afraid to show what happened with carbon 14 after that? I would say yes. they then go to a lame sunspot cycle. This is not the same as a carbon measurement. Why the switch? Because if they would have continued with a carbon graph you would have seen something like this. I know this is not a carbon 14 measure, but this closely follows the same of pattern carbon 14 readings. If someone finds the chart for carbon 14 readings since 1950 I would sure like to see them.
  19. 2010 Climate Change Resource Roundup
    13 doug_bostrom i was in LA last week and the daytime temps were in the low 80's and the night time temps dipped to the 50's. i agree with you, just weather.....
  20. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    cruzn246 - given the Milankovitch cycle (sp?), solar irradiance, and the fact that our CO2 emissions (which should add up to 4ppm/year) are adding 2ppm/year, it should be cooling now without anthropogenic influence. Next question?
  21. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    Speaking of anachronistic climate patterns, personally I think throwing a substantial and irretrievable additional lagged input into a system dominated by hysteresis without thoroughly predicting the novel perturbation's effects is reckless. We're a little late off the mark with integrating our own activities with those of nature. Does our belated realization mean we should thus ignore our activities, remain fixated on natural phenomena, pretend we don't exist? Perhaps such a comment would better fit in the topic of models, however.
  22. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    "I'll take a punt but you need to ask over what timescale so I will look at post-1975 out to now. For natural effects TSI very slightly down since 1975. Milankovitch forcings are obviously dependent on latitude but glacial cycle tracks NH effects which are very very slowly going down. Aerosols slightly up. Overall barely perceptable change with maybe some cooling. Of course this is in AR4 WG1, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1." So you think we should have stayed in about the same climate patterns we were having from the the 40s to the mid 70s?
  23. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    Chrisc at @32: "I would far rather a civilisation based on love and respect for one's fellow human beings preferably grounded in humble acknowledgment of our dependence on a loving God 'in whom we live and move and have our being' " And I would far rather a civilization based on friendly fairies, dancing elves, and happy talking bunnies, but that has no more to do with reality than your fantasy. The fact is that our unprecedented standard of living, our ability to determine our future, and even our ability to feed the billions of people on the planet are due to the relentless honesty of the scientific method (no matter how hard some individuals try to subvert it). adelady @33: "What's so different with this issue?" This issue has a multi-trillion dollar industry fighting tooth and nail to prevent any action, and they've allied themselves with people who think that if they "win" the argument, physical reality will somehow be forced to conform to their beliefs.
  24. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    chriscanaris: I would far rather a civilisation based on love and respect for one's fellow human beings preferably grounded in humble acknowledgment of our dependence on a loving God 'in whom we live and move and have our being' as the Greek poet Menander famously put it. Presumably, if you believe in "a loving God," you also believe in a God who gave us the ability to make intelligent decisions based on what science tells us about the world, and to take responsibility for our actions. What "scientism" is telling us, again and again, is that what we choose to do affects people and the environment in ways that are potentially irrevocable. I can't respect any ethics, let alone any religion, that ignores these facts, or posits some sort of supernatural "Get Out of Jail Free" card that will save us from the logical consequences of keeping our heads in the sand, and I hope you can't either. At this point in human history, it's very hard to see how one could "love and respect one's fellow human beings" without understanding, in scientific terms, how our actions are likely to affect them. Echoing Doug @36, we've got some growing up to do.
  25. A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
    The basic problem is that cosmic ray seeded CCNs are not the only aerosols that can seed clouds.
  26. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    This is not really a significant physical sciences mystery, it's now a behavioral puzzle. When I was in high school there was a fellow I think would've been unanimously elected as a model of responsibility and maturity for his age group, a person who not only got straight A grades in what was then the equivalent of AP physics and maths but also seemed to -understand- physics, was not just regurgitating his lessons. Did that stop him from rolling over his brand-new VW Thing at the gates of the school, ejecting 5 occupants who despite all of their intellectual wisdom did not have the visceral, animal connection to facts necessary for their seatbelts to have been fastened? Did this boy stop and check those belts, were his high spirits overridden by his cold facts? No, and no. We've got some growing up to do.
  27. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    I'll take a punt but you need to ask over what timescale so I will look at post-1975 out to now. For natural effects TSI very slightly down since 1975. Milankovitch forcings are obviously dependent on latitude but glacial cycle tracks NH effects which are very very slowly going down. Aerosols slightly up. Overall barely perceptable change with maybe some cooling. Of course this is in AR4 WG1, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1.
  28. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    Revenue under threat? That's where I get flummoxed. Revenue comes from profitable activity - any profitable activity. I just don't see why a large organisation wouldn't grab with both hands at new opportunities to make money hand over fist. They're very good at extracting subsidies from governments for their current activities, what's to stop them arm-twisting for even more subsidies for newer activities? I have a suspicion that for all their money, glamour and presumed sophistication, these leaders of industry are much like peasants who won't move from the sides of a seething volcano. They just can't see the opportunity for a better, more profitable, life with less danger.
  29. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    adelady "Eliminating anthropogenic influence is the first issue. Do you mean all the changes since the land use changed by the introduction of agriculture, or the whole of the industrial revolution, or just the last 60 odd years of accelerated industry, land use and population changes? It makes a difference, you know." Of course it does. Lay a number on it.
  30. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    Eliminating anthropogenic influence is the first issue. Do you mean all the changes since the land use changed by the introduction of agriculture, or the whole of the industrial revolution, or just the last 60 odd years of accelerated industry, land use and population changes? It makes a difference, you know.
  31. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    What's so different with this issue? Maybe some positive feedback? Maybe these examples are all positively correlated w/revenue under threat? $2.2 trillion per year for the top eight petroleum extraction/refining/marketing firms alone. Concerted public relations efforts along these lines: "For everyone who has voiced a 2050 greenhouse gas goal, we need 10 people and policy bodies working toward the goal of broad energy access. Only once we have a growing, vibrant, global economy providing energy access and an improved human condition for billions of the energy impoverished can we accelerate progress on environmental issues such as a reduction in greenhouse gases." Peabody Energy Chairman Greg Boyce Important shareholder value trends:
  32. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    CBW, I'm not so sure. I think it's a continuing anti-elite (or something) strand in society. The Nobel Prize granted to Einstein was specifically chosen to avoid the controversy over relativity. People in cafes would challenge him over this stuff - people who had much less chance of understanding relativity at all than people have now of understanding the generalities of climate science. The sociological project would probably be more along the lines of delineating which particular kinds of ideas people find uncomfortable and how that affects them personally and their interactions with the wider society. (Why do people who live on the sides of volcanoes resist the idea that they'd be better off moving somewhere safer? And a million other topics.) As for the 'alarmist' stuff on climate disruption, I'm really interested in why this is so much harder than dealing with acid rain or the hole in the ozone layer. Those ideas and eventual solutions took some time, but raised nothing like this level of antagonism and resistance. What's so different with this issue?
  33. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    @cruzn246: "Archie, explain it to me." "Why should I? You'll only ignore what I say and/or change the subject yet again. You've proved time and time again you're not interested in learning. Here's a hint for you, though: equilibrium is not a "hard thing to achieve" in a system, it's what a system naturally tends to. Also, a thermal equilibrium isn't necessarily livable. Venus is in a thermal equilibrium (i.e. it's temperature is stable), but it's the closest thing we have to Hell." Well, with Venus you have a completely different situation. It's like comparing apples and oranges. That type of equilibrium, static, is next to impossible in our atmosphere system . We have what is called a dynamic equilibrium. I'll ask you the question that Tom doesn't seem to want to answer. Naturally, without anthropogenic influence, should we be heating up or cooling now?
  34. 2010 Climate Change Resource Roundup
    Does anyone have any estimates of how warm September currently is. Wait for a few days. How about some anecdotes to tide us over? It was 113 degrees Fahrenheit today in Los Angeles, California, an all time record. Up here in Seattle last night the minimum was 61 versus normal of 49. Just weather...
  35. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    CBW @ 31 That anti-science denialists have gained so much power in a civilization built upon science is a remarkable thing. Actually, the notion of a civilisation built on 'science' worries me deeply. Science has its rightful and important place but I don't go for 'Scientism.' I would far rather a civilisation based on love and respect for one's fellow human beings preferably grounded in humble acknowledgment of our dependence on a loving God 'in whom we live and move and have our being' as the Greek poet Menander famously put it.
  36. 2010 Climate Change Resource Roundup
    Does anyone have any estimates of how warm September currently is.
  37. Hockey stick is broken
    GC - perhaps indeed. To clarify. You made this statement. "The first test of any paleo-climate reconstruction should be whether it portrays past climate in a plausible way. Any set of proxies that disagrees with history should immediately be discarded." The implication was that the papers you listed did indeed disagree with history. I pointed you to data, relevant to those papers which show you are wrong. The proxy record is consistent with history. Feel free to point to other papers and the historical records that invalidate them. I have no reason to think Alley's temp reconstruction for central greenland is substantially flawed. I am intrigued to know what historical records you have for central greenland to compare it with.
  38. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    Getting back to the topic at hand, I find it really interesting that all of this meta-science is being done these days. The climate change "debate" has gotten so off kilter that it is actually a sociological/psychological phenomenon worth studying in its own right. That anti-science denialists have gained so much power in a civilization built upon science is a remarkable thing. That ideology now trumps reality is utterly bizarre. I will leave you with a quote from the patron saint of the conservatives, Ayn Rand: "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."
  39. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    Adelady @ 27: One of those early USSR famines was the result of dustbowl conditions very like the USA and Australian dustbowls. And for the same agriculturally idiotic reasons. More like war communism and deliberate forced requisitions of grain and produce coupled with forced collectivisation. The famines affected the 'black soil' regions of the Ukraine - arguably the world's richest agricultural land.
  40. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    It's funny to read that some ascribe the pollution in the USSR to a lack of private ownership when the problem was a government that was not accountable to its people. Here in the US, private companies were rampant polluters in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s until they poisoned enough of the landscape (and the people who lived there) that people demanded protection via government regulation, and they got it. It had nothing whatsoever to do with who owned what, and everything to do with a accountable government. Unfortunately, in the case of climate change, by the time the people are up in arms enough to demand action, it will be too late to fix the things they are up in arms about.
  41. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    I for one am perfectly happy to agree that the USSR's environmental (and agricultural) policies were a disaster. If we were talking about whaling, I suppose we could all criticize Japan. For women's rights, we can point to Saudi Arabia (and unfortunately dozens of other nations where misogyny is the norm). And so on. Unfortunately, on the issue at hand for this website (climate change) the USA is the worst offender, with a number of other Western countries vying for second place. If people are convinced that the free market will solve all environmental problems, then they should get on board with the market-based proposals for emissions reduction (cap-and-trade, or carbon taxes). Those are more closely compatible with a "small-government" worldview than the alternative approaches to dealing with climate change (complex and unpredictable regulatory oversight, or massive government-directed geoengineering schemes).
  42. Hockey stick is broken
    apeescape (#43), It seems I misinterpreted your "link Dump". Please accept my apologies. Thank you Ned, once again. Scaddenp, it seems we are having communications difficulties. I will try to rephrase my arguments more clearly tomorrow when there is no Monday night football. While I am doing that, what is your opinion on Alley's temperature reconstructions for central Greenland? Plausible or not?
  43. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Camburn, you've got it a bit backwards, 180 degrees really. In the P&J study salinity itself was derived from CTD: "Salinity was calculated from CTD conductivity, temperature, and pressure data and calibrated to bottle samples standardized with International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans (IAPSO) Standard Seawater using the 1978 Practical Salinity Scale (PSS-78). Some interesting background information on conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) samplers here, including dynamic dampness: Conductivity, Temperature, Depth (CTD) Sensors Photos of systems, deployment As to whether P&J employed "models" in their analysis, you probably ought to read more carefully, starting w/section 3 on page 10. The techniques described therein might be described as a model though it certainly does not resemble what most of us understand when thinking of that term. You're of course perfectly free to quibble over the semantic employment of "model" but if you've got a problem with the research you'd do better to show specifically how the authors' methods might be improved lest you convey the impression you're just saying "I doubt it." Fortunately P&J are exactingly detailed in describing their techniques so you should be able to understand and then tell us precisely where they've gone wrong, if indeed they have done so and you've got the skill to make productive remarks.
  44. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    One of those early USSR famines was the result of dustbowl conditions very like the USA and Australian dustbowls. And for the same agriculturally idiotic reasons. As for the famines. The comparison there would be with the Chinese who also had lunatic plans and devastating outcomes. And I'm personally convinced that North Korea's continuing failure to produce or acquire sufficient food for its population is similarly based on ideas that are so foolish that they are wicked.
  45. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    Adelady @ 4 The USA produced dust bowls - the YSSR several famines which killed many millions. Phila @ 14: The saying in Soviet era Poland was, 'We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.' Not much responsibility for anything there. Yes there were some idealists but the society was deeply permeated by cynicism. Doug; Abstinence education - a touch off topic - yet I never cease to be amazed at the casual way in which people will entrust their safety to a thin rubber sheath which slips off eveer so easy and carries a 10% failure rate in field conditions.
  46. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    Not a lot, JB. The simple fact is that all these contributions and variations associated with biological processes within the carbon cycle are totally swamped by us burning materials that are supposed to act as carbon sinks. These materials sequestered their carbon little by little during many millions of years of carbon cycling through these processes and we're releasing them in a couple of dozen decades.
  47. Hockey stick is broken
    gallopingcamel writes: What is this "link dump" thing? I think apeescape was referring to the bunch of links that she/he included immediately below that line. It wasn't a remark about your own comment.
  48. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    archiesteel, I really don't think one should accept CW's misleading framework of judging warming projections for 2100 based on linear extrapolation of past warming trends. All the models show warming starting slowly, then accelerating over the first half of this century. In the second half of the century, warming either continues to accelerate (under "business as usual") or slows down again (if we successfully manage to reduce emissions early enough). In neither case, however, is a linear extrapolation of pre-2010 warming a reliable guide to the projected evolution of global mean surface temperature over the remainder of the century.
  49. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    Sooooo.... with CH4, from Agriculture, how is that different? The carbon atom has come from photosynthesis, and its basically doing the same thing, and with the life cycle o CH4 being 7/8 years, wouldnt an equilibrium be reached in that time frame from a growth in the total biomass, and subsequent changes require an increase in total biomass? What am i missing here?
  50. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    CW: 1. CRU indicates a warming rate that is very near the best estimate, and completely in the margin of error. 2. GISS indicates a value that is exactly the best estimate, therefore countering your point. 3. That is completely irrelevant. At least you agree with a 1.8C/century increase. That's cause for concern, don't you think?

Prev  2165  2166  2167  2168  2169  2170  2171  2172  2173  2174  2175  2176  2177  2178  2179  2180  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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