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  2171  2172  2173  2174  2175  2176  2177  2178  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  2184  2185  2186  Next

Comments 108901 to 108950:

  1. Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
    @phil. Cheers for that. It feels like your shouting on deaf ears most oif the time though... something called economics keeps getting in the way.
  2. Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
    Breathing and bags of lettuce? From a USEIA report regarding the drop in US CO2 emissions in 2009: In 2009, energy-related CO2 emissions in the US saw their largest absolute and percentage decline (405 million metric tons or 7.0 percent) since the start of EIA’s comprehensive record of annual energy data that begins in 1949 ... Changes in CO2 emissions can be decomposed into changes in four major contributing factors: population, per capita GDP, energy intensity of the economy, and carbon intensity of the energy supply. All of these fell in 2009 except for population. Population grew 0.9 percent. So it would appear that what we do and how much of it we do are far more significant than what we eat.
  3. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    @64 Having just asked the question myself - about population and CO2 emmissions - I would direct you to the 'does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere' argument.
  4. Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
    Johngee @2 said: I'm a lecturer at a construction college of further education in the uk. I think the construction industry has a hugely important role in reducing CO2 emissions, and I for one (and I'm sure many more here) are very happy to see people like you making use of sites like Skeptical Science.
  5. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    #16: "I didn't know I had to buy the analysis. Pardon me for having free thought." You don't have to buy they analysis. But if you don't you should present some form of analysis of your own. Otherwise, 'free thought' is just opinion. For example, what is the basis of the straight line in the figure you show in #14? For that matter, where does that graph come from? What is the cause of those wavy ups and downs that ride your straight line? There are temperature reconstructions going back to the LIA (some available in the articles below); yet your graph projects the same straight line backwards as well as forwards. What is the justification for that? See Global warming and the unstoppable 1500 year cycle and The LIA and How we know the sun isn't causing global warming for starters. In my former life in the oil business, we used to say 'a straight line trend is your best friend' at which point someone would reply 'until it stops being straight.'
  6. Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
    You see... That's all I was missing!!! The carbon we breathe out comes from the food we eat via cell respiration! Sometimes it has to be said several ways before I get it. A very dead argument methinks.
  7. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    Ever since our remotest ancestors learnt to harness fire for cooking, our CO2 footprint has exceeded that of respiration. Cooking food is thought by some to be a key step in our development as a species - cooked food is more quickly consumed and digested requiring less energy thus freeing us up for more leisurely and intellectual pursuits such as sitting besides bonfires recounting heroic deeds hunting mammoths (or slaughtering our insufferable neighbours). I wouldn't count livestock bred for meat or dairy products since even if we became pure vegans, methane producing animals would still roam the earth (think of the vast herds of American bison and don't forget the termites - another source of CH4). RSVP possibly need not overly fear the addition of wine and beer to our CO2 budget - after all, we discovered the stuff because of natural fermentation (though not all natural fermentation will yield that which gladdens the heart of man - the denizens of the darker recesses of my fridge gladden the heart of none!). Alas, no matter how impeccably renewable our energy sources, our CO2 footprint must exceed that of respiration particularly since activities such as manufacturing steel and concrete result produce waste CO2. Hard as we strive to balance our carbon budget, we still fall victim to the relentless laws of thermodynamics spiralling our way to entropy. As John Maynard Keynes cheerily quipped: in the long run, we're all dead.
  8. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    perseus@7 "Whilst this is usually insignificant if you are a vegetarian..." Check to see where that plastic bag of chopped up lettuce you purchased at the megamall was grown and processed. In the United states it was likely grown and irrigated in Arizona or California, chopped and packaged in Mexico, and consumed in New York and Maine. In Europe it may have been grown and irrigated somewhere around the Mediterranean, chopped and packaged in Africa, and consumed in Sweden and Norway. Yes, the carbon footprint of that package of chopped up lettuce is much less than meat, but much, much more than your backyard garden.
  9. Dikran Marsupial at 21:28 PM on 26 September 2010
    Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
    johngee@2 wrote: "I suppose it comes down to how much GHG's humans bodily functions produce annually compared to how much is recycled by plants annually." The figures shown below suggest that the CO2 flux into the atmposphere from terrestrial plants is about 60Gt C per year (which is vast) if you divide that 60Gt by the human population it would give the number of tons of carbon we would need to consume each year to balance the flux from land plants, I doubt any of us eats quite that much! ;o)
  10. Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
    Johngee @2, All the CO2 we exhale comes from burning food. An expanding human population means more crops - otherwise we'd starve. So there is no nett contribution to GHG from human respiration. I would imagine most deforestation is for agriculture i.e. replacing one sort of vegetation with another. This is not harmless - forests are good "carbon sinks" (all that wood is "locking up" carbon) and they photosythesize all year round unlike crops. Forests may be more efficient at absorbing CO2 because of their height too. I have no figures - sorry, but to do this calculation you would need to take into account the changes in other animal populations (down for wild animals, up for domesticated) as well. I would doubt whether such comprehensive figures are available
  11. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    It is misleading to suggest that breathing 'contributes' to CO2 build up. However, this distracts from the real issue: how we have produced our foods to generate that CO2. In particular, the greenhouses gases nitrous oxide and methane released from crops and livestock, and the CO2 produced from land deforestation. Ironically, even walking and bicycling isn't a 'carbon' neutral transport due to the greater exertion relative to rest, and food consumed necessary to generate this extra energy! Whilst this is usually insignificant if you are a vegetarian, it is not if a substantial portion of your diet comes from beef and lamb!
  12. Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
    I'm a lecturer at a construction college of further education in the uk. Many of the courses we deliver have extensive sustainability units and of course co2 emissions are at the top of the list. This site and others like it have helped me build a picture of the whole issue for which I am most grateful. I was questioned the other day about this exact issue but the argument went... If we have gone from 1 billion to nearly 7 billion in 200 years and in that time have cut down massive quantities of vegetation without planting more then surely some of the rise is attributable to the rise in co2 - ie we have messed with the carbon cycle? Well yes, population is the elephant in the room said I. Then I pointed out all the evidence showing that we can attribute the rise in co2 to the combustion process (o2 levels dropping, c12/c13 ratio falling and of course how much we have burned compared to co2 rise). However it does seem to many an obvious equation...Less plants - less o2 is produced - more people combining carbon and oxygen - co2 has to increase surely? I suppose it comes down to how much GHG's humans bodily functions produce annually compared to how much is recycled by plants annually. I can feel myself beginning to answer my own question here! Does anyone have any figures relating to this topic?
  13. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    and when cyanobacteria started producing highly poisonous (for the time) oxygen it was a massacre. RSVP's history of life would need a thorough rewrite the whole earth history as well.
  14. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    If it were only that our breathing in O2 to convert plant and animal matter into energy, H2O, and CO2, Earth would be happy. But we expend 7-10 calories of fossil fuel to produce and deliver to our mouthes, each calorie of food we consume, which means that our breathing is far from carbon neutral. It costs 35 calories of fossil fuel to produce a single calorie of beefsteak. Plant a garden on your balcony, and raise chickens in your bedroom!
  15. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    RSVP #104 "One must assume there has always been some CO2. Not too much (mind you) lest it get too hot to support life." Wrong. Early life was anaerobic. this may be of interest to you. Particularly: "Three and a half billion years ago, Earth's atmosphere contained almost no free oxygen. Instead, it consisted mainly of carbon dioxide, perhaps as much as 100 times more carbon dioxide than contained in today's atmosphere. During this time, Earth's only life forms were aquatic, one-celled organisms -- primitive forms of bacteria -- that extracted energy from a variety of sources." Sounds like the perfect environment for civilisation to thrive!
  16. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    Renegadeguy #4 "And how humans reducing other species on the planet has made any difference." You could have less diversity in terms of species, but still have more animals numerically in terms of food stock..., but these in turn feed on vegetation. My big concern is when they start noticing the CO2 that comes from fermenting wine and beer.
  17. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    This article doesn't really answer the question of whether a massive increase in the human population over the last couple of centuries has had an overall effect on CO2 emissions from breathing. And how humans reducing other species on the planet has made any difference.
  18. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Daniel Bailey #56 "So, essentially a global average temp of -2 degrees F, or about -18 degrees C. Thus, no liquid water anywhere and no life. All very well understood for over a hundred years." ...and since life did appear, one must assume there has always been some CO2. Not too much (mind you) lest it get too hot to support life. No, just the right amount to where life can get its start, and then reach the current equilibrium... ...the point at which creationist models almost begin to seem more attractive.
  19. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Daniel Bailey at 13:50 PM, your quick synopsis was a little bit too quick. Before you can use points 1-3 to arrive at 4, you have to decide one more condition as proffered in point 1, that being "all else being equal" Where is the evidence that all else is indeed equal? Or has ever been equal for that matter.
  20. It's the sun
    Apparently there is more to the cosmic ray story than considered so far. The 15% estimate of temperature increase reported there is less than half that determined using the equation. A common mistake is looking at only cloud cover instead of average cloud altitude. Consideration of the sunspot number time-integral accounts for about 39% of the average global temperature run-up from 1909 to 2005. This is equivalent to an increase of average cloud altitude of only about 115 meters. ESST (PDO appears to be the dominant contributor) also accounted for about 39% of the temperature run-up. CO2 accounted for about 22%.
  21. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    "By performing cellular respiration, we are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. " If plants cant distinguish fossil CO2 from any other CO2, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has nearly doubled, it is likely that a good part of what we eat has its origin in petroleum.
  22. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    You can see in the first graph they use for the carbon 14 that the last measure is higher than the medieval maximum, but they dismiss the sun as causing this continued warm-up. Then they can the carbon-14 and go to the solar cycles for the next graph. They are not the same thing. Go figure. They could have used this for the whole period.
  23. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    "But here you are relying on your superficial extrapolation of past trends, ignoring the causal analyses that are explained in the post at the top of this page!" Oh my God! I didn't know I had to buy the analysis. Pardon me for having free thought. Excuse me, but climatology is as much about trends as anything. We may not be able to completely explain them, but we see them and recognize them. Heck, the analysis at the top pretty much says that the exact cause of the LIA is a bit of a mystery, but I guess they have everything else after that plumb figured out. :-)
  24. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    cruzn246, previously you accused other people of relying exclusively on correlation to infer causation. But here you are relying on your superficial extrapolation of past trends, ignoring the causal analyses that are explained in the post at the top of this page! Be sure to click on the "Advanced" version's tab. Read more, type less.
  25. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    KR: Thanks for the explantion. I also found the answer to my question at: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_01.htm
  26. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Badgersouth - One Watt is one Joule per second. This means that W/m^2 is the rate that energy arrives on a per-square-meter basis, while summing up all of those Joules over many seconds results in an energy sum that is the accumulated energy. Think of this as in water: as gallons per minute versus total gallons in your swimming pool.
  27. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    This is the trend I buy on the warming we are seeing now. I do think it is part of the recovery from the LIA and this illustrates the way it rises, but takes beaks for a few decades here and there.
  28. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    cruzn246, you are incorrect in stating that "correlation does not mean causation." Correlation is necessary but not sufficient as evidence of causation. There are empirically-backed theoretical reasons for our prediction that CO2 levels will correlate with temperature. Those predictions were made long before it was even possible to adequately measure the global levels of either of those variables for sufficiently long to confidently detect that correlation. The correlation later was discovered to exist, thereby supporting the other empirical evidence and theory
  29. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    "A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems…. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities." I like how they covered their you know what here. "This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities." Very likely, but they are not certain. No doubt.
  30. Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?
    I published this in Eos, the newspaper of the American Geophysical Union, in 2006. I was searching for a way to tell merkins that they emit too much. The article is severely constrained by space but the really essential point is that there are many nations that ‘emit’ more CO2 from their population breathing than they do from burning fossil fuels. The rationale for the article was a ‘helpful’ suggestion of a method for the US to further destabilise Kyoto (this was in 2006) by insisting that human respiration be included on the flimsy pretext that enteric methane is included. The idea (from the US pov) would be that China especially would have to pay a greater proportion of its GDP to buy credits than the US. Please, note the ‘department’ of Eos that this was published in before telling me that breathing does not release fossil CO2.
  31. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    How about a quick synopsis of GHG, CO2 and AGW: 1. Increasing the level of a greenhouse gas in a planet’s atmosphere, all else being equal, will raise that planet’s surface temperature. Yep. 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yep 3. CO2 is rising. Yep 4. Therefore (given 1-3 above) the Earth should be warming. How much is a guess at best. 5. From multiple converging lines of evidence, we know the Earth is warming. No doubt 6. The warming is moving in close correlation with the carbon dioxide. Correlation does not mean causation. Science 101. 7. The new CO2 (as shown by its isotopic signature) is mainly from burning fossil fuels. Check 8. Therefore the global warming currently occurring is anthropogenic (caused by mankind). How much is still a guess. There is no good reason we should not be warming now. We are still interglacial and still recovering from a relative low point, the "Little Ice age", in an interglacial cycle. These are the warmest temperatures lately, but not the warmest of the Holocene. We got warmer than this during the last interglacial also. muoncounter I checked the Quaternary map. It is better than the one I had. It still works for a reshaped FL that could screw up the Gulf Stream and trigger rapid cooling. If not the gulf stream than I suspect some other ocean current gets rearranged. I think that this is the trigger for ice ages. There is no way the Milankovich cycles could have that sudden an impact as what we get when we go icy.
    Moderator Response: See the post (and comment further there, not here) We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age.
  32. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    #95: "If you understood the connection to sea levels and ice ages" Again, what is the significance of this remark? Ice ages cause sea level to drop. But this is not about ice ages; its about causes of climate change. In today's world. BTW, your map in #97 appears to be one of the 125ka highstand. It's lovely, but no geologist on earth would put the land area in blue. Please cite your source. And check Quaternary sea-level history of the United States; it'll help you get the chronology correct.
  33. Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
    Bit of an odd looking cow!
  34. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Re: cruzn246 (94)
    "I'm almost from Missouri. show where you get this from."
    Ok, where shall we start? How about a quick synopsis of GHG, CO2 and AGW:
    1. Increasing the level of a greenhouse gas in a planet’s atmosphere, all else being equal, will raise that planet’s surface temperature. 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 3. CO2 is rising. 4. Therefore (given 1-3 above) the Earth should be warming. 5. From multiple converging lines of evidence, we know the Earth is warming. 6. The warming is moving in close correlation with the carbon dioxide. 7. The new CO2 (as shown by its isotopic signature) is mainly from burning fossil fuels. 8. Therefore the global warming currently occurring is anthropogenic (caused by mankind).
    How about a complete guide to modern day climate change? Or an illustrated guide to the latest climate science? How about every scientific body in the world endorsing the science of global warming/climate disruption (use the term of your choice), as summarized by the National Academy of Science in May of this year:
    "A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems…. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
    Have you seen enough? Re: cruzn246 (97) And by presenting no mechanism to support your opinion, you amply demonstrate that you simply have no idea about what you are talking about. You are merely "hypothesizing" (the supposition that this is similar to pulling small primates out of dark places is completely unrelated). The Yooper
  35. A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
    PerkyIsPsychic, using your wood example, here we're doing the equivalent of digging up a prodigious amount of wood stored away over eons, swiftly burning it in the space of a few decades. The comparatively tiny amount of wood cycling its carbon on the surface today does not really count for much in the face of the fossil hydrocarbon extraction and combustion scene. (Is that "Reverend Perkyl" by any chance? I had a college roommate who enjoyed playing old records of Reverend Perkyl's sermons at top volume. A mind-bending experience.)
  36. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Re: cruzn246 (95) "If you understood the connection to sea levels and ice ages you would get it." "Insofar as you have presented no evidence to support your opinion, and stand in direct juxtaposition to more than a century of scientific research, it can be safely concluded that it is YOU who do not get it." Oh cripes. It is a well known fact that sea levels were much higher at the end of the last interglacial and temperatures were higher also. The sea level connection to ice ages is simply this. If you bring sea levels up to the level that they reached at the end of the last interglacial you could effectively shut down the Gulf Stream. That would be what you all call a tipping point. This is how high the water was in FL at the end of the last interglacial. the blue area is what was not under water.
    Moderator Response: Try the What does past climate change tell us about global warming? thread, or The significance of past climate change, or Working out future sea level rise from the past.
  37. It's the sun
    619: "lower magnetic field, less shielding from galactic cosmic rays, more low-level clouds, lower average cloud altitude, warmer average cloud temperature," The supposed link between galactic cosmic rays is discussed here.
    Moderator Response: cruzn246, that is one of those cues to continue discussion of that topic on that other thread. Further comments on this thread will be deleted without warning.
  38. A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
    a la: John Russell's logic Melting an ice cube makes water but it doesn't place more water on Earth than was here before the water froze. Burning a stick of wood makes co2 but it doesn't place more co2 on Earth than was here before the co2 became a stick of wood.
  39. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Re: cruzn246 (95)
    "If you understood the connection to sea levels and ice ages you would get it."
    Insofar as you have presented no evidence to support your opinion, and stand in direct juxtaposition to more than a century of scientific research, it can be safely concluded that it is YOU who do not get it. Capiche? The Yooper
  40. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    "That is why we are still in a warm period and not cooling off yet." ??? We are still(?) in a warm period because sea levels were higher at the end of the last interglacial? Does that make any sense to anyone? If you understood the connection to sea levels and ice ages you would get it.
  41. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    Can we put this theory to test? See Introduction into energy sources for a graph of energy consumption. And see Global Warming Facts, Data & Statistics for a graph of global temperature departures. Energy consumption was erratic between 1910-1950, with a gradual upward trend. Temperature swings between 1950-1990 were also erratic with a general upward trend. From 1950 on, energy consumption has been increasing at a nearly uniform rate until 1990. The rate of increase started declining after 1990. From 1990 on, global temperatures have been increasing at a nearly uniform rate. Only time will tell what happens in the next 40 years, considering that energy consumption is still increasing. And we must not forget that the methane gas factor may enter the picture after global temperatures have risen above a certain level. When or if CH4 reaches 6 ppm, with its additional CO2 byproduct, global temperatures could rise even faster than predicted by energy consumption alone.
  42. It's the sun
    Climate Scientists who limit their consideration of the influence of the sun on earth’s climate to TSI overlook a far more significant factor which is the influence of solar magnetic fields, as indicated by the proxy of sunspot number time-integral. Fewer sunspots means lower magnetic field, less shielding from galactic cosmic rays, more low-level clouds, lower average cloud altitude, warmer average cloud temperature, more radiation from the planet and thus a cooling planet. An equation based on the first law of thermodynamics that includes the sunspot time-integral, effective sea surface temperature (ESST) and atmospheric carbon dioxide level accurately calculates all average global temperatures since 1895 with a coefficient of determination of 0.88.
  43. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    The article provides good coverage of how CO2 causes heating, but unfortunately, it does nto actually address the fallacies 'skeptics' usually rely on for disbelieving that there is a greenhouse effect. Less time on unconstested physics and more rebuttal of the current memes would be a good idea.
  44. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    @cruzn246: " The PDO and NAO basically put a stop on a warming trend from about the late 40s through the late 70s." No, it didn't. The cooling mid-century was due mostly to aerosols. Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century? Of course, now that you've been shown wrong on WV, you're going to try to change the subject yet again. That's a textbook denier tactic, and I'm not falling for it. "You can quit insulting me any time you like." Stop making false statements and I'll stop calling you on them. Start listening and learning and I'll be there to help you. "I have an IQ in about the 135 range and have been around for a few more years than you, I'm sure." Not that IQ really measures anything else but the ability to answer IQ tests, but my own scores vary between 146 and 154 ("ordinary" IQ tests aren't too precise in that range). I'm also 40 years old, but that's completely irrelevant to the fact that you haven't been able to present a compelling argument to make your case. I'll also note that English is not my first language, and yet I seem to make much less typos and grammatical errors. Perhaps you should be less emotional about this and take it as an opportunity to learn. "I know what i am talking about but you see things in only your frame of refernece. I can't help you there." I disagree. I think it's clear from your various errors and misuse of graphs that you have *no* idea what you're talking about, and we won't be able to help you with that until you first admit it.
    Moderator Response: Comments by anyone, about PDO, will be deleted from this thread.
  45. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    What "wins" in the long run, an oscillation or a secular trend?
    Moderator Response: For discussion relating climate change to the PDO, please use the It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation thread.
  46. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    "Actually, no, they haven't. Temperature now are way above the holocene mean, and higher than any average temperatures since the last glaciation." I'm almost from Missouri. show where you get this from.
  47. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    @muoncounter: "Does that make any sense to anyone?" No, it doesn't, and it seems the further we go the more shrill cruzn246 is becoming. I think he's starting to realize he's really in over his head with his limited scientific knowledge. He's beginning to break down, making less and less sense as counter-arguments pile up against his house of cards. The next logical step for would likely be to start making strawman aguments and ad hominem attacks.
  48. CO2 measurements are suspect
    #43: The 2003 Schmidt paper was about 30 years of CO2 data at Schauinsland. Graph from WDCGG (not from the paper) shown below: It appears that the seasonal amplitude has indeed decreased since the late 70s. I don't see any decadal cycles, unless you mean the 4 decades of continuous increase in the annual average.
  49. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    @cruzn246: wow, you're really goign through the gamut of debunked arguments, aren't you. What's next, it's because of Solar Irradiance? The PDO is currently *negative*, why would it warm us? It's also a cyclical phenomenon that doesn't show a long-term trend, which we are experiencing. "Good enough?" Not by a long shot. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation Instead of randomly posting graphs you clearly don't understand, I suggest you actually start learning some science. Again, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about, and are simply trolling on this site.
  50. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    #86: "we are at the highest CO2 rates in the last 50.000 years. Not even close to the highest temperatures. So what am I supposed to think?" Think: Temperatures will go higher. See, not that hard. "Sea levels were a heck of a lot higher than they are now. There was also a lot less ice. " References for that? "That is why we are still in a warm period and not cooling off yet." ??? We are still(?) in a warm period because sea levels were higher at the end of the last interglacial? Does that make any sense to anyone?

Prev  2171  2172  2173  2174  2175  2176  2177  2178  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  2184  2185  2186  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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