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  2175  2176  2177  2178  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  2184  2185  2186  2187  2188  2189  2190  Next

Comments 109101 to 109150:

  1. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Gah! Sorry, should have added this before: what's most perverse and enraging about the denialosphere is that no falsifiable theories are ever proposed - or when they are, and they're falsified, they just duck and dodge. And then some have the temerity to accuse climate scientists of being unscientific? Graaah.
  2. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Just to add: good theories carry on standing up against attempts to falsify - here's a story I just read where Einstein's work once again survives. As they say, "our results agree with Einstein's theory – we weren't expecting any discrepancies and we didn't find any."
  3. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Nice article. One criticism: Quote: "Sometimes people ask 'what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?'. Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on." I think people asking that question - 'what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?' - are making an ostensibly reasonable request, since falsification is one way of demarcating scientific from non-scientific theories. But usually it's used by denialists to muddy the waters and claim that climate science is not falsifiable and thus not 'proper science', because it proposes no theories or statements that are falsifiable. Here's a UK libertarian example. Here's my philosophy of science 101 take on this - would love to hear better informed views. "All swans are white" is a falsifiable theory; if you find a black swan, theory falsified. In the same way, Einstein's theory of relativity is falsifiable - Eddington took photos of an eclipsed sun to measure the predicted impact of gravity on light from a distant star. The theory wasn't falsified - but in principle, it is. That's a criterion for good science - unlike, say, "George Bush is a 12 foot shapeshifting lizard from another dimension". "But he looks human." "Exactly." AGW theory appears unfalsifiable because - it would seem - we need some future date to arrive before the theory can be falsified. It's quite a nice trick: it does appear at first glance that we have to wait for some point in the future to falsify climate theory - and, of course, if the climate does warm, that only confirms the theory, it doesn't falsify it. They're wrong, though. Surprise surprise. Two ways they're wrong: first, if AGW won't be falsifiable until some point in the future, that ALSO means anti-AGW hypotheses are equally unfalsifiable - if they require us to wait for the future to find out. (Actually, of course, AGW theory does make future, falsifiable predictions, but let's put that aside for the moment.) So the next question is, do we need to wait for the future before we can have any faith in climate science? No - there are supporting pillars that are falsifiable. You can come up with plenty of null hypotheses: for example, the earth isn't warming. To turn that round, "The earth is warming" is entirely falsifiable, in principle. Same as the theory of relativity, it just hasn't been falsified - and likely won't be. Clearly, the null hypothesis - say, "the earth hasn't warmed since the 1950s" has been. How about "humans don't cause global warming?" Well, it would need breaking down a bit, but that's easy enough: "co2 doesn't cause atmospheric warming" and "humans aren't putting co2 into the atmosphere" are trivial to falsify. So again, it's just one of those lovely, sciencey-sounding things that 'skeptics' like, but that actually supports their argument not at all.
  4. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    cruzn246, no temperatures have not stayed completely static in any 30 year (or 30 minute) period ever. However, they have also never shot up a degree C in a hundred year period without a specific cause. In this case, the cause is us.
  5. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Very good post. Small addition: Where you write "In fact we expect human greenhouse gas emissions to cause more warming than we've thus far seen, due to the thermal inertia of the oceans (the time it takes to heat them)." Aerosol cooling is another important factor that we haven't yet seen the full amount of warming that one would expect from GHG emissions. See eg Ramanathan and Feng (2009) http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Ram-&-Feng-ae43-37_2009.pdf or Raes and Seinfeld short piece in AE last year.
  6. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    C'mon Hunt. Do you really expect the average reader of the sports pages to dive into the fiercely technical waters at Real Climate or Science of Doom? The whole objective of John's project of 1) identify a single argument then 2) describe the scientific background at 3 levels from simple through to full-bore science essay is designed to allow people who get stuck in an argument with a doubter of the science to back up their points with accurate material - pitched at the right level. It's not the writers who are reinventing the wheel, it's the conversational, opinionated know-nothings who revive and recycle the same old talking points.
  7. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Blah, blah, blah. The claim that man is responsible for virtually all warming is pure speculation. To say that is to assume that temperatures would have basically stayed the same over this whole period. Temperatures have not stayed static for any thirty year period ever.
  8. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    Author's Comment: The Time Constant of Climate Change In the lead article I used the paper by James Hansen and others (ref iii) as a credible estimate for climate lag. His paper states: "Evidence from Earth's history and climate models suggests that climate sensitivity is 0.75° ± 0.25°C per W/m2, implying that 25 to 50 years are needed for Earth's surface temperature to reach 60% of its equilibrium response." My article qualifies this estimate with the comments about the "difficulty in quantifying the rate at which the warm upper layers of the ocean mix with the cooler deeper waters". When I wrote the piece, I was also aware of a paper by B. Lin and others * that uses a different assumption about ocean heat transport. It states: "The estimated time constant of the climate is large (70 - 120 years) mainly owing to the deep ocean heat transport …" CBDunkerson’s comment #9 is useful here. The figure he provides of 0.027 W/m2 for the deep basins is a great deal less than the 0.85 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere. Therefore I reserve judgment on Lin’s estimate of the time constant, and have chosen to use that provided by Hansen as a starting point for debate. Now the time constant is the time it takes for the system's step response to reach 1 – 1/e = 63.2% of its final equilibrium value. If we take the mid-point of Hansen’s range for 60% warming, 37.5 years, and convert it to a 63.2% warming, by my calculations the resulting time constant is 40.9 years. There is not really any joy for skeptics here. All the papers make clear that at this point in time, we are still talking about estimates. The point of the article is that climate lag is real, it is measured in decades, and it has provided cover for skeptics who dispute the science of global warming. Climate lag means our situation is more perilous than most of the public perceive, and decision-makers need to be made aware. In 5 years or so, I expect we will have more deep ocean data, and be able to estimate the time constant with more certainty. In the meantime, I think 40 years is an appropriate number with which to engage the public. * Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, Estimations of climate sensitivity based on top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance, available at http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/1923/2010/acp-10-1923-2010.pdf
  9. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    9, hadfield: The intent of the post is to address a specific logical question: "How can there be ANY positive feedback if the Earth hasn't done a temperature runaway already?" To that end, a mathematical model is given as an example of a system displaying both positive feedback and non-runaway behavior. This post does not propose to describe the full picture of the dynamics of global warming. You might take a look at the "Advanced" version for more perspective.
  10. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    If I may pose a heretical question - and no offense meant - valuable as these introductory-level posts may be, wouldn't it be better for our expert authors to break some new ground, e.g. by undertaking new research or having new insights, rather than reinventing the wheel (that is, by restating well-known facts in simple terms)?
  11. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    I know this is a bit off topic, although it is in context of the present discussion.My own accusation of BP's possible engagement in scientific dishonesty or incompetence is based on data he's presented on this site. He could make the problem magically go away if he just responded to the problem, but so far he seems reluctant to do so. I don't feel particularly inclined to let this go until he does come up with the goods, as his credibility as a commentator on this site hinges on it.
  12. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    KR not to simply punt, rather because it's so complicated and I don't really know how to answer your question, probably the best way to start tracking down changes in circulation would be to dig into the P&J paper's references. In particular you might want to check Orsi's On the meridional extent and fronts of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (full text, PDF) and follow citations of that paper forward in time.
  13. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    An insignificant point really to Dr. Verons response to Monckton's faulty logic; but on page 5 of Climate Scientists Respond there is the statement by Dr. Veron: "There were no corals in the Cambrian, symbiotic or otherwise: they had not evolved then." Maybe I'm missing something but some seemingly reliable internet sites state that corals did exist in the Cambrian. Maybe I'll have to dig out that 25 year old Historical Geology text. Anyway, a devastating rebuttal to Monckton. Cheers!
  14. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Hi John, Thanks. Yes, I agree it was implicit, but best to be clear I guess.
  15. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Philippe @104, "I advocate for the the moderator to strike any and all future posts that even remotely suggests fraud if there is no supporting evidence" I'll second that. The blog policy currently states that: "No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, [fraud], dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives." Humble suggestion is in square brackets.
    Response: Fraud was implicit (doesn't that equate to deception, dishonesty and/or corruption?). Nevertheless, I've updated the Comments Policy to include fraud, just to make it explicit.
  16. Global warming and the unstoppable 1500 year cycle
    Re: archiesteel (30) Thanks for the compliment. One thing I have learned from this (I try for a positive takeaway whenever possible) is that certain individuals come to forums such as this to...see what reaction they can stir up. Like a petulant child continuing to throw rocks at a bees nest when told repeatedly to stop. By emulating Gavin Schmidt or John Cook instead of Tamino (while fun, just isn't my style) I think I can be of better service to more questing here. And it won't feed into the rock-throwers. More On-Topic: If we now are experiencing record heat & thawing in the Arctic, shouldn't we be experiencing record cold and sea-ice & ice sheet advance & mass-gain in the Antarctic? Oh, that's right, sea ice diminishing there, too; net mass-losses in both the WAIS and the EAIS...guess this post by John Russell is spot-on. The Yooper
  17. Industrial CO2: Relentless warming taskmaster
    "he unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor" I don't know if this is the best thread for discussion of Davis, Caldeira and Matthews in the 10 Sept issue of Science. They've analyzed the carbon-consuming capacities of existing industrial and consumer sectors and done some future projections. We calculated cumulative future emissions of 496 (282 to 701 in lower- and upperbounding scenarios) Gt of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels by existing infrastructure between 2010 and 2060, forcing mean warming of 1.3C (1.1 to 1.4C) above the pre-industrial era and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 less than 430 ppm. This doesn't square very well with Raupach et al. 2007, especially the figure shown here: Pick your favorite scenario, but we've never turned things over the way the 450ppm stabilization requires. So a mere +1.3C doesn't seem like a reasonable forecast.
  18. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    MattJ - the question about model should refer to Models arent reliable argument. But yes, models most certainly do take into account clouds and aerosols. The closest thing to "fudge factors" would be parameterizations - empirical equations that relate some variable response to inputs. (eg evaporation as response to sea-temp, wind etc). However, it is important to note that the "tuning" of empirical determinations match a specific variable to factors affecting it, NOT to fiddling knobs so that you match observed climate to model. Have a look at this FAQ for example. Further questions to appropriate argument (or ask the modellers themselves).
  19. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    The "fraud" thing is a magical incantation, a clumsy way of wishing away facts, not scientific.
  20. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Nice post! Oftentimes we get bogged down discussing one of the many pieces of evidence behind man-made global warming, and in the process we can't see the forest for the trees. Using another optical analogy, no depth of field.
  21. Philippe Chantreau at 09:47 AM on 24 September 2010
    A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    I can recall so many previous instances of BP unambiguously accusing scientists of fraud without any evidence (for instance see Ocean acidification, when such accusation stemmed from his misintepretation of the papers), it's becoming obvious that this has become an obsession of his. As for discussing scientific evidence: in the interest of the discussion, I advocate for the the moderator to strike any and all future posts that even remotely suggests fraud if there is no supporting evidence, not only that the accused scientists/papers actually are wrong, but that they deliberately are so with an intent to deceive. Skeptics like to talk about burden of proof but it's something they gladly dispense of on too many occasions.
  22. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Nice work Dana! This puts everything nicely into perspective. I've wondered about creating a list of different aspects of climate change and putting them into categories in a simple graphic like: 1) Basic physics 2) Settled science 3) Observations 4) New research 5) Uncertainties (or something like that). I think the average person tends to think of science as being black and white. It either is or it isn't. Good guys and bad guys. Us and them. Etc. And I know science is just not about absolutes. If there were a way to help people understand this basic aspect of climate it might go a long way toward opening some eyes and changing some minds.
  23. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    BTW: I suppose I should add: if the models still rely on "fudge factors", then the claim that the conclusion is based on "our fundamental understanding of physics" simply does not hold water.
  24. The Big Picture (2010 version)
    Overall, I think this is an excellent article. But there is still room for improvements in a few spots. The split infinitive, for example, has to go. Now don't get me wrong: I am not one of those sticklers who believes that every split infinitive is wrong. But THIS one really grates on my ears! I am referring to: "It's important to every so often take a step back and see how all of those trees comprise the forest as a whole." While we are fixing the split infinitive, another slight change of wording also makes a marked improvement. I suggest: "It's important to take a step back every now and then to see how all of those trees form the forest as a whole." A more substantial point: I -wish- it were as easy as simply asserting, that falsification "would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on." If it were that simple, I doubt that Freeman Dyson would still be objecting to the evidence. And indeed, there is a lot of data collection and interpretation added on top of that "fundamental understanding of physics" to reach the conclusion. As long as such a prominent physicist as Dyson objects, we cannot expect to get very far by claiming "the theory is based on our fundamental understanding of physics". Now don't get me wrong, I do not agree with Dyson, and am I mystified and disappointed that he objects. But I do share at least a little of his skepticism concerning the models. It really IS hard to know if the model is correct. Especially when the rebuttal on this very website does not even address the objections Dyson raised: it says nothing about whether or not the new models still rely on 'fudge factors', whether or not they now take into account dust and clouds, etc. IOW: both this article and that could use some strengthening in similar ways. But this one is already very good, and needs little more to reach perfection -- especially if the other is strengthened as well.
  25. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re: Baz (339) Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog is frequented by some of the most knowledgeable and veteran Arctic Ice watchers around. Numerous posts monitoring this year's melt season, with comparisons to previous years' along with running commentary. Several offer up thoughts about next & coming year's ice cover. See also Romm's Climate Progress post from the other day on the demise of the Arctic Ice. And this one. Tamino has several posts on this as well (ice loss following a "quadratic fit"). The Yooper
  26. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    muoncounter, your analogy should work. Add that you lower (or rise) the voltage in steps or continuosly and you need to integrate the response over time. The climate response to a varying forcing is basically similar.
  27. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    I'm sorry, but I think this post (I'm looking at the intermediate one) is very confused and does more harm than good. It should be pulled until it can be improved. First, it ignores the fast feedbacks (water vapour, snow) and goes straight to carbon cycle feedbacks, which is slow and relatively uncertain. Second, the logarithmic nature of the greenhouse effect is a red herring, at least for small perturbations. Chris Colose's recent guest post[*] on RealClimate explains the primary reason that positive feedbacks don't *necessarily* cause a runaway: "Feedback behavior The ultimate constraint on climate change is the Planck radiative feedback, which mandates that a warmer world will radiate more efficiently and therefore provide a cooling effect. For a blackbody, the emission goes like the fourth power of the temperature. So the question of how the other feedbacks behave is really of how they modify the Planck feedback." [*] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/09/introduction-to-feedbacks/ Now, when I stated the same thing on another comment thread on SkepticalScience recently, I was told I was wrong because the Earth is not a black body. This is true, but it is still an object in space that can lose heat only by infrared radiation, and this radiation depends strongly on its temperature. Or, more precisely, on the temperatures of a whole range of different levels in the atmosphere and/or at the surface, each of which affects a different IR frequency band. Mark
  28. It cooled mid-century
    GSwift7, if you're looking for pre-cooked anti-AGW informations, you're in the wrong place. If you're not interested in the science, again you're in the wrong place. And given that you definitely are in the wrong place, I do not understand why you ask questions.
  29. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Re: Badgersouth, GFW FBM's and attack subs are indeed designed for near-surface ops. Newer class subs will have a classified capability beyond that publicly revealed. "Research" vessels (not necessarily nuclear) exist with deeper dive capabilities. Temperature, pressure and salinity data are all acquired during normal sounding operations (to get an accurate corrected depth) and should all have a time-stamp with a GPS accuracy-equivalent lat/long. I utilized a number of sounding datasets that I was able to pass San Board review & incorporate in various mapping products for the military (classified & unclassified) and the merchant marine (unclassified). While there thus exists extensive datasets with good spatiotemporal resolution, security constraints will probably keep it from full utilization for OHC research purposes. A FOIA request from a connected Congressman or Senator, properly worded to degradate the true resolution and comprehensiveness of the datasets, could be used to obtain coverage to fill in any "gaps" in the Argo grid. I'll close with this: every US sub commander is intimately acquainted with the story of the Thresher. The Yooper
  30. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    No one has mentioned this yet but I'm assuming this has implications for Dr Pielke's recent statement that "global warming has stopped" while referring to OHC.
  31. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    GFW: I do recall that the US Navy released data about the thickness of the Arctic sea ice collected from nuclear subs, but I do not recall anything about ocean temperatures.
  32. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz (@331)... I believe what the scientist sees in such a graph is all the underlying information and has a strong understanding of the mechanisms at work. If the scientist is looking at the chart and saying this is expected noise in the data, that's most likely what it is. If the average Joe says in contradiction that it's cooling he's doing little more than playing extremely long odds. Think of it this way: The scientist hears a strange sound coming from the engine of his car. Not being a mechanic he makes an uneducated guess that it's really nothing important ("Eh, older cars just make funny noises."). A real mechanic who listens to the car understands all the parts under the hood and has a good sense of whether this is a sound to be concerned about or not.
  33. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Apparently the Seawolf class can go deeper The Ohio class is probably in-between.
  34. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Yes, some Arctic data from the US Navy has been carefully released. If I recall correctly, Al Gore was involved in convincing them to do it. Indeed military subs don't operate very deeply. They're optimized for their military missions, which only require that they can hide below the thermocline, not go super deep. However, one can assume that they can go deeper than the military publicly admits. The following link claims 300m max operating depth with likely hull collapse at 450m (again, somehow I suspect that hasn't been precisely tested with a billion+ dollar boat, so it's probably conservative, but it reinforces the point that another term for max operating depth is "never-exceed depth"). http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/submarines/ssn688_la.html
  35. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    "With 40 years between cause and effect, it means that average temperatures of the last decade are a result of what we were thoughtlessly putting into the air in the 1960’s." I think it was this statement in the post that gave me a case of cognitive dissonance, especially when juxtaposed with: "The Earth’s average surface temperature has already risen by 0.8 degrees C since 1900. ... there is at least another 0.6 degrees “in the pipeline”." So there isn't a full T+40 delay to see the onset of warming; its T+40 to see the full effect. Would it therefore be correct to say that the warming we see now is the sum total of the onset of warming from recent emissions, the tail end of warmings from older emissions and some fraction of everything in between? So that the 'lag' mentioned, which I took to be a delay time, is more like a 'storage time'? A good analogy would then be a circuit with large inductance; it takes considerable time for the current to diminish to 0 after the driving voltage is shut off.
    Moderator Response: Author: Your understanding of climate lag is now almost correct. Your observation that "warming we see now is the sum total of the onset of warming from recent emissions, the tail end of warmings from older emissions and some fraction of everything in between" is a helpful way to put it. The only thing you need to realise is that technically, the full effect is never reached, only approached asymptotically. The climate model in which I place most faith projects the temperature rise for 1500 years, at which point it regards equilibrium as having been reached. We need to be practical. The 40 years in the lead article is the time from the onset of warming for the temperature rise to reach 63.2% or (1 – 1/e) of the full effect. See my comment # 54.
  36. It cooled mid-century
    These both seem to be pro-global warming stories, so it doesn't really matter which one is right as far as I'm concerned. The matter of increased night-time temperatures also seems to be inconsistent with an actual drop in sea temperature. I actually wonder if the guys in the new story are serious. The theory here on this site seems to make more sense and seems to be more supported by known facts.
  37. It cooled mid-century
    from this site, above: "As a final point, it should be noted that in 1945, the way in which sea temperatures were measured changed, leading to a substantial drop in apparent temperatures. Once the data are corrected, it is expected that the cooling trend in the middle of the century will be less pronounced." From the other, newer story: "The international team of scientists discovered an unexpectedly abrupt cooling event that occurred between roughly 1968 and 1972 in Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures. The research indicates that the cooling played a key role in the different rates of warming seen in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in the middle 20th century" That seems prety much mutually exclusive to me.
  38. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    @Dorlomin: I didn't realize that the maximum operating depth of a nuclear submarine was that shallow. Has the US Navy shared with climate scientists the temperature data that has been collected by nuclear submarines operating in the Arctic Ocean? For obvious reasons, the Argos buoys have not been deployed there.
  39. It cooled mid-century
    GSwift7, that paper may add something to the mechanism illustrated here, they're not mutually exclusive.
  40. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Badgersouth at 04:05 AM on 24 September, 2010 Since the launching of the USS Nautilus in 1954, nuclear submarines have plied the depths of the world’s oceans = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = The maximum operating depth of the Los Angeles class is usualy given at around 200m. Very very shallow operation compared to the depths of the ocean.
  41. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Doug Bostrom - Excellent article, it's extremely informative. I have to admit I was stunned to hear that part of the Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) actually reaches the Northern Hemisphere. Given the time frame of the Trenberth missing heat, are there indications of changes in circulation over the last decade that might be increasing transfer of heat to the bottom waters, away from what is currently measured by the ARGO program?
  42. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    @Arkadiusz "Heat waves in the NH (2003, 2006, 2010) are associated more with violent beginnings of La Nina - cooling of the oceans, fewer algal NPP - cloudiness (CLAW hypothesis). " Only 2010 was begining of "violent" La Nina as i think. http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
  43. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Since the launching of the USS Nautilus in 1954, nuclear submarines have plied the depths of the world’s oceans. My working assumption is that these vessels collected a wealth of information about the temperature of the lower layers of the global ocean system. I also acknowledge that the data collected by the fleets of nuclear submarines is highly classified. Notwithstanding the classified nature of the data, wouldn’t it make sense for the IPCC to establish a special committee to discuss this matter with the governments of those countries with nuclear submarine fleets? Perhaps there is way for the data to be made available without compromising national security concerns. The stakes are high!. It’s worth a try.
  44. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    The carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have melted the Arctic sea ice to its lowest volume since before the rise of human civilisation, dangerously upsetting the energy balance of the entire planet, climate scientists are reporting. "The Arctic sea ice has reached its four lowest summer extents (area covered) in the last four years," said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the U.S. city of Boulder, Colorado. The volume - extent and thickness - of ice left in the Arctic likely reached the lowest ever level this month, Serreze told IPS. "I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. It's not going to recover," he said. Source: “Arctic Ice in Death Spiral,” IPS, Sep 20, 2010 http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52896 I encourage everyone perusing this comment thread to read this article in its entirety. The predictied changes to the Arctic climate system that is already built into the system will have profound effects on the global climate system.
  45. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    Arkadiusz you haven't responded to a remark I have made. It doesn't even relate to your own previous comment. Instead you have gone off in some unrelated tangent.
  46. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    slightly off topic: there is a typo on your web page, climate answers org: you 2080 to 2089 should be 1980 to 1989, in the first page. Quick review, your site looks like a good contribution and rsource. (I did not see how to email alan_marshall directly)
    Moderator Response: Author: Thanks Peter. I have now fixed the typo.
  47. It cooled mid-century
    How does this relate to this recent article? http://www.physorg.com/news204381778.html The story suggests that sea temperatures actually did decrease sharply around this period of time, if I'm reading it right. I haven't read the details in Nature, so I haven't seen the details. It seems to contrast with some of what you have here.
  48. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Suggestion - further posts regarding the tropospheric hot spot should move to the appropriate threads, such as There's no tropospheric hot spot, as it's off topic here.
  49. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Of note in regards to the Douglass et al 2007 paper BP referred to is the rebuttal by Santer et al 2008, which states: "Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations."
  50. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Re Arctic Ice. Okay will read what is on this site and come back. But what I really wanted to know was opinions on 'future' ice (next year, year after, etc.).

Prev  2175  2176  2177  2178  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  2184  2185  2186  2187  2188  2189  2190  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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