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  2191  2192  2193  2194  2195  2196  2197  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  Next

Comments 109901 to 109950:

  1. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    "Quote realclimate again and I'll counter with Lord Monckton" Umm, a reference to realclimate is to the opinion of working, publishing climate scientists, carefully referenced to published works. You seriously believe that Monckton's fantasies are of equal worth? You value clueless amateurs over publishing professionals?
  2. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Michael sweet - well you did warn me not to bother. I see what you mean. Sigh. Johnd - guilty as charged - I only gave BOM site cursory look. And while I find the idea the that BOM network is better for climate than the global radiation network laughable, I do agree that physics should work at the BOM sites. And it does. The ground is much more efficient radiator than air, so even when no inversion takes place, the boundary layer will have overnight minimum lower than air above. If you insist on using the BOM network, then to see the effect of backradiation, you need to compare data where backradiation is different. Use humidity as proxy for backradiation. Compare rate of overnight cooling from approximately same temperature between time of high humidity and low humidity. You really need hourly data to do this properly but temperature min/max range between say Alice Springs and Northern Queensland should you give a crude idea.
  3. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    The distance from Jupiter's north pole to south pole is shorter than the distance from terminator to terminator (across the equator). This means that there is less intervening matter between the proposed heat source (the planet's core) and the cloud tops over the poles, then there is over the equator. Jupiter's poles should be warmer then the equator, if the sun doesn't drive Jovian weather. The author says "It is believed these changes will be catalysed by storms that merge into one super-storm, inhibiting the planet’s ability to mix heat." Prior to the emergence of the second and third Great Red Spots on Jupiter, the planet's ability to mix heat was closely studied during the 1994 impact of comet Shoemaker Levi. There is virtually no mixing across the belts and bands of Jupiter for a super-storm to inhibit. But there are these new super storms. These great storms are anti cyclones, high pressure areas of heat pushing up from the center, rather then low pressure storms like our hurricanes. Think of them like the turkey timer that pops out when the bird is done. It's not a matter of computer models. You can see Jupiter's "turkey timers" in a backyard telescope. Unlike the stuff these guys are selling, Jupiter has global warming you can see.
  4. It's not bad
    and why not... http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/2/g093lhtpEFo
  5. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    just because we cannot attribute warming to anything else, doesn't leave CO2 etc. does it? Is correlation causation? In fact, there is no correlation though, is there? No, correlation is not causation. Greenhouse forcing is not merely correlated with warming, it has certain characteristics which can and have been experimentally shown to account for warming. Satellites have measured less heat escaping to space at the wavelengths which are known - through proven principles of physics - to be absorbed by GHGs. Instruments on the Earth's surface have measured thermal radiation commensurate with that absorbed energy, showing that it is being added to the energy balance of the Earth. With increasing CO2 we should surely see that mercury rising, shouldn't we Guy? What's happened to the heat? Ocean heat content is still rising. So as I'd said before, merely looking at a small portion of one set of data is not sufficient cause to conclude that warming is not occurring, or that the current state of understanding is wrong. what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified?...Is it, for example, a 10-year long downturn in global temps, or a 10-year period of reduced ocean temps? I think we settled on a period of 15-20 years. We're 10 years into that. As noted, ocean heat content is not decreasing, so even your assertion fails on its face. As I'd also said before, the understanding of global climate change is based on multiple converging lines of evidence. Even if one were to posit that a five- or ten-year drop in surface temperature measurements was statistically significant, you'd still have to contend with the other lines of evidence (ocean heat content, downward radiation at CO2 absorption wavelengths, faster warming at night than during the day, etc.) which indicate warming. So your question has been asked and answered. May I be permitted a question of my own? What evidence would you find convincing of a human fingerprint on global climate change?
  6. It's not bad
    and this http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2010/08/bbb.html
  7. It's not bad
    Hello all, Just to throw this into the mix... http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/1/uE6at2IEUOU
  8. Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
    Johnd has not bothered to read Spencers' home experiment showing backradiation so he does not understand the basics. He feels it is better to keep an open mind. The temperature of the backradiation is less than the temperature of the surface. That is why you get the temperatures you see in your chart. It is exactly what is expected. The total backradiation is higher than the sun because it is emitted from the entire atmosphere and the sun is a point source. Spencer describes it as 30-75 degrees colder. Yes Johnd, it is confusing that a colder atmosphere can warm the surface with backradiation. Read the links to Spencer where he explains the effect. The backradiation keeps the surface warmer than it would have been, but does not provide heating in the way you seem to be expecting. I see you are over 100 posts on this now and still have not been able to get the basics. Another 100 or so and it will be a contest with the waste heat thread.
  9. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    mfripp - A simpler explanation, courtesy of somebody else here who I can't find a reference to at the moment. A glacier isn't static - snow constantly falls at the top, turns into ice, moves down the glacier, and melts or breaks away at the bottom. Think of this as a queue for concert tickets. The line is 100 people long, with 10 people a minute arriving, and 10 people a minute getting their tickets and entering the show. The makeup of the line is constantly changing, but stays at 100 people long. Now change conditions - a few more (5 per minute?) people start to arrive for tickets, but another gatekeeper comes on shift and an additional 10 people per minute enter the show. That means every minute the line shrinks by 5 people, and after 20 minutes the line is gone. It's not a phase transition, but a change in rates that previously balanced.
  10. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    mfripp - That's an excellent question on what difference does a few degrees make. The reason why it makes a difference is because when you look at glacial growth and shrinkage, it's not a phase transition all by itself (crossing 0C, starting to melt the ice cube), but rather a change in relative rates. Glaciers are constantly accumulating mass at the top - snowfall compacting into ice. Slight warming actually increases this rate, as it's more likely to snow around 0C than -20C; more water in the atmosphere for snowfalls. This ice then moves down the glacial valley, driven by pressure from above, lubricated by meltwater at the bottom, limited by back-pressure from the ice at the lower end of the glacier. At the end of the glacier (terminus) pieces constantly melt, break off (calving or splitting off large chunks). The rate at which this occurs depends on the air temperature at the lower end of the glacier and upon the water temperature. If a glacier is 'static', or not growing or shrinking, then the accumulation and melt/break-off rates are identical. Warming increases the accumulation rate under many conditions (more snow, as above), but greatly increases the melt rate at the terminus. When the rates are out of balance, the total mass of the glacier changes - it shrinks under warming conditions. This is accelerated by factors such as increasing calving and break-offs at the terminus of the glacier reducing the back pressure on the rest of the glacier - it starts to slide faster down the valleys, pushing more ice into the warm terminus. Increased meltwater along the course of the glacier has the same effect - speeding it's movement towards the terminus, the warmest area. So - it's not a phase transition, but rather an adjustment of the accumulation/reduction rates of the glacier that affect its mass with temperature. Is that helpful?
  11. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    At some point, could you explain why a 3-5C temperature change is the difference between glaciers and heatwaves? I believe the data that the difference between ice ages is about 3-5C. I just don't understand. If the temperature outside is 3-5 hotter or colder, then I barely notice the difference. Unless the glacier happens to be on the edge of melting, then why does the small temperature change matter? This is one of the arguments in my office that I am having trouble answering.
    Moderator Response: Good question, and the two responses are good, but please move to a more appropriate thread.
  12. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    Dutil (#4): What is your source for this information? It has been known for years that there is some internal energy source, but that it is that big sounds doubtful. There is no fusion going on even at the core, after all.
  13. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Trueofvoice 172: No, it does not, but 95 years of that was rising solar factors. Only since 1975 (according to Tamino) have we been significantly influencing the climate. [From this site: Early 20th century warming was in large part due to rising solar activity and relatively quiet volcanic activity. However, both factors have played little to no part in the warming since 1975] VeryTallGuy... "1) You do accept that the earth is warming and that the surface temperature record supports this 2) You don't accept that the earth will continue to warm In order for these not to be in contradiction (the point of the article) you need to 1) Reconcile the current warming with something other than an anthropogenic source 2) Predict that the alternative source of heat has or is about to stop." 1. Surely (in science) just because we cannot attribute warming to anything else, doesn't leave CO2 etc. does it? Is correlation causation? In fact, there is no correlation though, is there? 2. The Earth hasn't continued to warm significantly. I'm happy to accept bumps in temps along the way, but we have had 10 years now of remarkably stable temperatures. 0.40 0.46 0.47 0.44 0.48 0.42 0.40 0.32 0.44 0.49? (2010) How so - against ever-increasing emissions of CO2 and methane? Why isn't the temperature rising Guy? This is exactly why I came on here. I wanted to know what would it take for man-made global warming to be falsified?...Is it, for example, a 10-year long downturn in global temps, or a 10-year period of reduced ocean temps? I think we settled on a period of 15-20 years. We're 10 years into that. Not only that but there's been no cooling from any volcanism in that 10-year period. With increasing CO2 we should surely see that mercury rising, shouldn't we Guy? What's happened to the heat? I'd love to hear your response! Albatross. Quote realclimate again and I'll counter with Lord Monckton! JMurphy. Not worthy of a response, I'm afraid. But if you want to re-write that in a more-polite manner, then I'd be happy to.
  14. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    ansliss has hit the nail on the head: 'skeptics' using this argument are rejecting the sure evidence and accepting the extremely dubious. It is bizarre to think that we can know the climate of the distant planets so well, and not know our own. Such behavior is a very strong indicator that they are not interested in the truth in the first place. They are only interested in vaguely plausible arguments encouraging them to believe what they already believe; or worse yet, to hoodwink others into believing what they themselves know is false.
  15. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    @Graham: How about this for the bullet point answer: "What happens on Jupiter, stays on Jupiter."
  16. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Dappledwater #215 Way beyond my expertise I'm afraid, I'd be bound to get all sorts of things wrong, like claiming spurious accuracy for data, making wide reaching conclusions not supported by other datasets, err.... Seriously, I'm a very, VERY long way from being qualified to post on OHC. Interested to hear what an actual expert would say though.
  17. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    ClimateWatcher... I have to say that I think your excessive use of charts and diagrams is not contributing to your arguments. It's more of a distraction. I'm personally curious about your perspective but find the charts break up the flow of the conversation. You might try imbedding links instead. There is a link at the bottom of the page for the proper technique for doing this. Just trying to be helpful.
  18. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    This from NOAA-NODC: "A second XBT Fall Rate Workshop* will be held August 25-27, 2010 in Hamburg, Germany." Wonder what their findings were?
  19. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    CBD @ 7 - Prof Barber's talk at the Polar Science Conference. His lecture starts at 12 mins.
  20. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    OT, but can we please refrain from using the word "harvest". Not to be pedantic, but wee harvest things that we plant like crops and trees in plantations (i.e., not old growth). We most definitely do not "harvest" polar bears. It is a polar bear hunt. This term has slowly crept into the literature overt the years (thanks to industry reports if I recall correctly), to the point that even conservation and wildlife biologists are now using it. Sigh.
  21. European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
    @ Daniel Bailey Me again! I've copied bits of your explanation with extra questions... 'Both use a baseline of 1989-2001...' Is this baseline an average temperature for this period? If not, how is this baseline calculated? '...and use anomalies instead of temperatures...' Hang on, what is an anomaly if it isn't a temperature. Is an anomaly a temperature above or below the baseline reference? If not how is an anomaly classified? '...to reduce weather-related noise in the data. Both are surface-layer (2-meter)...' You mean ground surface temperature readings by this? 'Figure 1 shows that, in the 40 years of data shown, land temps away from the tropics have warmed in the last 10 years relative to the other 30 years of data.' Yep I see that. I also see that a line of best fit would show a warming trend for the 40 year period. Can anybody explain the apparent dramatic shift 10-15 years ago? Or can I not read the graph in this manner? @mikemcc 'Johngee - It's a plot of the difference between the calculated global average and an average of those temperatures recorded from 1989 to 2001' Is that kind of what I'm saying above or am I way off? '(if you look at the 'area under the graph' for that period it will average out at 0.0 anomaly). It's showing how the calculated global temperature has changed with respect to that period. The period chosen is arbitrary, though it helps to use the same comparison period as everyone else to make comparisons easier.' Woa there... my calculus is good enough only to regognise that's what your talking about!! The big C is my next mathematical mission... should I choose to accept it :o)
  22. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    CBDunkerson, the site says that in various sub-populations hunting is a problem (e.g. Davis Strait), and warming in others (e.g. WHB). Clearly if the total harvest is sustainable, then climate change is too on a total basis (since it is only a factor for some sub-populations). The deceptive part is that populations are declining as a whole because of hunting as the primary factor. Climate change is secondary along with other factors especially when you count climate change as a benefit for some sub-populations. The deceptive part is that the entire hunting discussion is missing as if it doesn't exist.
  23. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    CBDunkerson... "Barber's point was that the satellites estimates were showing incorrect results for that area... which was proved by direct observation." Isn't this what we call "ground truthing?" The manual, first person observation for validation of satellite data.
  24. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Here, via an email exchange, are the responses from Tim Boyd of the NODC to a set of questions that I posed to him -- see Badgersouth 208. The methodology we use for computing OHC from Argo floats and moored buoys (TAO/PIRATA/RAMA) is the same method we developed for prior data types (CTD, bottle, XBT, MBT) as detailed in the following publications: Levitus, S., J.I. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, R.A. Locarnini, H.E. Garcia, and A.V. Mishonov, 2009: Global Ocean Heat Content 1955-2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems. Geophys. Res. Lett. , 36, L07608, doi:10.1029/2008GL037155. Levitus, S., J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer, 2005: Warming of the World Ocean, 1955-2003. Geophys. Res. Lett. , 32, L02604, doi:10.1029GL021592. Levitus, S., J.I. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, C. Stephens, 2000: Warming of the World Ocean. Science, 287, 2225-2229. The basic method remains the same, with some variations, as described in the papers. The largest variant is the correction of XBT data as described in the 2009 paper. The work was done here at the National Oceanographic Data Center. There is, at the moment, no advisory committee. However, the heat content values and method of calcuation are compared by other research groups to their own and others heat content estimates and to model output and to heat content estimates for other parts of the Earth's climate system. The time varying problem with the XBT temperatures was discovered during such a comparison.
  25. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    44, ClimateWatcher: These points should be addressed/incorporated in a simulation that was intended to calculate climate trends (and thus climate sensitivity) by averaged-over dynamics. This article does not describe such a simulation. It's a simple analytical model intended to clarify an issue that has, according to John Cook, come up a number of times before: Yes, it is possible for a dynamical system to have a substantial positive feedback without blowing up.
  26. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    ClimateWatcher, That cloudy days reduce the ocean's absorption of light is offset by the insulatory effect of the cloud cover. The ocean may not absorb as much, but it also can't radiate as much.
  27. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "- Case 2: Sea ice is gone, so that same area is now bare ocean. The Sun's rays come down, and, to excellent approximation, are completely absorbed by the water." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But only on the clear days: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/np2010/cam1-2010.mov And only when ice has melted and the sun is more than ten degrees above the horizon. (melt season peaks nearer the autumnal equinox when the ceases to shine upon the pole, than the summer solstice when the sun rises to it's max of only 43 degrees or so above the horizon on the Arctic coast). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The "blanketing" capability of the ice becomes interesting if you think there is some reason that the water under the ice is going to be WARMER than the air, on the average." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On annual average, of course, the Arctic waters are in fact warmer than the air temperatures above the ice. (and even at the same temperatures, the waters would still have a greater heat content).
  28. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    HumanityRules, That you don't like the way a graph looks isn't evidence against its validity. "I'm going with" is also rather vague on supporting evidence. I'm not sure what you think can be accomplished with this kind of argument.
  29. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Eric #171, as I pointed out there, the 'other thread' was a response to skeptic claims that polar bear numbers are increasing. They cited a 2006 study showing polar bear populations decreasing due to habitat loss. Leaving out that hunting also reduces polar bear numbers is in no way "deceptive" in a thread aimed at countering claims that numbers are INcreasing. That said, the very site you reference says, "Annual harvest is between 500 and 700 bears or 2-3% of the world population of about 25,000 bears and is thought to be sustainable." The total polar bear harvest is thought to be sustainable. They have concerns that individual sub-populations are currently over-hunted, but the quotas are adjusted regularly to address such problems. Over hunting would be a problem if there were no controls in place to stop it. Since there are, and the total polar bear population increased for decades under those hunting controls, it is simply insupportable to claim that hunting is a primary cause of declining polar bear numbers over the past few decades. Habitat loss is a very different story - in that it has caused those trends of increasing polar bear numbers to stop and now reverse and we can't just 'set a new quota' to fix it.
  30. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    You can add the fact the Jupiter emit twice the energy he received from the Sun in space. There is a large internal source of energy that is almost as large as the Sun.
  31. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz, The intransitive of "believe" has two uses: One is to have firm religious conviction; the other is to have an opinion based on thought, meaning "acceptance". The papers in which you will see the word believe will invariably qualify it, as in "We believe a continued downward trend in ice volume is likely". This is called acceptance. No scientist will "believe" in a theory as absolutely true. You have stated, "I stopped believing in AGW when the blue line went down". This essentially means your belief was based on nothing (akin to religious faith), as a five-year trend is simply insufficient to draw conclusions from. Answer me this question: does a five-year period outweigh 130 years of increasing temperatures?
  32. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    archiesteel, from http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html. That "single" population is the worst by percentage, but smaller populations like Western Hudson Bay can't sustain a harvest of 44 out of 1000 either. If I am supposedly "minimizing" the CC threat, the other thread is deceptive by leaving out hunting entirely.
  33. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    How about this for a novel skeptic argument: Big Mystery: Jupiter loses a stripe In a development that has transformed the appearance of the solar system's largest planet, one of Jupiter's two main cloud belts has completely disappeared. ... Known as the South Equatorial Belt (SEB), the brown cloudy band is twice as wide as Earth and more than twenty times as long. The loss of such an enormous "stripe" can be seen with ease halfway across the solar system. " This appears to be a 'natural cycle': "The SEB fades at irregular intervals, most recently in 1973-75, 1989-90, 1993, 2007, 2010," If some of these years sound familiar, that's because they are La Nina years! Please note: this was an attempt at humor.
  34. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Badger, Or a workshop which brings all the top scientists in the field into the same room for a week. Something has to be done to sort out this mess. Lyman et al. (2010) have tried and shed some light on the myriad of problems, but I think more still needs to be and must be done on this file. For now, and until shown otherwise, Lyman et al's (2010) conclusion that there has been robust (I bit of an overstatement in my opinion) warming in the global oceans should be taken as the latest and best understanding, and certainly does not support stating that "global warming has not been occurring since 2004".
  35. What about that skeptic argument that Jupiter is warming?
    And as for Jupiter, let's not forget the inconsistency of relying on computer models for Jupiter while rejecting the results of the far better models for the Earth.
  36. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Eric: "archiesteel, my response was on the polar bear thread basically that hunting 10% of a bear population per year makes all other hypothetical threats moot." A single population out of 19 surveyed. As I said, you're cherry-picking in order to minimize the threat climate change poses to polar bears, and ignore my other points (such as bears migrating further south, with at least one recorded instance of a polar bear-brown bear mating). That said, I still can't find the mention of 200 hunted in the Baffin Bay area in the links you provided. Can you repost it and indicate where the figure is in the article?
  37. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Baz "If you run a bath of saline water and you add a teaspoon of sugar, you haven't 'sweetened' it - do you see?" Actually, you *have* sweetened it, in the sense you've made it a bit sweeter. "Sweet" is not a binary state, i.e. sweet/non-sweet. Sweetness, like the pH value, is a continuum. So if I put a little bit of sugar in my spaghetti sauce, I'm sweetening it, even though it'll still be more salty than sweet. Similarly, if you're lowering the pH, you're making it more acidic (i.e. you're increasing the number of hydrogen ions), even though it's still a base. Again, if you have an alternative to the scientifically-accepted term "acidification," please share it with us. "However, I wanted to try and stop something which I've witnessed seems to happen on AGW forums so often." Nice way to show your bias here. Putting words into soemone else's mouth is much more prevalent on anti-AGW forums than on a scientifically-oriented site such as this one. The fact you feel this is mostly a feature of AGW forums illustrates selective bias. Try to be more objective. "I DO NOT accept that there is sufficient evidence to show that we WILL get warming as a result of our emissions." Well, let me use your rhetorical tactic and as you how much (and which) evidence would convince you that increased CO2 will increase the warming? Right now, it appears you simply don't *want* to consider evidence that supports AGW theory. "Each time we're treated to 'Scientists say that the effect could see millions die' " Do you have repeated examples of such claims? It seems to me you're engaging in hyperbole, here. How about the claims made by contrarians that transitioning away from fossil fuels would cause millions to die? Are you also skeptical of these? "I do not see how we can state that positive feedbacks will occur to dramatically warm the planet, when we don't understand - and cannot adequately model - the climate system" The fact is we understand it better than you seem to believe. That's why GCM predictions, by and large, have been confirmed by observation. "We don't swallow "we're doomed"." Don't say "we." You're only speaking for yourself, here. "Having seen Hansen's Scenarios we know he got it wrong. Admit it!" Really? Care to provide some evidence? "Sometimes, listening to scientists, it's remarkably like listening to politicians. Now that's a sad state of affairs, isn't it? Science has always been riddled with egos and personality, now we've thrown dependent-grants into it." When all else fails, attack the integrity of scientists, right? There's no indication that grants are dependent on a research's outcome. Additionally, since you claim scientists are ego-driven, then if someone was making false claims other reputable scientists would quickly show how he's wrong. Yet, we have a near-consensus...how could that be? I'm sorry, but your arguments aren't convincing, nor did you adequately respond to the (polite) counter-arguments you've been presented with. You have to approach this in a more rational manner, which means you first have to accept that changing your belief about AGW based on a five-year period is an irrational decision.
  38. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    archiesteel, my response was on the polar bear thread basically that hunting 10% of a bear population per year makes all other hypothetical threats moot. My main point for bringing it up is giving a complete (not one-sided) depiction of the problem.
  39. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz, Thanks for the clairification. As I can't put all the comments on one page here, it's too hard to search all yours for precisely what you said, but it was along the lines of: "I stopped believing in AGW when the blue line went down", followed by "fair enough, but I still don't accept AGW" which I read as not accepting continued warming was compatible with the temperature data. So to be clear: 1) You do accept that the earth is warming and that the surface temperature record supports this 2) You don't accept that the earth will continue to warm In order for these not to be in contradiction (the point of the article) you need to 1) Reconcile the current warming with something other than an anthropogenic source 2) Predict that the alternative source of heat has or is about to stop. I'd love to hear your response ! VTG
  40. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    @Eric: you have still to provide concrete evidence that hunting represents a bigger threat to the global polar bear population than climate change. Hunting also doesn't explain why polar bears are venturing further south - into brown bear territory - than they've done before. In fact, it doesn't make sense that bears would risk getting closer to such an existential threat if that was the case.
  41. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Speaking of the heat content of the lithosphere… Check out: “Using Underground Clues to Determine Past Atmospheric Heat” posted yesterday (Sep 13) on Science Daily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831095138.htm
  42. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    39, TimTheToolMan: - Case 1: Sea ice covers an area of ocean. The Sun's rays come down, bounce off into the sky. To excellent approximation, none of the energy is absorbed by the ice, nor is the reflected light absorbed by the atmosphere. Therefore, all that sunlight contributes essentially 0 to the radiant energy budget. - Case 2: Sea ice is gone, so that same area is now bare ocean. The Sun's rays come down, and, to excellent approximation, are completely absorbed by the water. a) This increases the water temperature a bit, causing it to radiate Infrared (IR) radiation a bit more than before. The radiation of the IR will bring the water's temperature down a bit - but not lower than what it was before the radiation hit: absorbing radiation cannot lower temperature. Therefore, some of that solar heat will be retained in the water, and some will be radiated as IR back to the atmosphere. b) The IR radiated back to the atmosphere will head upwards, but because of greenhouse gases, it will not stream outward as the visible light did, but be bounced around in the atmosphere. The rate of IR escape will not be as high as the rate of IR generation, so there will be a heat build-up. In summary: - When there is ice on the water, the sunlight makes no contribution to heating or cooling the ocean. - When there is no ice on the water, a portion of the sunlight's energy is absorbed and retained in the water, and the rest escapes to the atmosphere; of the escaped energy, some of it escapes to space and some of it is bounced back (resulting in heating). The "blanketing" capability of the ice becomes interesting if you think there is some reason that the water under the ice is going to be WARMER than the air, on the average. In either case, as CBDunkerson pointed out, this article is not a calculation of the actual climate sensitivity, but a demonstration of a mathematical principle: a system with positive feedback can demonstrate naturally self-limiting behavior, it can go for significant amplification without "running for the fences".
  43. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    Albatross 220, Better yet... the NRC create a special committee to delve into this entire ball-of-wax.
  44. Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
    40, Michael Le Page: In the case you mention, the fact that heat radiation increases with temperature will put a lid on the temperature EVENTUALLY, but would not stop a runaway in all cases: As CBDunkerson pointed out, there actually has been a runaway in the case of Venus. Likewise, in the classic case of the sound amplifier, the output of which is fed into the input microphone, there is an ULTIMATE limit based on such constraints as maximum available power; however, these constraints don't have any effect until the system has gone into full squealing mode, due to the positive feedback. They then limit the volume of the squealing. This particular case, discussed in more detail in the Advanced version, shows that there can be a feedback that is ALWAYS positive, yet which is self-limiting. This case, as therein shown, also differs from that of the amplifier with constant gain less than 1: In that case, the output signal itself decreases to zero, rather than stabilizing. By the way: the power of a blackbody radiator goes like (Temperature)^4; it is not exponential in the Temperature.
  45. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    #161 Baz at 00:17 AM on 15 September, 2010 I've seen a lot of "we're doomed" in my life, and the only thing that really concerns me is an asteroid hit, nothing else. Why, a supervolcano comes close. It happens more often and can hit hard.
  46. Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
    VTG, Great idea. I would take it further, A post from NODC and another from PMEL (i.e., groups who obtained different trends in the data between 2004 and 2008/9. Or someone with a good understanding of OHC and the earth's energy budget. For example, Dr. Tremberth or Dr. Palmer. As far as I can tell, Dr. Trenberth does quite a bit of outreach, but he is of course ridiculously busy.
  47. Video update on Arctic sea ice in 2010
    HR, I am sure glad that we have you with all your experience to tell us that Dr. Barbers last 25 years in the arctic were wasted. You sure saw through him! Maybe we should get someone who really knows what is going on, like Goddard or Watts, to tell us about the arctic. For the record, how many years have you spent on an icebreaker in the Arctic? At some point we have to trust that the experts are telling us what they are observing. It serves no purpose to suggest that someone as experienced and respected as Dr. Barber would tell us something, at a major science convention, that is not well backed by on the ground data. The data is there if you want to look. He did not present the data here because it was a summary for an informed audience.
  48. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    You make excellent points though...but one small nit pick, it is Hansen. JMurphy, I'm beginning to think "concern troll".
  49. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz, More off-topic comments. This thread is about "The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism". Re Hansen's predictions being wrong. I'm afraid that assessment (made on contrarian pseudo-science blogs) has been shown to be wrong. Early projections by Manabe et al. (1992) and Hansen (1988) have been shown to be remarkably good given the knowledge, fairly limited sophistication of the models at the time, and assumptions that had to be made about GHG emissions. Dr. Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate concluded: "My assessment is that the model results were as consistent with the real world over this period as could possibly be expected and are therefore a useful demonstration of the model’s consistency with the real world. Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get." You can read more about Hansen's projection for yourself here at SS, or at RealClimate. As for ocean acidification, I'm afraid whatever you might believe is the correct terminology is irrelevant. Like I said before, but which you seem to have ignored, for better or worse, that is the term the EXPERTS use....deal with it. If you have an issue email NOAA-PMEL, WHOI, Scripps etc. Even better, write a paper in a peer-reviewed journal making your case why they are wrong. I could address a bunch of other misguided comments that you have (about uncertainty and internal climate modes, for example), but that would ALSO be off topic. Please go to the appropriate thread for each of your arguments--you will see that your concerns and "arguments" have been addressed before. Thanks.
  50. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Baz wrote : "We don't swallow "we're doomed". Having seen Hansen's Scenarios we know he got it wrong. Admit it! Sometimes, listening to scientists, it's remarkably like listening to politicians. Now that's a sad state of affairs, isn't it? Science has always been riddled with egos and personality, now we've thrown dependent-grants into it." You really are going through all the tactics of the so-called skeptics, aren't you ? First you claim to have been a "believer". Then you claim to have stopped 'believing' because of a 5 year period of...well, something that made sense to you - you still haven't explained anything about the reasons, beyond generalisations. Then you claim to be here to see what the "believers' think - forgetting that you claim that you used to be one, of course. Now you identify yourself with the common people or something : "WE don't...", "WE know...". Plus, you make a claim about Hanson (one of the bogeymen to the so-called skeptics), without trying to explain what it is you are trying to claim. Finally you equate scientists with politicians, so you can belittle them in comparison, and you bring in the old chestnut of all that lovely money being wasted on grants to the scientists who believe - who are producing studies only so they can get rich quick and join in that great big conspiracy. You are busted. Oh, and to help you out with your difficulty over acknowledging ocean-acidification, perhaps you might like to attend this, where all will be explained : A consortium of institutions and organizations from Monterey, California has successfully bid to host the third symposium on The Ocean in a High-CO2 World in autumn 2012. The symposium aims to attract more than 300 of the world’s leading scientists to discuss the impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms, ecosystems, and biogeochemical cycles. It will also cover socio-economic consequences of ocean acidification, including policy and management implications. The symposium is sponsored by the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO, and International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), which selected the Monterey consortium from eight bids to host the meeting. The international Planning Committee is led by Prof. Dr. Ulf Riebesell of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences (Germany), and the local organization is led by Dr. Jim Barry of Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute and supported by a consortium of institutions. The symposium is the third in a series and will build on the successes of the Paris and Monaco symposia in 2004 and 2008, respectively. The Paris meeting was seminal in identifying the magnitude of ocean acidification for marine ecosystems and the outcomes of the Monaco symposium, focusing on the advances in knowledge of the affects on marine organisms, also made an impact on a broader audience through a Summary for Policymakers and the Monaco Declaration. Hang on, the UN are involved : must be a conspiracy, right ?

Prev  2191  2192  2193  2194  2195  2196  2197  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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