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  2221  2222  2223  2224  2225  2226  2227  2228  2229  2230  2231  2232  2233  2234  2235  2236  Next

Comments 111401 to 111450:

  1. Climate's changed before
    Svettypoo I'm guessing you're pretty new to this topic, that or you're practicing some form of impressionism by ignoring important features of this topic. Notice that we've been adding C02 to the atmosphere in significant quantities only for the past 150 years, reaching close to 400ppm only in the past couple of decades. This means atmospheric temperature has not come close to equilibrating to the temperature it can be expected to reach at the present concentration, let alone where it'll eventually settle assuming we end up in the 800-1000ppm level where my intuition (cynicism?) suggests we'll sit given our indolence, complacency and proclivity to believe in comforting fairy tales. As to your loner perspective on solar evolution, yes I did read to the end of your version of "I doubt it" and found that part unpersuasive. Start here w/Spencer Weart's informative book on the topic of global warming to get caught up, if indeed you're fresh.
  2. What caused early 20th Century warming?
    muoncounter #35 I was rather looking forward to your reply to my post #36. It also is directly relevant to the latest topic concerning the surface temperature record.
  3. Comparing volcanic CO2 to human CO2
    I planted eight trees about 15 years ago. Only one of these is still alive. Meanwhile, two or three autochthonous species sprang up where nature dictated. The "CO2 problem" is the unnatural "population problem" that CO2 has amplified. Arguments based on per capita oil consumption are only part of the story. Its not an issue about energy or heat, as much as taking stock in what nature is able to deliver.
  4. Climate's changed before
    svettypoo - CO2 has, in the paleo record, been a component of climate change. In warming, as CO2 is forced out of warmer waters, it's been a positive feedback. When CO2 weathers into newly exposed rocks, dropping temperatures, it's been a forcing. Currently we're changing CO2 levels at 100x any paleo recorded rate. That makes CO2 the first to change, and thus it's the forcing on the climate. Doubling CO2 causes ~1°C, and with the various water vapor and other feedbacks, an estimated 3°C warming. As to solar activity - we have quite literally millions (billions?) of data points as to the evolution of stars of our sun's mass - via astronomy. Not to mention the various paleo proxies. We know that stars of our sun's type evolve warming over time. Unless you have solid evidence indicating basic astronomy and stellar lifetimes are wrong? As to your graph - You have quite clearly not incorporated the 'warming sun' into it. The evidence others have presented indicate that CO2 levels and solar forcing together match quite well to temperature.
  5. Climate's changed before
    Just so I'm clear on your position, svettypoo, what would you consider evidence of CO2 being the primary driver of the currently-occurring climate change? What would that evidence be? What would make you say, "Aha! Ok, I see it now"? Or do you think it's fundamentally impossible to provide, no matter what the conditions?
  6. Climate's changed before
    doug_bostrom, I hope you are not trying to argue paleoclimatic analysis with forest fire and beetle phenomena of the last several decades. I don't mean to be rude but please stay on topic. Secondly, I don't think you completed your thought in the third paragraph. You wrote "Levels of C02 unprecedented since ~15 million years ago when global temperatures were several degrees higher, is that the missing empirical evidence you're talking about, svettypoo?" I am going to assume you mean current levels of CO2 are unprecedented since ~15 mil years ago when global temperatures were several degrees higher. The logical question is if the CO2 is the major climate driver and ppm was matched 15 mil years ago and the average temp was several degrees warmer, why isn't it several degrees warmer now? I have not confirmed your statements anywhere but if they are true, they would only strengthen a AGW sceptic argument... I will give you a chance to explain what you meant with no judgement... I did form a conclusion. Did you not read my previous post? If I wasn't clear enough i will state it now. I concluded that CO2 has never been empirically shown with statistical significance to be the driver of climate and yet the IPCC models place it in that very position. I would also like to address my emphasis on empirical evidence. One can not claim to have a record of solar activity for the past 500 million years when such a record doesn't exist. If you would have kept on reading my post you would have read that even if we were to use the dim young sun hypothesized irridiation and combine it with the CO2 proxies as the major climate drivers we would not be able to explain prove causation of CO2 driven temperature. Lastly, I have tried to be as clear as possible in describing my argument and conclusion. Perhaps you could share some of your conclusions? Thanks.
  7. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    You tell me, johnd. You're the person saying "I doubt it." Look up the publications of the researchers you're contradicting, find the errors and oversights you imply invalidate their conclusions, show by persuasion how your speculations about confounding factors are relevant.
  8. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    michael sweet at 10:17 AM, if the solstices and equinoxes are not moving then that calls into question the existence of the related Milankovitch cycle. You appear to be claiming that it doesn't exist as I believe is commonly accepted, or else has stalled. What research is there to support such a claim?
  9. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    doug_bostrom at 09:56 AM, which point are you referring to, clouds or the Milankovich axis wobble cycle?
  10. Comparing volcanic CO2 to human CO2
    TOP: According to NASA there are about 400 billion trees on the planet. If 7 billion of us each planted 5 trees per year, then over 12 years, we'd have doubled that figure. That's a lot of grazing land, crop land or desert to convert to forest in such a short time. And I wish that each of the trees I planted recently would grow to be a ton in ten years - and I live in a temperate rainforest climate zone. For now.
  11. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains
    I see people are trying the "ocean water is well buffered" argument again. But wait a minute: we have managed to lower the pH _despite_ that buffering. What do you think that means will happen as we continue to pour yet MORE CO2 into the ocean? Soon, we will have only jellyfish to eat from the sea. Unless we wise up and do it FAST.
  12. Comparing volcanic CO2 to human CO2
    Great, TOP. How many trees have you planted? Your immediate family? Friends? Coworkers? Out of your first circle of acquainted men, women and children, how many or what fraction have planted 5 trees this year?
  13. Climate's changed before
    Beautiful blazing BC, burning bark and beetles. Today's climate sensitivity and models (at least issued by the IPCC) place an unprecedented emphasis on CO2, which simply isn't supported by the empirical record. Levels of C02 unprecedented since ~15 million years ago when global temperatures were several degrees higher, is that the missing empirical evidence you're talking about, svettypoo? I suppose we can dodge forming a conclusion by sticking with an appropriate definition of "empirical evidence."
  14. Comparing volcanic CO2 to human CO2
    If every man, woman and child on the planet plants 5 trees a year the fossil fuel CO2 problem is fixed. Consider that each tree grows to 1 ton in ten years.
  15. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    johnd at 09:15 AM on 29 August, 2010 Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in the last 250 years The paper Climate Change and Cherry Tree Blossom Festivals in Japan shows how the date of flowering for some is now two or three weeks earlier than it was in their youth. From checking records going back to the 11th Century it states that "while temperatures have varied over this period, recent decades have been warmer on average than any time during the past 1000 years"
  16. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    Johnd, Have you ever heard of leap years? Provide evidence of your extraordinary claim that the seasons are precessing as you claim. I note that summer solstice has not shifted, as it would with your claim. Please explain how the seasons could change but the solstice would not. Remember that these types of claim affect your reputation for reliability.
  17. Climate's changed before
    To Dappledwater: Sadly your link was broken and I couldn't open it. To quote you, "Furthermore, how exactly do you think the estimates for climate sensitivity came about, if not from the study of Earth's previous climates?" You try and mock me with this statement... but I couldn't agree with you more. I only wish estimates for climate sensitivity came from the Earth's previous climate. This however, isn't the case. Today's climate sensitivity and models (at least issued by the IPCC) place an unprecedented emphasis on CO2, which simply isn't supported by the empirical record.
  18. Climate's changed before
    I commented a little more than a week ago and I received some kind responses. Sorry I haven't answered yet, I've been camping in beautiful British Columbia with the family. The OP was nice enough to leave me a comment. I have to first respond that there are no records of solar activity that go back more than 1000 years (and even those are unreliable) There aren't even available proxies we can use to estimate solar activity. You must be refering to the young dim sun hypothesis... As explained earlier, this would make it impossible to find 3 degrees of warming through a doubling of CO2 "empirically." Proving something empirically means that you would have to prove it through records or experimentation. There is no empirical way to show any trends in the sun's history. Perhaps the dim sun hypothesis is correct and the sun has been warming (I believe this is probable although uncertain) even then CO2 doesn't tell doesn't even come close to telling the rest of the story. The solar irridiance has to make some pretty funky and unscientific loops to make CO2 be strongly correlated with temperature in the long term. Perhaps in the short term there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temp but I believe the 800 year lag weakens a CO2 - temp causation. I would like to know where you find estimates of detailed solar irridiance in the past. Furthermore I am even more curious of the methodology of how you combine these "guesstimates" with CO2 proxies to find a close correlation with temp. Lastly, I couldn't access your first link. I'm not sure if its broken or I am trying to open it wrongly. I am new to this site. Thank you
  19. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    Johnd, your speculation, or can you provide cites of sufficient quantity and quality as to suggest the many researchers practicing in several domains you contradict are so incorrect as to warrant dismissing their collective evidence? I hear "I doubt it." Is that all?
  20. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    johnd at 03:25 AM on 29 August, 2010 I suppose it depends which cloud cover dataset you use. The longer term surface observation dataset (SOBS) also shows a gradual increase in global mean cloud cover over a longer period than shown below. From the 2009 NOAA State of the Climate BAMS supplement.
  21. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    Steve O at 08:45 AM, there are at least a couple of points that can probably be removed from your list, the most obvious being the changing times of the seasons, and the related blossoming of plants. The reasons for these can be found in the earth's axis precession of one cycle in 25800 years which equates to one complete day every 70 years. During the complete cycle the seasons will move completely through the calender in that time.
  22. Can humans affect global climate?
    All, I appreciate the Armagh stuff should be shifted to a more appropriate thread, but some of the points raised on this thread needed clarifying.
  23. Can humans affect global climate?
    HumanityRules at 14:20 PM on 27 August, 2010 and John Chapman at 15:03 PM on 27 August, 2010 “Why doesn't the Armagh Observatory have records since 2002?” The answer is not due to some hidden agenda as Peter B implies, but is far less exciting. The calibrated Armagh temperature data series to 2002 is from Butler 2005. This paper (submitted 2004) attempts to calibrate the record from the different thermometers and times of observation used in Armagh with data and information available up to the end of 2002. These factors are discussed in the paper, and have most importance for the data prior to the 20th century. An update (to 2004) is available in a more recent NASA study by Wilson 2006, which updates the calibrated records from 1844 to 2004, and of course Peter B correctly points out that up to date monthly records with daily resolution are available at the link he has kindly provided, but I believe this data is not yet in a convenient month by month tabular form. In the following charts I have used full up to date (to July 2010) Armagh monthly records and for comparison (and quick sanity check) the monthly (composite) CET (Central England Temperature) record, (details of CET calibration and error sources given in Parker 2005). Due to the close proximity of these sites, general short and long term correlation is high. The decadal average shows a very similar recent significant upwards trend in both records. This puts the chart in comment 17 (BP) in perspective. However there are some significant trend divergences from the Armagh data in the pre 20th Century period. It is in this period that there are higher uncertainties. In the 20th Century the 100yr trends are indistinguishable, which casts doubt on claims on some skeptical websites that "Urban Heat Island" (UHI) effects may have affected the Central England record. These same websites suggest Armagh is unaffected by UHI. Given the above, an eight year gap in the records (filled from Dublin data), and the discussion of uncertainties in the papers, we should be cautious about interpreting data from a single site from the very early instrumental period, though we are lucky to have these precious early instrumental records. Berényi Péter at 00:23 AM on 28 August, 2010 You state: “For the last 30 years it's +0.21°C/decade. However, for the last 20 years it is only 0.06°C/decade and for the last 80 it's 0.046” I am not sure how you have generated your values. Here are values I derived from the monthly data up to July 2010. Unless I am mistaken the 20 yr and 30 yr trends are not significantly different.
  24. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    Also, if one wants to dispute the temperature record for whatever reason, then they also have to explain away: - changing timing of seasons - receding glaciers - rising sea levels - migration patterns of all sorts of creatures - declining sea ice - upward migration of mountain flora and fauna - increased range of tropical diseases - increased range of certain insects - timing of the icing over and thawing of rivers and lakes - blossoming of plants - and many, many more indicators, of which there are literally thousands of studies One does not need thermometers to ascertain increasing temperatures.
  25. Comparing volcanic CO2 to human CO2
    The second article TOP referred to can be downloaded here. The paper discusses how deglaciation can temporarily speed up the rates of volcanic activity, as a result of the reduced ice load on the volcano. The concluding sentences of the paper help put the magnitude of this effect into the perspective of modern, man-made changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Finally, we estimate that volcanoes emit an excess 0.1 to 0.5 Gt of CO2 during deglaciation. Humans presently emit ~30 Gt of CO2 per year. If volcanic emissions influence the course of glacial/interglacial climates, it gives us pause that the accumulated volcanic CO2 emissions during ~10,000 years of deglaciation would, at current rates, be replicated by only a century of anthropogenic emissions.
  26. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains
    Glenn Tamblyn at 19:12 PM, whilst your reference to the WML focused on CO2, the same conditions will also apply to any heat circulation relating to absorption and release as well as changes in volume due to temperature changes.
  27. CO2 was higher in the past
    Just reading through the posts and I noticed your comment. There were land based life forms during the Ordovician. Plant and animal life. I don't know where you heard that there weren't. There was a major extinction event but this just led to a reduction of biodiversity.
  28. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    @thingadonta: you seem to contradict yourself in your post. First, you write: "A recent paper which measured pH in the last 15 years in the north pacific shows it has experienced an average change of 0.03pH in the last 15 years. I'm not sure this is a rate to which there is concern." You then go on to write: "The geological record indicates that oceans appear to be strongly buffered, and do not change pH easily. They have apparently not changed pH more than 0.6 in the last 300 M years" Minus 0.003 pH per year would yield an decrease of 0.6 pH in a mere 300 years, not 300 million - to me, this rate of change really is matter for concern. Now, to be fair you didn't claim pH dropped by 0.6 over 300My, but rather that this was the extent of the variation (which in itself is meaningless when talking about the rate of change). Fortunately, we can take a look at the CO2 vs. pH graph above to have an idea of the rate at which acidification can take place outside of human intervention. Looking at the last drop of 0.2 in the pH, we can see it took place quite rapidly, but not any quicker than about 2,000 years (there is 20ky per tick on that graph). This is a rate of 0.0001 pH per year, or about 50x slower than the current decrease in pH. That figure is actually quite conservative, as research has shown the current acidification is occuring about 100x faster than what the geological record reveals. Your skepticism is natural, but in this case I think it's clear you're off-mark by two orders of magnitude...
  29. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    Acushla at 20:06 PM, to dismiss the sun, one also has to dismiss variations in cloud cover. So did the long story short response include clouds as a factor and if so what changes in cloud cover was factored in to the nett result.
  30. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains
    thingadonta @18: (Note: some NASA sceintists think the world's ocean water comes from comets-they know nothing about crustal geology and how granites expel water when they cool-which is how the world's oceans formed when the earths crust first cooled; the point is they are ignorant of what goes on in the subsurface. My guess is that they know more about it than you. I've known any number of geologists and geophysicists that worked for NASA--they're not all aeronautical engineers. Where do you think the water that granite expels when it cools comes from in the first place? The bulk of granite is emplaced above subduction zones where water-saturated sediments and rock are subducted and heated, resulting in partial melting in the upper mantle/lower crust. When those melts cool and crystallize (into granite), the water that facilitated the melting is released.
  31. Comparing volcanic CO2 to human CO2
    Cloarec, M.-F. L. and Marty, B. (1991), Volatile fluxes from volcanoes. Terra Nova, 3: 17–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3121.1991.tb00839.x Feedback between deglaciation and volcanic emissions of CO2 harvard.edu [PDF]P Huybers, C Langmuir - … Letters, v286 (3-4), p479-491, 2009 - environment.harvard.edu EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2009
    Moderator Response: Please pay attention to comments policy:

    Links to useful resources are welcome (see HTML tips below). However, comments containing only a link will be deleted. At least provide a short summary of the content of the webpage to facilitate discussion (and show you understand the page you're linking to).

    Naked and/or incomplete citations without any personal contribution are not helpful to discussion.
  32. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    I just finished reading an interesting book on the history of weather and climate data gathering, analysis and modeling; Paul Edwards - A Vast Machine. It's worth a read. He goes through a lot of the caveats and the intricacies of this type of historical trend analysis rife in complex systems science, where you have to go back and forth between historical data sets, adjust for calibration errors and biases in either direction, come up with ever more realistic ways to reconstruct a global dataset from local measurements, in a never ending process to continually improve your reconstruction of the climate record. He focuses a great deal on the interplay between models of various sorts and what we refer to as "the data", and notes that in this type of science there is no such thing as data without models. You constantly have to model things like the changes in measurement devices, adjustments for the UHI effect, interpolate between stations, and so on. There's simply no such thing as meaningful raw data. He points out that the UAH controversy was framed in this mistaken notion that satellites provide "measurements" of global temperatures whereas the surface record is based on such model adjustments, when in reality the satellite data contains some of the most complex modeling work of all. Anyway, bookplug!
  33. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    Kelly O'Day writes: I maintain a csv file of monthly temperature anomalies for the 5 major global temperature series that you can download and analyze in Excel, R or other software. For those who haven't visited Kelly's website, there are all kinds of useful and informative tools and graphics there.
  34. Arctic sea ice... take 2
    I agree that it is important to understand the strengths and limitations of whatever data set you are using. And any of the measures has the potential to mislead if the limitations are not understood. The issues in measuring area in times of surface melt are also strengths: if the area of surface melt is increasing, that tells you something. And melt ponds have a lower albedo than snow covered ice, so they are contributing to the feedback effect in the same way (if to a lesser extent) than open water. But extent doesn't account for open water until it reaches 85%, so it underestimates this effect. And since ice tends to spread out across the surface of water, extent is likely concealing the the degree to which the ice is depleted as solid ice thins and breaks up. But, as you say, any way you slice it, all three measures are in decline and this year will be no exception. Area and extent are headed for the second or third lowest of all time, and volume will almost certainly be the lowest ever.
  35. Comparing volcanic CO2 to human CO2
    Further to Ned and RSVP's thoughts, I think of fossil fuels somewhat as a class 1 lever with the advantage end becoming shorter even as the load becomes heavier. Maybe the GHG problem is the fulcrum being moved in a way that makes supporting the load even more difficult? "Snap" goes the metaphor but we should acknowledge we need to slip something else under the load, soon, or it'll fall. The fossil fuel lever is a tool to be used for temporary application, best put away, it's not a cantilever we can use for permanent structural support.
  36. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    #6, Presumably thingadonta will acknowledge Ned's correction? Or better yet, the fact that his basic claim about the "systematic bias" of the temperature record has been debunked here more times than anyone can count?
  37. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    Presumably thingadonta will acknowledge Ned's correction? It's been quite a while since volunteers did these "outsider" reanalysis efforts, I'm surprised thingadonta is not aware of 'em.
  38. Comparing volcanic CO2 to human CO2
    Ned, Before reading your reply #15, (and as I was driving around town), I realized that while fossil fuels are bad news, they will ironically be counted on for transitioning to alternative technologies, and that this situation may not even be something that could have been avoided. actually thoughtfull No sarcasm intended... lets not confuse a little global warming with assured oxygen deprivation.
  39. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    Why not check out the trends by yourself? I maintain a csv file of monthly temperature anomalies for the 5 major global temperature series that you can download and analyze in Excel, R or other software. The 3 surface station data (GISS, Hadley, NOAA) run from 1880, the satellite data series (RSS, UAH) run from 1979. Here's the link to my do-it-yourself post.
  40. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains
    #24 Mike G "virtually all CaCO3 production in the ocean is biotically driven or facilitated." A question I have is this: in the ocean subsurface, volcanic rocks around mid ocean ridges (not just in the Atlantic-the 100,000km+ of volcanic ridges around the world), where seawater circulates down several thousand metres, carbonate dissolution/precipiation is driven by volcanic procesess, including heat, not biotic processes. This domain is far larger than areas of limestone/biotic procesess. Carbonate-enriched rocks from volcanic processes are widespread. This carbonate isnt biotic related, and it isnt factored into the models. The volcanic domains which produce/effect carbonate levels extend from ocean floors right through to shallow-subaerial environments (eg mId Ocean Ridges-through to areas like NZ North Island). Surely this must have a large effect on ocean pH/carbonate levels?
  41. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains
    18 Thingadonta Yes, we're well aware that the ocean is well-buffered. That is absolutely no comfort to us because it is well-buffered due to the carbonate/bicarbonate buffer system. When you add CO2 to seawater you convert bicarbonate to carbonate. That conversion is what buffers the pH change, but in the process it lowers the bicarbonate concentration in the water. That is bad news for corals and most other extracellular calcifiers which rely on a high ambient bicarbonate concentration to lay down CaCO3. While the change in pH is easier for most people to understand than a change in the CaCO3 saturation state and it does allow us to calculate changes in HCO3/CO3 concentrations, the actual concern over acidification is the change in bicarbonate ions moreso than the change in pH. Also, while most limestone isn't laid down by corals, virtually all CaCO3 production in the ocean is biotically driven or facilitated. There is very little precipitation of CaCO3 in the ocean that's still considered abiotic. As for whether coral reef researchers have factored in the effects of carbonates near the Atlantic ridges- no, because on the timescale we're concerned with they are irrelevant. If we were interested in what would happen in 1000 years or so they would be important. However, they're interfacing with bottom water, not the mixed layer and any changes they induced would take ca. 800 years to be telecommunicated to the mixed layer where most calcifiers, including corals, live. Whether those carbonates are relevant to or have been factored into Archer's or the IPCC's models, I don't know.
  42. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains
    12 Humanity rules, You're making several huge errors here. First, primary producers are bottom of the food chain. While phytoplankton are included in that, they are far from the only constituents. In coastal waters there the highest concentration of biomass is, there is also high productivity of autotrophic bacterioplankton, vascular plants, and benthic micro/macroalgae in addition to the phytoplankton. There are complete food chains that don't include phytoplankton at all. Second, most phytoplankton dies and sinks without being eaten- i.e. it is in excess. A 50% drop in phytoplankton would only equate to a 50% drop in heterotroph biomass if all of the phytoplankton was being eaten. That's not to say that a 50% loss of phytoplankton has no effect, because it does- particularly on C/N/P cycling, but that it does not translate linearly to changes in heterotroph biomass Third, the majority of the world's fish stocks have declined over the historical period. Traditionally we have viewed this as a top-down process (i.e. we're removing them faster than they reproduce), but that doesn't mean that bottom-up processes (lack of food) isn't also behind the decline. Until very recently we just haven't been looking for evidence from that perspective and you tend not to find things you don't look for.
  43. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains
    #8 Thingadonta, Yes, the historical composition of the ocean's carbonate system and pH is modeled, but it's done with the same models used to measure modern values since the constituents cannot be easily measured directly even today. The models are empirically derived and have very small uncertainty ranges for the modern era when seawater B11 and C12/13/14 isotope concentrations are known. #11 thingadonta Actually, we DO take into account the geologic record and the effects that changing carbonate chemistry in the ocean has affected calcifiers in the the past, which is precisely why we're worried about them now. The oceans DID acidify multiple times in the geologic record with major associated diverstiy changes and in at least a few cases, major extinction events. Reefs in particular have been wiped out, with the dominant reef-builders at the time being driven completely or ecologically extinct, 4 or 5 times at least. In the most recent major event, reef building ceased entirely for 12-18 million years and skeleton-building corals virtually disappeared. The re-emergence of calcifying coral diversity and reef building only began again after the seas switched back from calcitic to aragonitic.
  44. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains
    thingadonta writes: A volcanic event such as a flood basalt event associated with a emerging hotspot or Siberian Traps event exceeds rate and magnitude of human C02. From Saunders 2009:
    However, if we consider the province as a whole, the eruption of between 2×10^6 and 3×10^6 km3 of basalt could release 12000 to 18000 Gt of C, enough to significantly change the carbon content of even a Permian atmosphere. Note that the eruption of 18000 Gt of C over 1 million years equates to only 0.018 Gt per year, a fraction of the current output from burning of fossil fuels (~ 7 Gt C/a).
    There's lots of other useful information in Saunders 2009, if you're interested in flood basalt episodes.
  45. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    When I say "see this post" I of course mean "see this post" ... :-)
  46. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    thingadonta, I think you're mistaken there. Re: upwards vs downwards adjustments --- there are many cases where the processing of surface data results in a downward adjustment; you just never see them highlighted at WUWT for some reason. When "skeptic" bloggers Jeff Id and RomanM created their own global temperature reconstruction using surface station data, they found a warmer trend than that from Phil Jones's HADCRUT record. See this post for a more detailed discussion that illustrates how robust the surface temperature trend is. You get very, very similar results to the NASA/CRU temperature records even if you use completely different methods with completely different input data (e.g., daily GSOD data instead of monthly GHCN). Re: satellites --- The RSS satellite record shows a trend of +0.16C/decade. Over the same time period, GISS, HADCRUT, and NCDC also show trends of +0.16C/decade. The four trends are identical to within 0.01C/decade ... and RSS data are not adjusted in any way to match the surface data. Conspiracy theories and speculation about fraud or tampering with the data may be popular in certain other quarters of the blogosphere, but let's avoid them here, please.
  47. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains
    Thingadonta @ 18 - " I dont think so. A volcanic event such as a flood basalt event associated with a emerging hotspot or Siberian Traps event exceeds rate and magnitude of human C02." That's simply your non expert opinion, not supporting evidence. Read the study I linked, it actually addresses such issues.
  48. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains
    HR @ 12 - one of those logical fallacies I suspect - personal incredulity. Much of the food chain higher up, things like fish, squid, shrimps etc have had their populations devastated on a global scale by overfishing, sediment and nutrient run off. How many people notice that decline?. Anyone remember the North Atlantic cod fisheries?. If you spend as much time under the sea, as I do, you do tend to notice the changes to the marine environment. It's not pretty I assure you.
  49. Comparing volcanic CO2 to human CO2
    Thanks, RSVP. If we tried to keep this up over the long term, I think the first limit we'd run into would be a shortage of burnable carbon. But in any case, yes, I agree that the graphs show that we (or, more particularly the next couple of generations) are in for a wild ride. I wish we had started dealing with this problem two decades ago. Somehow it just seems intuitive to me that when you're trying to change a system with a lot of momentum, it's easier to start early with a more gradual change than to wait until the last minute and have to make more radical adjustments. Right now the line on the far-right side of those two graphs seems to be headed implacably upward.
  50. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains
    #16: dappledwater "...rate of CO2 release that makes the current great experiment so geologically unusual, and quite probably unprecedented in Earth history. " I dont think so. A volcanic event such as a flood basalt event associated with a emerging hotspot or Siberian Traps event exceeds rate and magnitude of human C02. Volcanic events such as the Siberian Traps emitted more c02 than humans ever will. Oceans did not acidify for tens of thousnds of years from this kind of output, in both rate nor magnitude greaer than human c02 emissions, so they wont acidify from human emissions of c02 on short time scales. The geological record indicates that these sort of amounts of c02 are buffered in the oceans-which is why oceans take a long time to acidify. Some researches acknowledge this but twist this around and say such and such rates of acifidication haven't happened in such and such million years; this actually provides good evidence that the oceans are buffered. #15 Boba10960 There is a vast and dynamic interplay between c02/c03 and the ocean subsurface. Most limestone in the world is in fact formed as a result of precipitation of c03 from ocean waters, and not from coral reefs. How his actually occurs/rate has been a matter of debate for decades. An example is the dolomites in Italy, which is the type area for dolomite rock. Tese formed from ocean precipitation. Currently I am engaged (along with other work) in analysing/reviewing thousands of metres of carbonate-enriched sediments formed close to the ocean/subsurface interface. These sort of carbonate- saturated sediments are everywhere. The interface of c03/c02 in eg volcanic realms extends thousands of metres beneath the sea floor, eg along much of the Mid Ocean Ridge system. One question: has David Archer and the IPCC, along with coral reef researchers, factored in the thousands of metres of c03/c02 interaction/interface along all the world's ocean ridges? I bet the answer is, they haven't. (Note: some NASA sceintists think the world's ocean water comes from comets-they know nothing about crustal geology and how granites expel water when they cool-which is how the world's oceans formed when the earths crust first cooled; the point is they are ignorant of what goes on in the subsurface. Couldn't coral reef researchers be making the same sort of mistake?)

Prev  2221  2222  2223  2224  2225  2226  2227  2228  2229  2230  2231  2232  2233  2234  2235  2236  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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