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  2239  2240  2241  2242  2243  2244  2245  2246  2247  2248  2249  2250  2251  2252  2253  2254  Next

Comments 112301 to 112350:

  1. Is the sun causing global warming?
    As a general question, why are so many "skeptic" comments here tinged with political overtones, or things unproven to do with human nature? Is Kirkby's work intriguing because it's teasing out new information, or because it offers the fond hope of embarrassing "environmentalists?" Why do the two general sorts of things so often appear together when "skeptics" present their case? Why are irrelevancies so connected with science?
  2. Berényi Péter at 09:21 AM on 20 August 2010
    The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
    #41 KR at 05:07 AM on 20 August, 2010 The last time temperatures were 1-2°C higher was [...] 125K years ago (your chart only goes to 20K years ago), and according to Kopp 2009 sea levels were over 6 meters higher than at present. Read Rimbu 2003 please. Or just have a look at the graph above. At 74.99N, 13.97E (pretty close to Greenland) SST was more than 2°C above its present value for several thousand years with no adverse effect on the Greenland ice sheet. And no, "my chart" (actually Rimbu's) does not go back to 20K years ago, just 10,000. There was a warm period after the end of the last glaciation (it is called Holocene Climatic Optimum), there is no question about that. It was much warmer than today, especially in the Arctic. If you don't believe me, read Bednarski 1990. A 7500 (7535±220) years old skeleton of a bowhead whale was found in Nansen Sound between Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere islands. How likely such a beast can get there in the foreseeable future? ARCTIC VOL. 43, NO. 1 (MARCH 1990) P. 50-54 An Early Holocene Bowhead Whale (Buluena mysticetus) in Nansen Sound, Canadian Arctic Archipelago JAN BEDNARSKI (Received 20 March 1989; accepted in revised form 23 June 1989)
  3. What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
    Yes RSVP, there are 2 sides to a story but-in this case-you have one side that is backed up by over a century of scientific evidence, whilst you have the other side which is driven purely by ideology. A perusal of your past posts shows you unquestioningly supporting the ideological side of the story, whilst contemptuously dismissing the side backed by all the available evidence. I have no problem with you being open to the denialist side of the story, but you could at the very least back it up with *evidence*, rather than hyperbole. How is it "hubris" to simply point out the obvious *fact* that human activity is generating over 5 billion tonnes of *net* emissions in the atmosphere per annum (compared to nature, with *net* emissions of less than 10,000 tonnes per annum)? How is it hubris to point out the obvious *fact* that-since the Industrial Revolution-atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased by over 100ppm, after having been *stable* for at least the last 10,000 years prior? How is it hubris to point out the simple *fact* that global temperatures have risen by more than 0.5 degrees in the last 60 years-in spite of a drop in Total Solar Irradiance-at *exactly* the same time as the largest increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the last 250 years? How is it hubris to point out the fact that all of this is *entirely* consistent with our understanding of the role of CO2 in the *natural* Greenhouse Effect, & how increased levels of CO2-from human activity-will impact on it? More to the point, how is it "cult-like" to arrive at a point of view based on analysis of *all* the available evidence-as compared to accepting a point of view simply because someone else-without any evidence to back it up-has told you its the case?
  4. Is the sun causing global warming?
    muoncounter Very simple reply. CERN would not be spending huge amounts of money funding Kirkby unless they believed the research potentially highly fruitful. There is always a queue of environmentalist / scientists ready to debunk anything that contradicts their agenda. Kirkby's background is highly credible (more credible than any of the climate 'stars'). The science is not settled. It never is. Every day, another scientist tries to make a name from himself. *** A "galactic lens" has revealed that the Universe will probably expand forever. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11030889
  5. How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
    Claims like "Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C." have always amazed me. How can you call this 'highly sensitive'? A DOUBLING of the independent variable is causing only about a 1% change in the dependent variable. That does not sound like "highly sensitive" to me. Neither does it to the skeptics.
  6. What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
    If Man has affected climate, why does it appear so insurmountable to fix?
    My favorite metaphor for human bumbling is The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
  7. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    A natural disaster is generally only deemed such when two separate factors are bought together, a natural event, and an affected population. A natural event, even an extreme event, is in itself not a disaster, in fact in many cases it's effects may be all beneficial and necessary for the natural world. Whilst it may be debated whether or not humans are changing the weather, what is certain is that if infrastructure is built where it is in the natural path of where flood waters, high winds or fire pass in the normal course of events, then it is obvious that the two combined factors will result in a disaster of varying magnitude. I don't think that 300mm of rain in a 36 hour period is as an uncommon event as suggested. If it falls over the ocean it would be ridiculous to nominate it as a disaster. Cyclonic winds that originate at sea only become a disaster in they make landfall over a populated area, and there is now some thinking that such large populated areas do create conditions that "draws" such events towards them, but that is another story. Some of the biggest wildfires go virtually unknown because they burn unchecked in remote unpopulated areas, but when humans are attracted to settle in areas most prone to extreme fire conditions, the makings of a disaster are put in place irrespective of whether the climate changes or not. Traditionally humans populate the most fertile land first, and this is frequently land formed through alluvial deposits, river flats, flood plains and the like. Without any human built infrastructure the area is formed because the silt carried from other areas is dropped as the waters spread out and slow down. Any obstructions built in the path of the flow work the opposite causing the water to speed up and washing away the obstructions and exposed land, and thus what was previously a positive event becomes a disaster, not because nature has changed, but because of the presence of human habitation. The next phase of the current floods in Pakistan is that the vast reservoir of flood water will increase the amount of moisture evaporated that will then be carried and deposited somewhere to the east, bringing either a positive or negative to the next population that it might fall upon.
  8. Plain English climate science - now live at Skeptical Science
    John. I thought you could use this. It's got 285 words and fits on a single Word Document page. Good luck. ________________________________________________ CO2 EFFECT IS WEAK I have re-titled this section in order to make it easier for the eye of the uninformed person, as he scans the page, to pick up on this argument because: 1) They may have trouble recognizing the abbreviation “CO2”. 2) They may not grasp what the word “weak” refers to. THERE IS TOO LITTLE CARBON DIOXIDE TO HAVE AN EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE A common argument made by those who do not believe in Man Made Global Warming is that, since Carbon Dioxide makes up such a small part of our atmosphere, it cannot possibly have a major effect on our temperature. This belief is based on the very simplistic idea that the smaller something is in size, the less capable it is of having any effect on the world in general. This idea can be easily seen to be wrong by using poison as an example. Imagine that you need a teaspoonful of Poison X in order to kill yourself. There are many poisons though and they are all different from each other, with different abilities. So you can now imagine Poison Y being able to kill you with just a single drop. Why would far less of one poison be able to kill you compared with another poison? Because their chemistry and abilities vary so very much from each other that they can affect the Human body in different ways. Now imagine a person who, for some strange reason, insists that Poison Y mentioned above, cannot possibly kill you, with a tiny drop, simply because he believes that there is not enough of it. You will realize, right away, that this person has a very simple minded view of the world in general. We all know that different things can have greater effects than others regardless of their size. [I would put the conclusion below in bold in order to make it stand out to the "plain" reader.] Greenhouse gases, like Carbon Dioxide, are no different. The design of the molecule, not how much of it there is in the atmosphere, is what gives it much greater ability to retain heat than other gases.
  9. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Doug Bostrom : "How about a straw poll, slightly off-topic. Does anybody care to weigh in on what Pete's implication about the UN references? It's all part of that great big conspiracy, obviously ? The New World Order/Secret Government/Black Helicopters/Masons/Marxist-Leftist UN, who want to take over the world and tax us all to within an inch of our lives. Well, that's what that Monckton chap reckons and it seems that a few so-called skeptics take him at this word. No, seriously...
  10. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Meanwhile, leaving the edge-of-the-bell-curve world of Joseph D’Aleo and his counterfactual cohorts, we're yanked sharply back to emerging facts: Pakistan -- a Sad New Benchmark in Climate-Related Disasters Devastating flooding that has swamped one-fifth of Pakistan and left millions homeless is likely the worst natural disaster to date attributable to climate change, U.N. officials and climatologists are now openly saying. Most experts are still cautioning against tying any specific event directly to emissions of greenhouse gases. But scientists at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in Geneva say there's no doubt that higher Atlantic Ocean temperatures contributed to the disaster begun late last month. Atmospheric anomalies that led to the floods are also directly related to the same weather phenomena that a caused the record heat wave in Russia and flooding and mudslides in western China, said Ghassem Asrar, director of the World Climate Research Programme and WMO. And if the forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are correct, then Pakistan's misery is just a sign of more to come, said Asrar. "There's no doubt that clearly the climate change is contributing, a major contributing factor," Asrar said in an interview. "We cannot definitely use one case to kind of establish precedents, but there are a few facts that point towards climate change as having to do with this." There's also no doubt that the Pakistan flooding will join the ranks of the worst natural disasters in recorded history. ... During the most intense storms, about a foot of rain fell over a 36-hour period. Parts of the affected areas, in particular Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province (formerly Northwest Frontier province) received 180 percent of the precipitation expected in a normal monsoon cycle. More rain is expected in the days ahead. Records show that the famed Indus River is at its highest water level ever recorded in the 110 years since regular record-keeping began. Estimates put the number of displaced people at somewhere between 15 million and 20 million, and the government believes about 1,600 are confirmed dead. More
  11. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
    batsvensson wrote : "You have not only got the facts about decease control wrong but you also does not seams to distinguish between total production vs. productivity of rise." Hmm, yes, if you say so - whatever it is you are saying ! I'm still stunned by your "The cause of malaria being spread is not mosquitoes or warming but ignorance.". But I can't work out whether you mean the ignorance of those on the receiving end (nothing to do with race, of course), or the ignorance of those who don't agree with you (nothing to do with arrogance, of course). Perhaps those in the Kenyan highlands (who are not used to being affected by malaria) are ignorant for not thinking that they might be affected one day (even those who might doubt AGW) ? Who knows - possibly you believe you do.
  12. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    The original source of the wiki graph reveals that "A Apogee SP-110 precision Pyranometer was used to measure the solar radiation levels, but these have not been calibrated to give absolute values, but are displayed as a scaled value for reference only. " BTW Any chance of returning to the topic of Waste Heat vs Greenhouse Warming any time soon is there?
  13. Of satellites and temperatures
    Pete Ridley wrote : "He then links to physicist Charles R. Anderson’s An Objectivist Individualist blog article “Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable”" This is now beyond parody, as far as denial is concerned. Someone recently predicted that, now that the satellites were showing similar trends to ground-based measurements of temperatures, those in denial would turn about-face and decide that those records had to be denied somehow. And so it came to pass. Amazing and a wake-up call to those so-called skeptics who still have a trace of credibility left to rescue : look at the sort of people you are associating yourself with and see how their views are determined by pre-conceived beliefs a long, long way away from scientific reality.
  14. Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
    BP #11 Why [has] hurricane intensity dropped dramatically between 1959 and 1972? Nope, again, that's a hypothesis (over an even shorter time time span than the early 70s to the present day where we have an increase). This hypothesis will be difficult to test due to low statistical power, and because it's unclear what should be measured to test it (or if the measurements are available). Again you're overstating your case. In this example you appear to be cherry picking to suit your preconceptions.
  15. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
    batsvensson at 01:07 AM, by ignorance do you mean that the human carriers of the malaria parasite are ignorant that are in fact carriers of the disease. Like many diseases, the ability for humans to spread diseases has been enhanced as they travel to, and inhabit places further and faster than ever before.
  16. Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
    David Horton:
    Was thinking yesterday about another example of consensus, one used (like Galileo) quite incorrectly by the deniers, and that is continental drift. If I remember correctly when it was first proposed, as a theory, it depended entirely on (a) the shapes of Africa and South America and (b) some biogeographic distribution puzzles.
    Actually, there's also (c) a proposed mechanism which was (and is) physically impossible, something akin to the continents plowing along like unpowered icebergs through the ocean. Wegener wasn't the first to notice (a) or (b). His (c) was thoroughly rejected, and properly so. Regarding (a) wikipedia notes: " It was observed as early as 1596 that the opposite coasts of the Atlantic Ocean—or, more precisely, the edges of the continental shelves—have similar shapes and seem to have once fitted together." Once it was recognized that the seafloor basalt itself was moving, and the continents were moving like icebergs floating in a moving sea, i.e. Wegener's (c) was replaced with something reasonable, acceptance by most geologists came quite quickly (by the standards of scientific revolutions). Something like that happened within the world of science in a similar timeframe regarding the "saturation" of CO2's ability to absorb LW IR "disproving" a significant role by CO2 in keeping the planet warm ... interestingly, though, denialists still puppet that misconception 50+ years after it was laid to rest, while you don't see too many people claiming that continents plow through the basalt sea floor!
  17. Long Term Certainty
    The claim that football is not a "physical process" is strange. What is it, then? This could be reworded to convey the same idea ("human behavior is very hard to predict")while not annoying materialists like myself.
  18. CO2 lags temperature
    cruzn246 writes: If CO2 is such a strong forcing mechanism how is it overcome so easily when the world slips back to cold? During the glacial/interglacial cycles, CO2 acted as a feedback amplifying the warming or cooling caused by the Milankovich forcing. In other words, an external source of cooling would reduce the global mean temperature. The oceans would respond by absorbing more CO2 from the atmosphere, causing a feedback that would amplify the cooling a bit. Eventually, when the Milankovich cycle shifted towards warming, this process would reverse, and the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would amplify the initial warming. The situation today is different -- CO2 is not just a feedback, we're now adding it directly to the atmosphere in large quantities. Does that help clarify things?
  19. Of satellites and temperatures
    Pete Ridley, instead of repeating the words that one poorly-informed commenter after another has posted elsewhere, why not address the points actually made in this thread? Neither the UAH nor the RSS satellite temperature record uses any data from the AVHRR instrument. Neither the UAH nor the RSS satellite temperature record uses data from NOAA-16. It doesn't really help promote informed discussion to persist in implying that there is a non-existent problem with the satellite temperature record. I would also suggest that highly-politicized and ideological websites are probably not the best source of information on any scientific subject, particularly one as complex as climate change. I have visited several of the sites you've linked to, and been dismayed at the lurid and alarmist character of the writing. If that is representative of where you go to read about climate-related topics, I can only suggest that you at least keep an open mind and consider reading a bit more widely. Actual science is generally more interesting than propaganda, and a more worthwhile investment in the long run.
  20. It's not bad
    The link to the skeptic argument is broken.
  21. CO2 lags temperature
    If CO2 is such a strong forcing mechanism how is it overcome so easily when the world slips back to cold?
  22. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
    @Ann at 23:05 PM on 18 August, 2010 There are some disturbing claims that the clean air act in Europe, which is about to get rid of air pollution like small dust particles, SO2 etc from the air over Europe has induced droughts in Africa. The idea is that the dust particles make clouds form which in turn makes it rain in north Africa. Hence our clean air today came to the cost of mass starvation in Africa. The pessimistic view is "it doesnt mater what we do, it will go wrong any way". :(
  23. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Anybody who has actually worked closely w/a solar thermal collector apparatus will recognize the green line as radiometer output. The graph is probably a casualty of being authored by somebody a little too close to the subject to remember not everybody's up to speed on the topic. RSVP, I've got flat plate collectors on my roof. They've got quite a bit of "thermal inertia" to them and act sort of like integrators w/regard to temperature measurements. On a sunny day, if a cloud occludes the sun radiometer response tracks occlusion instantaneously. Meanwhile, the collector temperature will track insolation in a highly damped fashion; a cloud passing overhead produces a valley on a temperature graph with gently sloped sides compared to radiometer output. If the cloud passes quickly the dip will be barely be noticeable even though the radiometer output drops precipitously as you see on the graph you referenced.
  24. 1934: the 47th hottest year on record
    The U.S. accounts for only 2% of the earth's total land area. I believe you meant to say surface area?
  25. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    This Basic Version is one of the better ones written so far. It has much better flow as we read it. One idea logically follows after the other, leading naturally to a sound conclusion. Well and good: but you knew there was a 'but' coming, didn't you;)? That 'but' is: "but the sentences are too long for our target audience". To remedy this, I suggest some strategic application of metonymy, synecdoche and ellipsis to tighten things up. So, for example, we can do much better than "As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries." We can instead, say "So some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial could draw to a rapid close, starting a new ice age over the next few centuries". (we really don't need to specify that it is the Earth we are talking about). Similarly, "This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling." can also be improved by replacing with: "About the same time, climatologist learned that 'aerosols' (small particles resulting from human activities) can cause cooling. This may have have encouraged the idea that a new ice age was coming". One final note: here in the States at least, we use "it's" as a contraction for "it is". We never use it for "it has". I don't know about the state of the language Down Under, but if the target audience is here in the US, the use of "it's" to mean "it has" will sound strange to too many in your target audience.
  26. Temp record is unreliable
    With two stages of adjustment,you have two types of data. If Environment Canada (are they the real custodian or the collection agency) says this the data as read from thermometer, then it raw. You have to have the metadata about the thermometer and station changes before you can do the adjustment procedures though. This is the what is missing from your analysis. I am pretty sure that GHCN "raw" data is the station-adjusted data ready for gridding. GHCN does not have the data for station series adjustment as fas as I know. This is done by custodial agency in NZ and I guess the rest of the world. It needs local knowledge.
  27. Of satellites and temperatures
    #11"there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth." That's great news! Its a sure sign of success when the argument switches from 'oh no its not' to 'the data is no good'. I defer to Conan-Doyle once again: Watson: What do you suppose this means? Holmes: I have no data. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theory, instead of theories to suit facts. --A Scandal in Bohemia
  28. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Pete, the reason your comments so often vanish is because you're apparently almost unable to make remarks on this topic without veering off into strange theories about conspiracies, to wit: Of course, those responsible for that report fall under the umbrella of that august body the UN, whose real agenda has nothing to do with trying to control the natural global climate change... That's a better job than usual; you've carefully calibrated your wording to fall just within moderation guidelines. Good tuning, congratulations! Meanwhile, elliptically referring to what I assume you believe is some plot by politicians does not actually serve as a refutation of meteorological records. Outlier skeptic D’Aleo is notably in disagreement not only with folks with a better grasp on this matter such as Meehl, but as well is disagreement with the AMO. Conflation of Pakistan's national history versus weather records transcending the history of Pakistan's split from India is pointless, rather silly and frankly desperate. I don't blame skeptics for becoming so creative because after all, they're faced with a very tough task in trying to minimize this year's weather. Mashing Pakistan's political history together with weather records and hoping nobody notices the continuum of record keeping spanning the rearrangement and creation of borders is one way of doing that. As to Pakistan and the monsoon, parts of the country have experienced rainfall equal to a year's precipitation in the course of 3 days. These records are from places where statistics of course record monsoons, so not only are they exceptional but the monsoon season is not an explanation. How about a straw poll, slightly off-topic. Does anybody care to weigh in on what Pete's implication about the UN references?
  29. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
    Eric, All one can tell from a report of a place being abundant of mosquitoes is that it is abundant of mosquitoes. To know if there is a risk for a malaria break out one need to know if mosquitoes able to carry malaria parasites are presents but even if such mosquito are present it does not follow that the parasite itself is present, and even if the mosquitoes carry the parasite it may still not be a problem. (Mosquitoes in an area where no humans are present constitutes no risk.) A hypothetical decease is not, and can not, be a public health problem. Now lets focus at the claim I refuted. This is true: It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes. However it does not imply the insects actually carry any deceases. Secondly, the sentence is ambiguous formulated, it is not clear if it intend to mean the insect itself or the insect and the decease - in other words its meaning is open for interpretation. Now what happens if one combine the above ambiguity with the claim malaria is already appearing in places it hasn’t been seen before ? Well, trivial, combining the first claim with this second claim is silently assuming an implication of the type 'IF it gets warmer THEN diseases will spread'. To put it midely, this is a distortion of the truth - and it is this distortion of the truth which is the urban myth. JMurphy, You have not only got the facts about decease control wrong but you also does not seams to distinguish between total production vs. productivity of rise.
  30. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    GMG #1: You SAY it is 'sounder science', but you ignore all the evidence to the contrary presented in this article and many others on this site. No, belief in impending glaciation is NOT 'sounder science'. Nor is it "sounder science" to argue as you do, that it has always happened that way. On the contrary: the SOUND science recognizes that things are no longer going to happen "as they always have happened". Now we really have made a large enough change to break the age-old pattern -- for the worse.
  31. Al Gore got it wrong
    nbrack- Your information concerning predicted sea-level rise is already out of date. Elsewhere on this site you will find the scientific evidence that up-to-date oceanography is now expecting a larger rise than when the IPCC docs were written.
  32. Al Gore got it wrong
    'Quietman' should take the hint from his own handle, and stay quite quiet! For everything he has said here has been either misleading or outright wrong. Perhaps that is why he cannot give us a reference for his alleged scientific evidence that vulcanism is (at least in part) responsible for melting ice sheets. Where did you get this, 'quietman'? From The Journal of Irreproducible Results?
  33. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Pete Ridley - You've added to the "It's not happening" statements you've made with this posting.
  34. Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
    #11: "why hurricane intensity has dropped dramatically between 1959 and 1972?" The question is based on a still-questionable statistic of cumulative SSn by year. There are many problems with this statistic. Is a year with 3 cat 2 storms 20% worse than a year with 1 cat 5? There are many residents of the Gulf Coast and Florida who would vehemently disagree. The SSn given is at landfall (so that Katrina is a cat 3); it was cat 5 just offshore when it was piling up the storm surge that destroyed lower New Orleans. And why does the graph shown stop in 1995, when it is labeled as representing 1851-2009? Surely a trailing average could include those more recent (and more active) years. As I pointed out in the prior thread, total number of named storms seems to increase over the period. Yet this met with the skeptical "In earlier times there must have been a lot that would have deserved a name but never got one, because went unnoticed." Pardon me, but does that seem to be an appeal to disregard a published graph because it doesn't reflect some non-existent data points? Hardly a scientific argument. 'Dropped dramatically' seems to stem from the trend of -0.43 per century. Is there any statistical significance to such a small number? Especially when we routinely hear challenges to a temperature trend of 0.15 degC/decade, nearly 4x as large. And then there's this point about the 2005 season: In terms of accumulated cyclone energy (ACE; the sum of the squares of the maximum wind speed at 6-h intervals for all tropical and subtropical cyclones with intensities of 34 kt or greater; Bell et al. 2000), the 2005 season had a record value of about 256% of the longterm (1944–2003) mean. The previous record was about 249% of the long-term mean set in 1950. [emphasis added] So let's not claim that hurricane intensity is dropping over the long term.
  35. Of satellites and temperatures
    John O'Sullivan has posted his latest article “Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a ‘Catastrophe’” (Note 1) about the NOAA satellite temperature measurement failures. O’Sullivan begins “In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, one of the four agencies charged with responsiblity for collating global climate temperatures. NOAA is now fighting a reargaurd legal defense to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologist”. He then links to physicist Charles R. Anderson’s An Objectivist Individualist blog article “Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable” in which he starts “I have written many posts that our unreliable the ground surface temperature record, based on the collapsing network of weather stations around the world, is biased upward with the urban heat island effect and by obviously bad grid interpolation schemes. I had thought that the only reliable temperature records were the satellite and ocean buoy temperature records. I was wrong. It now appears that since at least 2005, the satellite temperature records have not been reliable”. He concludes that “It is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth. There is clearly no basis for the claims that the Earth has warmed at unusual rates in recent times or that we know anything more than some local temperatures, mostly from urban heat effect zones”. The bits in between are interesting too – enjoy. NOTES: 1) see http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/22385.html 2) see http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/08/satellite-temperature-record-now.html Best regards, Pete Ridley
  36. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP - I looked at your link, and doug_bostrom is entirely correct. If you read the figure caption it states "Green line = solar irradiation". Shame on whoever put up the wiki - it should have a separate scale for irradiation in W/m^2, and it doesn't.
  37. The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
    Correction - my apologies, Berényi, 125K years ago wasn't the Holocene, it's roughly the transition between the Middle Ionian and the Upper Tarantian stages of the Pleistocene. Oops...
  38. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Pete Ridley - I've based my comments about global warming and "It's not happening" on your repeated and well expressed doubts about surface temperature records. I mentioned Icecap melt and acidification as supporting evidence for global warming - sorry if I was unclear. The temperature records are there, in multiple independent data sets (3 major ones), lots of different analyses, and they all show the same trends of ~0.13 to 0.16C / decade, most likely closer to 0.16.
  39. The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
    Berényi - Ah, found the reference. The last time temperatures were 1-2°C higher was in the Holocene (see "Why Greenland's ice loss matters"), 125K years ago (your chart only goes to 20K years ago), and according to Kopp 2009 sea levels were over 6 meters higher than at present. At 400ppm CO2 (we're at what, 392?) Stone 2010 estimates 41% ice loss from Greenland over the next 400 years or so, with ~1.4 to 2.8 meters sea level rise from Greenland alone, with uncertainties due to boundary conditions on the ice sheet break-down. Greenland and Antarctica apparently are somewhat responsive to temperatures.
  40. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    NOTES: (for my comment of 20th August @ 05:03) 1) see http://www.unisdr.org/eng/risk-reduction/climate-change/docs/Climate-Change-DRR.pdf 2) see http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HeatWaves_Icecap.doc 3) see http://rupeenews.com/2010/08/15/history-of-floods-in-the-indus-valley-of-the-9000-year-old-pakistani-civilization/
  41. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Doug, you opine that historical temperature records have been broken in many places across the globe this year. This opinion is shared by others in “Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed in many regions of the world over the last 50 years; most notably the higher frequency of high-temperature days and nights and heat” (Note 1). Of course, those responsible for that report fall under the umbrella of that august body the UN, whose real agenda has nothing to do with trying to control the natural global climate change (which humans have never been able to do but have always had to adapt to). An opposing opinion has been expressed by someone who is much more expert than you or I in such weather events, Joseph D’Aleo, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. In his article “Debunking the Claims Heat Waves are Becoming More Common” (Note 2) he starts by quoting the above then goes on to say “REALITY, there is no indication that record heat is increasing in frequency, in fact the data shows a precipitous decline in the number of heat records in recent decades. The early 20th century dominates the heat statistics for the United States and the world. The presumption that global heat waves and extremes have increased in frequency is not supported by the official government data. NOAA’s NCDC shows that record high temperature by continent have occurred mainly in the 1880s and early 1900s, with only 1 post 1950 (Antarctica in 1974)”. D’Aleo then goes on to provide evidence in support of his opinion. You also comment on the current flood disaster in Pakistan, reported in the Daily Telegraph as “ .. the worst in the UN's history: The United Nations has rated the floods in Pakistan as the greatest humanitarian crisis in recent history ..”. Supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis appear to overlook the fact that severe floods and severe droughts are nothing new in Pakistan or elsewhere in Asia. Although in the media this was distorted to read as though it is the “.. worst in history .. ” what is conveniently overlooked is that Pakistan’s history didn’t start until 1947. Records of such catastrophic weather events in the area now known as Pakistan go back many centuries before the UN was established just 2 years prior to the creation of Pakistan.. Monsoons are essential for survival in Asian countries, providing them with their water for the whole year, even though they often bring extensive flooding. When the monsoons fail there is drought. The Rupee News article “History of floods in the Indus Valley of the 9000 year old Pakistani Civilization” (Note 3) has some very interesting information, including QUOTE: During a warm period 6,000 years ago, the Indus was a monster river, more powerful and more prone to flooding than today. Then, 4,000 years ago, as the climate cooled, a large part of it simply dried up. Deserts appeared whether mighty torrents once flowed. .. But what caused these thousand-year cycles of Indus drought and flood? .. Professor Martin Gibling of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, a river expert who has worked in the region, thinks that changes in the strength of the monsoon caused by climate change may be to blame. .. So, will global warming have the reverse effect, returning the Indus to the monster river of 6,000 years ago? “That is the million-dollar question”, said Professor John Clague, from Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada, an expert on the Asian monsoon. “There is huge uncertainty… and this is a matter of heated debate amongst scientists at present.” UNQUOTE. There’s a scientist using that word “uncertainty” again, but “huge” this time. Another point to bear in mind as far as the consequences of such flooding is concerned is the manner in which the Indus is being managed and the changes brought about by population growth QUOTE: .. Due to the population growth, the people are today living in the alluvial flood plains which used to left for the river to meander about. Today the river is changing its course and as it flows down, it engulfs many of the populated areas. 500 km of river bed’s floodzone is called “kacha”. This is the natural flood plain of the river. However today the “kacha area” is inhabited by millions of people. Those who live in the flood plain (kacha) are poor people who do not have the means to live in safe lands. .. Climate change may not be the only cause of Pakistan’s woes. There is also a sense that the current floods have been exacerbated by the way the Indus has been managed. .. “What we’ve done is apply a system from the West that just doesn’t work [in South Asia],” said Professor Sinha. That problem has been made worst by deforestation. Trees protect the headwaters from erosion. But over the past half century, more sediment has been flushed down the rivers as forests have been cut. .. UNQUOTE. It is speculative to suggest that the catastrophe caused by current floods (and droughts) around the globe are due to our use of fossil fuels. Have a read of the article and learn from it. KR, please would you be kind enough to point me to where I have said categorically of “global warming, ocean acidification, arctic melt, etc .. ” that "It's not happening". I’ll be happy to post a retraction if I have. I believe that I have always been “absolutely clear” (a popular politicians comment) that global warming (and cooling) and ice melting (and forming, whether Arctic, Antarctic or elsewhere) take place as natural occurrences. I’m also pretty sure that my comments about ocean acidification have simply expressed my preference for describing it as reducing alkalinity. Please note that I am posting the NOTES; separately as I think they may be the reason my comments get diverted into the “for moderation” folder.. Best regards, Pete Ridley
  42. Is the sun causing global warming?
    I see this post has generated a lot of excitement. I fear that amidst all that excitement, my smaller points have no chance of getting a fair hearing:( But I have to forge ahead anyway: for I am sure I am not the only one to notice something amiss with the order of clauses in "Until about 1960, measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing." Now let's stop and think about this: which clause is REALLY modified by "until about 1960" in the above sentence? Setting aside for now all prior knowledge about the topic, consider instead what the most natural follow on question would really be for the sentence above. I claim it is, "then what did they show after 1960?" You see, what he really MEANT to say was, "Measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing, until about 1960." Now with this order, the sentence is correct, but it feels clumsy with so many commas. So modify it yet again, this time marking what is truly parenthetical with parentheses, to get: "Measurements by scientists shows that the brightness and warmth of the sun (as seen from the Earth) was increasing until about 1960". But we can do even better. Remember the Strunk & White dictum that the active voice is always more vigorous than the passive, we can change again to: "Scientific measurements show that the brightness and warmth of the sun (as seen from the Earth) have been increasing until about 1960". Now on to the next: "It was not surprising therefore for most scientists to put two and two together and assume that it was the warming sun that was increasing the temperature of our planet." There is a problem here: if they are "putting two and two together", then they are NOT 'assuming'. They are making a logical conclusion based on the evidence. But this raises the question of what the author is really trying to claim here: is he trying to claim that even before 1960, greenhouse gases were a significant cause of warming, or is he trying to claim that prior to about 1960, warming really was primarily caused by something else, and now it is caused primarily by greenhouse gases? This ambiguity is problematic for a basic version, which must be direct and to the point. Nor can a basic version risk the damage of trying to do too much. So best to set aside the question of what caused warming before about 1960, and concentrate on showing that it is now primarily greenhouse gases. So now back to this sentence: it should read, "It was not surprising therefore for most scientists to put two and two together and conclude that it was the warming sun that was increasing the temperature of our planet." Finally, for the same reason, we could actually drop the final sentence. The point of the Basic Version was to refute the claim, "It's the sun". That is already achieved w/o the final sentence, whose logical connection to the preceding is unclear anyway (the author has not established anything about the physical properties mentioned).
  43. Berényi Péter at 04:35 AM on 20 August 2010
    The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
    #38 KR at 01:10 AM on 20 August, 2010 the water temperature should be the determining factor in loss rate Yes, of course. But as you can see, SST (Sea Surface Temperature) has been decreasing steadily in the Arctic ocean during the entire holocene and now it is 2-3°C colder than it was eight thousand years ago. Still, the Greenland ice sheet has not collapsed, not even during the four millennia between 6000 B.C. and 2000 B.C. It will not collapse now either. A decade is still weather, not climate, SST is well below its Holocene Optimum value and melt season temperatures in the high arctic are decreasing sharply. One of the sites is at the eastern edge of the Greenland sea, south of Svalbard, the other one is in the Norwegian sea. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 6, 1280, doi:10.1029/2002GL016570, 2003 Arctic/North Atlantic Oscillation signature in Holocene sea surface temperature trends as obtained from alkenone data N. Rimbu, G. Lohmann, J.-H. Kim, H. W. Arz, and R. Schneider Department of Geosciences, Bremen University, Bremen, Germany Received 6 November 2002; revised 23 December 2002; accepted 10 January 2003; published 19 March 2003.
  44. The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
    "proponent of climate change"? Really? Since when is Al Gore FOR climate change?
  45. The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
    It is time for this film to be re-released updated and/or another one which incorporates the flood/acidification of our seas and plankton die-off. Also some of the miss-information tactics of the big oil etc. Who cares if it is taken to court. This actually helps to spread the word.
  46. The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
    factfinder, I suggest you try to find some facts and actually read what is written by others, before commenting. Firstly, James Wight does not appear to be holding Al Gore up as any sort of scientific expert or authority - but, even as a politician, he probably knows more than most (although that may not be saying much), especially most US politicians. Actually, probably more than most UK politicians (and Australian, etc.) too. That doesn't mean he is any sort of expert, though, so calm down and stop obsessing about him. Secondly, I thought so-called skeptics reckon that Al Gore (as well as being fat, apparently) is already a billionaire, having an untold number of mansions (especially below sea level, etc.) burning an untold amount of carbon by having all the lights on every hour of every day. Thirdly, do you actually have any figures to show that potential 'doubling of electricity' and 'non-benefit to the environment' ? Do you need any evidence, in order to believe that ? Fourthly, what do you mean by 'making a change in climate' and what do you think is important about 'different climates' ? As for evidence, see It's NOT the sun, It's NOT cosmic rays, It's NOT Solar Cycle length and here, It's NOT a natural cycle, There IS empirical evidence for it being CO2, AGW IS happening and here, It IS us, and here. Once you have read all that, come back and present your arguments against any of it.
  47. The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
    Factfinder: and yet relatively rapid global warming has occurred. If we don't know what's causing it (obviously you can't point to alternative science-based explanations that have better or the same level of confidence of climatologists' explanations), then we don't really know if it's going to get better or worse 10-20 years from now. Upon what basis, then, do you choose to act? If the future is a totally unknown quantity to you, how do you decide what to do next? Or is it that you have access to the 100% Truth? Certainly no scientist will make such a claim. What is the purpose of skepticism? To learn or to protect? Btw, and I see this quite a bit from those who aren't scientists, a "hypothesis" is a testable statement. The greenhouse effect is a "theory" that has generated thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of testable (and tested and published) hypotheses. A "theory" is an understanding of how something works, given all of the evidence generated by the testing of hypotheses. A "law" is a theory that has a confidence level such that scientists assume it to be the truth (in other words, of thousands of tests of its hypothesis, it's never been found to be false. That doesn't mean that people aren't willing to keep testing it, though). Finally, because there is so much and such varied evidence (even of the types you might call circumstantial) for rising CO2 levels being the basis of increasing global temperature, I suggest you look around this site, choose one of your arguments against AGW, and test it against the arguments of others. That's a much better way of actually changing someone's mind (or the minds of many) than to make a shotgun blast of unsupported statements and questions that have very complex answers (such as your "many different climates" question).
  48. 1934: the 47th hottest year on record
    Huh? If we are trying to refute the claim that "1934 is the hottest year on record", why do we need anything past the first sentence of this article? For with that one sentence, the thesis is already defeated. Or is it this sentence that is unnecessary, and another single sentence that must be kept? I ask this because the article seems to be making a hard tack, first talking about hottest year in the US, then abruptly switching to hottest globally. But this really is unnecessary. It would be much easier for the reader to follow, if the article made a more logical progression, such as: 1) remind the reader that it is global average that we need, not just US data 2) go straight for that global data, showing that 1934 was only 47th, not first. Done. There. Wasn't that a lot simpler? There is no point in continuing to distract the reader with our opponents' red herring: the hottest year in the US is completely irrelevant. Also, the definition of cherry picking is not quite right, nor is it phrased decisively enough to persuade the reader that cherry picking is to be avoided. I suggest changing the wording to address both problems as follows: "However, this is another example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that appears to support a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data, the data forming a whole picture that does not support the claim."
  49. Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
    thingadonta, "No it isnt, the statements are the same." Not even close. It's a misquote of the statement both literally and in emphasis. You're own attempt to 'correct' the quote highlights your skew:- "however there is no debate that human activities are actually affecting climate in the first place" Doran's quote makes it clear that skeptics first line of attack is on the "authenticity of global warming". If you're still confused, reference your '800 list' for articles about 'bad measurements' and the 'warming is over'. Your reference to the Biglist is a reflection of the spin required to firm up the spin. The list (originally "750 Papers", was later modified with suffix "Alarm") has noticeable refuted sources (I&E) suspect authors (Idso, McIntyre, Michaels, etc, and padded with papers that actually do not dispute AGW but debate sensitivities and projections. Their inclusion in the padding is tied at the hip to the "Alarm" in the headline. Your statement misrepresents the nature of the list. An easy one to spot is Pielke Jr.'s inclusion, discussed on Pielke Jr's blog last November. He flat out stated he supported the AGW foundation. The 800 list was revived as a counter-volley at the PNAS article which generated the 97% consensus. 800-Alarm now, 750-Alarm then, and 750 originally ... it has traction in the skeptic blogoshpere.
  50. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    doug_bostrom 227 I respect you taking the time to inspect the graph closely, but as per your reply, it does plot against temperature. Something physical is responding to temperature at that rate. Obviously, for the other curves, if energy is being extracted through a circuit, you arent going to see these excursions. KR Even experts who believe in AGW may use inproper analogies and mental models, and you can be sure that most people (out there) accept the theory even if they cant explain it well themselves. They get the applause for parroting what they have been told, but they dont even really understand the thing themselves. I am afraid the human mind has no other way to deal with "the unseen" sides of science without resorting in some degree to familiar household concepts. I agree that analogies always fall short of what they are actually trying to describe, with no exception in this context. What I find hypocritical among experts is the eloboration of a mathematical model that denies having its basis on some initial assumptions (which is ultimately someone's clumsy mental model). I dont have a problem with the process, especially if it leads to predictable results. This is does not mean however it is the final truth and cannot be subjected to scrutiny. Plus, it is generally uncommon that the first idea is the best idea. People assumed apparently that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. It took many years until someone proved that this is not the case. ETC.

Prev  2239  2240  2241  2242  2243  2244  2245  2246  2247  2248  2249  2250  2251  2252  2253  2254  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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