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  2293  2294  2295  2296  2297  2298  2299  2300  2301  2302  2303  2304  2305  2306  2307  2308  Next

Comments 115001 to 115050:

  1. Part Three: Response to Goddard
    muoncounter, Skeptics do often seize on the wingham et al. 2006 study. But its easy to refute as Thomas et al. 2008 proved that the satellite technology used in wingham et al. (radar altimetry) has a bias towards showing less ice losses.
  2. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Alternatively, you can just type "Abraham" in the Search box in the upper left corner of the page, and they all show up. I use that search box all the time. It's a handy way of finding things when you want to search only the posts and not the comments (a google search for a commonly used term would bring up many threads in which that term might not have been used in the top post). For example, using John's search box at upper left, a search for "icesat" shows five posts. A google search for "icesat site:skepticalscience.com" shows about 15, mostly people mentioning it in the comments. Of course sometimes you're looking for stuff in the comments, in which case google is the way to go.
  3. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    How well the University of St Thomas has acted should be applauded. Eli Rabett has published their correspondence here: A humble suggestion - support the University of St. Thomas
  4. Part Three: Response to Goddard
    Nicely written and very well-documented! Your last figure (6) does leave a window open: If I was a skeptic, I would seize the WH estimate and say 'Aha! No consensus!' NickD #4: Re "I am left with the impression that melting glaciers and ice sheets (specifically Antarctica and Greenland) are not necessarily evidence of global warming," see the line in Robert's text: "In Greenland, calving represents between 40 to 60% of total ablation (ice loss) whereas in Antarctica it represents a whopping 90% of total ablation." That suggests to me that Greenland's ice loss is 60-40% melt. Goddard's 'argument' that ice doesn't melt because the air temp is below freezing wouldn't apply; check the current temps in Greenland here (I just looked at Thule where its a comfortable 6C).
  5. Part Three: Response to Goddard
    (Although some of the comments that appeared while I was commenting do help.)
  6. Part Three: Response to Goddard
    Nice series of articles. Can I suggest a follow-up post covering the basic science of glacial flow? This isn't quite a sufficient explanation: "Take for example that many of these locations are regions where ice is channelled from the interior of the ice sheet to outlet glaciers causing much higher velocities. Another thing to consider is that where the depth of ice is extremely thick, the ice can provide insulation and actually heat the bottom of the ice leading to basal lubrication and increased ice flow."
  7. Part Three: Response to Goddard
    Robert, I do appreciate the post and replies. It's always enjoyable and beneficial when those with extensive knowledge make themselves available for questions :) I certainly understand the point of the posts was not to prove global warming. You were addressing specific and incorrect claims, a generally thankless task! As I said, I was playing a bit of Devil's Advocate ;) Keep up the good work.
  8. Part Three: Response to Goddard
    Skywatcher, Yeah i was going to talk about that actually but then i'd have to get into the methods of movement and all that stuff. Ultimately it would lead to grounded below sea level portions and so on. I just thought that I had to cut it off somewhere. haha. Yeah I probably should of brought up the inland propagations but I found it hard to find studies other than the removal of buttressing ice shelves that really showed distinct evidence of it. I can think that some radar interferometry studies have found an inland increase of velocities but to generalize and say it could occur in all of those places is a bit of a stretch without having an idea as to the topographic constraints in the regions.
  9. Part Three: Response to Goddard
    Well NickD, To be absolutely honest Glaciologists and professionals in glaciology do not focus on attribution of warming. Whether warming is Anthropogenic or not, individuals in this field just try to report what is happening and what will happen under certain scenarios. I can tell you this, a warming planet will result in more ice being lost. If we cause the planet to warm further, more ice will be lost. This post wasn't meant to prove that AGW causes ice sheets to lose mass, it was to educate and disprove some common misconceptions on the blogosphere. But I can summarize it like this for you. Greenland is losing ice because of surface melt, surface meltwater reaching the bed of the glacier speeding it up, melting/collapse of ice shelves holding back glaciers and warm water causing grounding line retreat. There is one key variable to consider there, all those processes are induced and intensified by increased warmth. Antarctica is a bit of a different story. Ocean waters are causing grounding line retreat and bottom melt of glaciers which in turn can cause accelerations. Air temperatures and ocean temperatures are combining to remove some ice shelves which hold back glaciers also. The warm water coming in is the result of what is thought to be a change in wind patterns. Wind patterns change with warmth and so does the distribution of air masses. Any more questions, just ask.
  10. Mighty Drunken at 01:47 AM on 17 July 2010
    Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
    To post #35. Your reaction to the story on Erik Verlinde paper is interesting and has a bearing on the public's perception of science and therefore climate change. His paper “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton” is interesting and not contrarian, it is simply a different way at looking at the origin of gravity - it also may be completely wrong as he says himself. To someone not well versed on the subject matter and how it is reported by the media can lead people to think there is a bunch of physicists who don't believe Einstein's theory. Sounds familiar? If Erik Verlinde approach gives the same predictions as Einstein's then science won't really care which one is correct. The question is do they match experiment? Lookup "Interpretation of quantum mechanics" to see a similar debate. Which one is correct is more philosophically interesting then it is scientifically important.
  11. Part Three: Response to Goddard
    Nice summary of Antarctic ice losses. I would add that one of the important processes allowing fast flow are weak debris/till covers at the beds of ice streams. I remember a presentation about the evolution of these covers at the Siple Coast streams, but can't recall the reference to confirm. The other goddard mis-info that really annoyed me was the idea that acceleration at the coast could not propagate inland quickly to drive thinning - blatantly totally wrong. Scambos et al (2004) provides an example on a smaller scale from the Antarctic peninsula (Larsen B shelf collapse). The acceleration happens right away both at the coast and inland in response to the change, with a gradual increase as the system heads towards a new equilibrium.
  12. Part Three: Response to Goddard
    If I can play a bit of Devil's Advocate here, and speaking purely as a layperson who has a very basic understanding of most of your posts, I am left with the impression that melting glaciers and ice sheets (specifically Antarctica and Greenland) are not necessarily evidence of global warming, as much of the melt is due to factors generally unrelated to temperatures. Is this accurate? I'm trying to understand for myself, but also I am trying to put myself into the shoes of some who might read these posts and be left with the same impression and would subsequently cite your posts to argue that there's nothing we can do about Greenland and Antarctica melting. You get the idea...
  13. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Since everybody is posting urls anyway, I might as well do the full versions: june 2: Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice june 4: Monckton Chronicles Part II: Here Comes the Sun june 6: Abraham reply to Monckton june 8: Monckton Chronicles Part III: Acid Reflux june 11: Monckton Chronicles Part IV: Medieval Warm Period (the preview worked, hope the submit works too!)
  14. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    tobyjoyce, Part I is accessible from Part II, and is here : Part I
  15. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Got some of the URLs tangled above. However, the point is made - these have not been removed. Passing Wind just could not find them, but they are difficult to find.
  16. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Hare are 3 of Profesor Abraham's posts which did not come up with the Search command .. I used Google. Not sure what happened to Part I. Part II Part II ,a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Chronicles-Part-IV-Medieval-Warm-Period.html"> Part III
  17. Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
    Ken Lambert wrote : 1970 is the era when we were going to have the next ice age and CO2GHG warming had not been pressing. Not true, and you've been on this site long enough to know. Selective memory ? "1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2." Or were you trying to refer to a specific event in the year 1970 ?
  18. carrot eater at 00:10 AM on 17 July 2010
    Part Three: Response to Goddard
    Some little editing: The sentence with "ice cannot flow at high speeds when air temperatures are. " needs to be completed somehow.
  19. It's not bad
    A bit far fetched maybe, but AGW is causing more space junk to threaten satellites and spacestations. The cooling of the stratosphere causes the atmosphere to contract which lowers the density of the upper atmosphere. This reduces drag on debris which therefore stays longer in orbit. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627663.000-climate-change-is-leaving-us-with-extra-space-junk.html
  20. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Anymoo, I've joined Facebook (I had planned not to, being a member of far too many sites already), so I could become a supporting member of Prawngate. On the plus side, having just made such a Large Personal Sacrifice (oh dear, there are the first friendship requests pouring in already... what is this? an ambush? shoo!), it'll probably be Extremely Appreciated, which is nice. :)
  21. Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
    Ken, Unless you have new information (i.e. new peer reviewed studies which support your position), your argument (putting all of your eggs in one basket more like) is still not valid. This is because the one thing we can be sure of about the heat balance measurements are that significant components are insufficiently precise over short durations to measure small changes with sufficient accuracy to draw strong conclusions.
  22. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:49 PM on 16 July 2010
    Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
    Robert Way “Thomas et al. 2008 ...” Whether it's this papers: A DOUBLING [?] in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.? There is such (a favorite of skeptics) fragment: “Annual accumulation has more than doubled in the last 150 years: the mean for 1855–1864 was 0.49 mweq y-1while for 1997–2006 it was 1.10 mweq y-1. At the beginning of the record annual accumulation is relatively stable until about 1930 when it begins to increase steadily. Following a slight reduction in accumulation in the late 1960s, the most rapid increase occurs in the latter part of the record with the mean accumulation rate from the mid-1970s onwards increasing to 0.95 mweq y-1. Note that for the post-1980 period even the lowest annual accumulation values are still greater than the highest accumulation values from the first half of the record (1855–1924).” IPCC 2007 report : “Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, CONSISTENT WITH THE LACK OF WARMING REFLECTED IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES AVERAGED ACROSS THE REGION” ; “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain TOO COLD for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.” Of course, growth of the ice sheet may well be evidence of warming, but then we have nothing to fear when it comes to sea level. None of the methods described here are not detailed enough to authorize such a declaration that: Antarctic ice really quickly lose land (do you really lose?). In any case I will add that this works like this: Extensive dynamic thinning on the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, Pritchard, 2008(9? - is variously dated), suggesting that the same is happening in the Arctic and Antarctica is the only way that: „... Amundsen Sea embayment of Antarctica, thinning exceeded 9.0 m yr-1 for some glaciers.”; an example of a typical "c. p.”. For me it is not "pure" science - even to discuss. For "cool" temperature of the discussion (in Poland - the heat wave) I propose: Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise, Pfeffer et al., 2008: “We consider glaciological conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess of 2 meters are physically untenable. We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100 could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits. More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter. These roughly constrained scenarios provide a "most likely" starting point for refinements in sea-level forecasts THAT INCLUDE ICE FLOW DYNAMICS. [!!!]” Well, well ... For me this is very strange that the latter paper is not cited in: The SCAR Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment (ACCE) report (Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment – An Update, 2010); and only: Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009): Global
sea
level
linked
to
global
temperature., and Velicogna (2009). However, the SCAR report is very, very interesting ... and should "give a thought" ...
  23. Part Three: Response to Goddard
    Ice leaving Antarctica and Greenland gets distributed to lower latitudes, where it increases the earth's moment of inertia. Consequently, the earth's rotation rate should decrease. Has anyone tried to use the earth's rotation rate to measure the loss of (non-floating) ice from polar regions?
  24. Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
    KL #57 = OOps Post#50.
  25. Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
    Peter Hogarth #56 So are we now seeing bottom warming in the Pacific from heat flux off Antarctica which happened in 1970? 1970 is the era when we were going to have the next ice age and CO2GHG warming had not been pressing. What are we to conclude from that Peter? For sure it does not explain the roughly 0.4 W/sq.m (average 65E20 Joules/year) of unaccounted heat from Dr Trenberth's budget shortfall over the 2004-08 period. Any experts on Argo analyses able to comment on my speculator in Post #49 ?
  26. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Yeah it's not that they were actually missing, DarkSkywise, but they don't show up in the list of latest posts. I expect they will reappear at some point.
  27. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    JM #11 & Lord S (you don't happen to be a honorary member of the House of Lords, do you?) ;) #12: I found 5 with Google from june 2 to june 11 (the "More results from"... link is my friend), including the one you mentioned, all in full working order. I assume John is implementing the "nofollow"-thing or something alike, so the WUWTF-crew will have a slightly harder time tracking them, and we will have everything back in no time.
  28. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    CBDunkerson, It is a matter of opinion. I still think leaving all the flippancy and pique on the other side would establish much more effectively the difference between the protagonists. It is true that Watts' site (to take one example) has descended into la-la land, with references to cockroaches and the impending doom of a Communist takeover ... all because someone called out one of their idols!!
  29. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Tobyjoyce, when you say, "Ok, he [Monckton] started it", that seems to imply that someone else has responded in kind. Which again, is not the case. Monckton said Abraham looked like an "overcooked prawn"... not vice versa. The 'Prawngate' name is meant to mock Monckton's diatribe against 'ad hominem' argumentation... in the same sentence where he expresses relief at being "spared his [Abraham's] face". Such hypocrisy SHOULD be mocked. Flippant? Yes, but frankly Monckton's ravings don't merit a serious response. If he can't behave like a grownup the best course is to laugh him off and move on.
  30. ConcernedCitizen at 22:07 PM on 16 July 2010
    Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Tom Dayton. Yes, the sun might produce the greater proportion of its energy in the visible, but it produces more IR then the earth. Go back and take a look at black body radiation, youo will see what I mean.
  31. ConcernedCitizen at 22:05 PM on 16 July 2010
    Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Stuart, no, you cannot use area. The energy is not absorbed in the intervening area between the sun and the earth, it is absorbed by the first surface it strikes. Using this raito you get an almost 1 to 1 equivalency of IR.
  32. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    JMurphy. I think there were/are 6 altogether and you can still access them if you know the URL, but only the 1 you link to appears in the archive index. I'm sure there is a simple explanation and John will clarify when he is around.
  33. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    lord_sidcup, I must admit that I cannot remember how many times Abraham has posted on this site (hopefully someone else will be able to reveal more) but I have found this : Abraham reply to Monckton
  34. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Sorry, hyperlink fail: Passing Wind's comment
  35. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    John, over at Deltoid occassional poster to this site 'Passing Wind' is claiming that: "At least 5 of Abraham's guest posts at skepticalsciece.com are no longer listed on the site. They have been redacted from the thread index and the thread archive." Can you clarify please?
  36. Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
    Oh goody. "Hard-core string theory" , "new perspectives". And here was I thinking I had nothing to occupy myself with over the weekend.
  37. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Re: Prawngate Ok, he started it. I would still have preferred something a bit less flippant. This will not stop me recording my support for John Abraham.
  38. Peter Hogarth at 18:59 PM on 16 July 2010
    Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
    Berényi Péter at 06:32 AM on 16 July, 2010 This really belongs on an Ocean thread, but there is some very recent work in this area from Kawano 2010. A basic conclusion is that there is an extra 5% of the total Pacific Ocean heat content below 3000m. Decadal heat content change in each 100m layer of Pacific from measurements from repeat hydrographic surveys. On the idea that overturning rates and hypothesised lack of vertical mixing to deep layers means it take centuries to change bottom water temperatures, there is a significant amount of measured evidence that suggests otherwise. This is worth a post at some point. It is fair to say vertical mixing processes are not fully understood, but numerous plausible mechanisms and some corroborating evidence have been put forward, and simulations are only now getting to the point of replicating some of the observations. Another very recent contribution is Masuda 2010, which shows it is possible to simulate a fast (40 years lag) mechanism that links surface air heat flux off Antarctica with bottom warming in the North Pacific.
  39. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    "Monckton's appearance is supposed to have something to do with him having Grave's Disease" I thought I'd read that Monckton's miracle AIDS cure also cured Grave's disease... not sure where I picked that up!
  40. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Personally, I am not comfortable with the "Prawn" allusion. Monckton's appearance is supposed to have something to do with him having Grave's Disease. Making fun of an opponent's disability should be beyond the pale of acceptable discourse. Don Moutal should have gone with "Sitck to the facts, ma'am, stick to the facts".
    Response: The prawn allusion is not making fun of Monckton. On the contrary, this is a reference to Monckton likening Abraham to an overcooked prawn. I completely agree - making fun of a person's personal appearance is completely inappropriate in what should be a grown-up discourse. It's particularly ironic when you consider Monckton was accusing Abraham of making an ad hominem attack in the same sentence.
  41. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Good work. But is that Prawn in the illustration overcooked? Also, perhaps you can add some audio and animation to make it talk in a Mid-Western accent. ;-)
  42. Cornelius Breadbasket at 16:10 PM on 16 July 2010
    Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Well done Dan - that makes it worth getting a facebook account!
  43. mothincarnate at 14:30 PM on 16 July 2010
    Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Chris is amazing for his contradictions, isn't he? At least modern science doesn't work under Moncktonian logic!
  44. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    nevermind - working now
    Response: Realised the links were broken a few seconds after I clicked the "Send to Mailing List" button, dangit!
  45. Facebook page to support John Abraham
    Links seem to be broken - they all take me to http://www.skepticalscience.com/\
  46. Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
    Ok the Facebook group has been set up. http://www.facebook.com/?sk=2361831622#!/group.php?gid=135508543148017&v=info Sorry it took so long.
  47. It's not bad
    A bit more from the summary at the end of the paper "Protein content of food crops such as wheat and rice are predicted to contain to 15–20% less protein by the end of this century (Taub et al. 2008)." "Insect studies have shown that animals compensate for the lower protein content of plants grown at elevated CO2 by eating more (Lincoln et al. 1993). If this is also true of grazing mammals, then they would ingest more cyanogenic glycosides along with the rest of the plants in mixed pastures." "...it is possible that pastures rich in T. repens could become unsuitable for livestock if atmospheric CO2 continues to increase."
  48. It's not bad
    PS Trifolium repens is clover, sort of an important crop
  49. It's not bad
    Agriculture negatives- More CO2 produces lower protein levels in the plants, so a larger quantity is needed to provide the same amount of protein. "Despite the large body of research on the effect of elevated CO2 on primary productivity, few studies consider the overall nutritional value of plants." More CO2 also produces more cyanide in the plant, while at the same time lowering protein in the plant. Animal and human tolerance to cyanide is reduced by lower levels of protein. Coupled with reduced protein levels per plant, this makes plants more toxic. Paper "Changes in Nutritional Value of Cyanogenic Trifolium repens Grown at Elevated Atmospheric CO2" Overview of this research from Monash University Audio and transcript from ABC Science Show interview with Roslyn M. Gleadow
  50. Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
    Apparently even gravity theory has its contrarians. This brand new in the New York Times: A scientist takes on gravity

Prev  2293  2294  2295  2296  2297  2298  2299  2300  2301  2302  2303  2304  2305  2306  2307  2308  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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