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  2559  2560  2561  2562  2563  2564  2565  2566  2567  2568  2569  2570  2571  2572  2573  2574  Next

Comments 128301 to 128350:

  1. It's the sun
    Relative to the 'it's the sun' thread.... icecap.us/images/uploads/REVISITINGTHEANALOGUEFORTHECOMINGICEAGE.pdf - presents an interesting view on AGW models and the results obtained from them.
  2. A broader view of sea level rise
    re #28 1. CO2 variability. a. Contrary to your assertion Ron, enhanced CO2 emissions during the last couple of decades do seem to be associated with enhanced atmospheric CO2 accumulation. We can inspect the atmospheric CO2 data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ and find that the averaged yearly CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere for the decade 1990-1999 was 1.50 ppm per year and for the (not quite) decade 2000-2008 was 1.98 ppm per year. b. It shouldn’t be hard to “swallow” a relatively narrow range of CO variability since that’s what the evidence and our understanding of the carbon cycle indicates: (i) In a stable climate system with no change in external forcings (no volcanoes or, changes in solar output, greenhouse gases etc), there will still be some year on year variation in the atmospheric CO2. For example, in or shortly after El Nino years the CO2 levels rise due to heat and moisture stress in the tropical rainforest belts; in or after La Nina's tropical forests recover their growth and CO2 levels in the atmosphere drop somewhat. However that will just yield variation around a rather steady level. Atmospheric CO2 levels can't undergo extended continual unforced rises and falls without some sort of phenomenon external to the climate system, because there is a pretty fixed amount of accessible carbon in the short term carbon cycle. So on the decadal, centennial, millenial timescale the atmospheric CO2 levels aren't expected to change that much. In fact it's an indication of the rather steady nature of the accessible carbon in the short term carbon cycle that over tens and hundreds of thousands of years through numerous glacial-interglacial cycles, the atmospheric CO2 levels tend to return to interglacial values within a few ppm of 280 ppm. If one of the carbon pools (oceans/atmosphere/terrestrial) is perturbed, then the carbon will be redistributed. If deforestation and other land use changes reduces the carbon stored in the terrestrial pool and the atmospheric (and ocean) levels will rise. That seems to be the origin of much of the enhanced accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere through the 19th century [N2O and methane rise follows a similar trajectory – see MacFarling Meure paper cited in post #23; see also the link on land use contributions to enhanced CO2 levels in Philippe Chantreau’s post #25]. Obviously if the climate system isn't stable and external forcings change (variation in solar output/major periods of volcanic activity and so on) then atmospheric CO2 levels will respond somewhat. That seems to be the origin of the small reductions of atmospheric CO2 through the period of the LIA….and so on… 2. You’ve misrepresented my statement:
    ”It's very easy to calculate that within a climate sensitivity right in the centre of the likely range (3 oC of warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2), the enhanced greenhouse warming during the two periods is 0.15 oC and 0.13 oC, respectively.”
    by contracting it to "the enhanced greenhouse warming during the two periods is 0.15 oC and 0.13 oC, respectively." …and then engaged in trashing your own misrepresentation! The point is that all else being equal, a rise in atmospheric CO2 from 286 ppm (1850) – 309 ppm (1940) should produce a surface temperature rise at equilibrium of around 0.3 oC within a climate sensitivity of 3 oC of warming per doubling atmospheric CO2. Since a large amount of science indicates that is the “best estimate” for the climate sensitivity under current conditions, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that the world seems to have warmed significantly during this period, with increasing effects on sea levels, glacial recession and so on. Of course in the real world all else very likely isn’t equal. A small enhanced solar forcing in the first half of the 20th century likely contributed to warming. Very significant volcanic activity in the late 19th/early 20th century, “knocked back” temperature rises temporarily…and so on. But we can hardly assert that temperature rises won’t follow from enhanced greenhouse gas levels, when the most likely scenarios from scientific evidence/analysis indicates that they should! And it’s not about “pro-AGWers” whatever that might mean – it’s about the science and its associated evidence. Small persistent changes in greenhouse gas levels are expected to produce re-equilibration of the climate system towards new temperatures, not because “pro-AGWers” “think” so, but because that’s what the evidence, and our scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect indicates. ..and a 9 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 is certainly measurable!
  3. A broader view of sea level rise
    Ron Cram, You write "The assessment is also based on the climate sensitivity estimates by Schwartz and Chylek, Chylek's work on aerosols, Spencer's identification of a hew negative feedback over the tropics he identified as Lindzen's Infrared Iris Effect, and others." These assessments haven't held up too well. Comment on Chylek/Lohmann: http://www.clim-past.net/5/143/2009/cp-5-143-2009.html Basically, if you do some severe cherry-picking of data, you can find a lower climate sensitivity (or a much higher one as Annan illustrates). Comment on Scwhartz: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/comment_on_schwartz.pdf As a result, Schwartz revised his estimate up about 50%, although not all the issues Annan et al found have been addressed. http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/abstracts/HeatCapacityResponse.html Lindzen's hypothesis hasn't withstood the test of time, and has gone through various revisions. When one piece of data refutes a claim, it morphs until another piece is falsified. Chris Colose exposes some key problems with Lindzen's latest claims, and there's some clear evidence that Lindzen has a problem admitting error. http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/ As for Spencer, what can I say? The UAH dataset has been revised upward more times than I can count. At one time he used his own flawed data to claim everyone else was wrong. The fact that he's working hard to find a negative feedback shouldn't surprise anyone.
  4. A broader view of sea level rise
    Ron Cram, ""credibility" is not a factor under consideration" Really? You seemed to understand that a journal's reputability is important, given your comment in #4: "Roger Pielke, the ISI highly cited climatologist I referenced above" What changed? It's not really a choice for contrarians to publish in E&E. They do so because their studies are usually very weak and can't pass a single independent peer review in dozens of reputable journals. Keep in mind that this doesn't imply anything peer-reviewed is correct (not the specific purpose of a peer-review), but something that can't pass ANY valid peer-review is highly suspect. While it's plausible that a biased reviewer exists somewhere in some journal, alleging all of these journals are corrupt is a rather dubious charge that tends to hurt the credibility of the accuser, especially when they end up publishing a study in an uncited demonstrably political journal of like-minded skeptics. Publishing in E&E helps give them the false appearance of a better level of credibility than their study deserves - seemingly better than just posting it on their website. If you're a stickler for ad hominens, Climate Audit is the last place one would want to go. The individual of that site spends more time slinging mud at reputable scientists (the ad hominens you're referring to) than doing actual objective research, and your link is evidence of that. Also, your link does not support your claim of reviewer bias, as is generally the case with McIntyre's ramblings. Good scientists need to be able to acknowledge errors and move on without constantly alleging corruption and conspiracy from those who dare challenge them. McIntyre consistenly fails to meet this criteria. If you say that scientists aren't supposed to be advocates, by this criteria, what contrarian scientists would still exist?
  5. It's the sun
    Re 372 - so you mean oxygen can indirectly cause cooling by affecting something else. Well of course, I have been aware that rising oxygen could lead to cooling by reducing the methane levels; however, I suspect this is a less significant effect once oxygen reaches some level of abundance and when methane's role becomes secondary to CO2 in climate-regulating greenhouse gases (except for short-term perturbations) - as far as I am aware, the O2 driven cooling by methane loss is thought to be potentially important in some Proterozoic ice ages, but I haven't heard anything about it being implicated in Phanerozoic ice ages. My impression has been that during the Phanerozoic, oxygen levels have not varied by an order of magnitude or more - instead reaching a peak of ~ 30 % or so some time in the Paleozoic (couldn't get much higher without forest fires consuming it), and it's now about 20 %, ...
  6. A broader view of sea level rise
    NewYorkJ, you are correct to think most researchers would prefer to publish in journals with a higher Impact Factor. I think I should explain why scientists sometimes choose to publish with E&E. Perhaps you have already heard the charge that skeptical papers are not well received by many journals. In most cases it has to do with the reviewers the editors chooses to review a paper. If you want, I can probably find advocacy quotes from editors of these other journals that would prove their motivation. It is a shame really, because scientists are not supposed to be advocates. I want to give you an example of what researchers are up against. Steve McIntyre, who has published in GRL and other journals, writes about a rejection notice he received from International Journal of Climate. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5978#comment-341365 Read Steve's comment and then a few comments following. You will begin to get a flavor of the kind of nonsense that goes on.
  7. A broader view of sea level rise
    Steve, I did read what Chris has written. I am not freaking out. I pointed out a few of the weaknesses with his argument. I hadn't the time then, or now, to deal with all of them. Your assessment that I have stepped back from my original position regarding Argo requiring a reconsideration of AGW theory is not correct. Loehle points out that there are reasons to question Argo data and I can accept that. But in my mind, the full accumulation of data is contrary to the claim AGW will be catastrophic. Argo is a very strong element of that but it is not alone. The assessment is also based on the climate sensitivity estimates by Schwartz and Chylek, Chylek's work on aerosols, Spencer's identification of a hew negative feedback over the tropics he identified as Lindzen's Infrared Iris Effect, and others. I have not found anything Chris has written as compelling. The only item you offer me is one I cited first and then Chris quoted back to me. It is one thing to be able to look up the numbers and another to be able to understand what they mean. A "pro-AGWer" is shorthand for a climate alarmist- one who strongly supports AGW theory. I would think the context would make that clear.
  8. A broader view of sea level rise
    NewYorkJ, your attack on the editor of E&E and Loehle's paper is completely ad hom. I'm sorry you do not understand that. In science, "credibility" is not a factor under consideration. The scientific method requires results to be reproduced. If results are reproducible, they are confirmed. If they are not, the paper is rejected. It is that simple.
  9. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Re #219 Shouting insults isn't a substitute for careful and clear discourse Quietman. It's obvious that the articles that explore possible relationships between explosive volcanic eruptions and ENSO (see my post #218), indicate that it is the effect of eruptive aerosols on radiative forcing that can affect the ocean circulation in the subsequent short periods. If you've got references to scientific papers that indicates that geothermal heat from subduction zones influences ocean currents in the manner that you are asserting then why not simply list them here. And can you remind us what "That government site that posted a hypothesis for the volcanic nature for the root cause for ENSO" is? Which specific government site?
  10. It's the sun
    Dan Pangburn - I read your pdf (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true) with some interest. I certainly agree with you that Feedback Control Theory is totally lacking in the field of Climatology. I remember reading an article by a leading Climatogist (a Ph.D and AGW sceptic) that had "discovered" that Feedback and Control theory was being taught in the building next to his....the faculty of Electrical Engineering. He briefly described a simple single feedback loop control system. He seemed amazed that this technology even existed. He certainly had no idea that feedback and control system concepts have commonly been used electronic circuit designs since the invention of the vacuum tube. I found this both amusing and sad.
  11. A broader view of sea level rise
    Ron, what are you doing? Read what Chris is writing -- he's saying that a small, significant amount of warming is expected from anthropogenic emissions between 70-160 yrs ago. True. Why are you freaking out? You seem to have stepped back from your original position regarding Argo falsifying AGW (is that assessment correct?) and now seem to be arguing other things less relevant to the thread. You've pointed out a few instances of things that don't impress you. What responses have you found compelling? Perhaps the first part of Chris' #23 re Loehle? I still haven't read that darned Church 2006 paper, but I suspect that the error estimates broaden out in the most recent years (John COOK's Fig 1 above) due to a 'smoothing' function or Bayesian approach in which subsequent estimates inform prior estimates. That, figures and discussion in "Mystery of Vanishing Ocean Heat", and the last part of NASA's story on Josh Willis suggest to me that grasping for the most recent data from a single data type is a bad strategy for increasing one's understanding. PS. What is a "pro-AGWer"? I for one would rather be considered as someone who tried to reduce AGW.
  12. A broader view of sea level rise
    "The rate of sea level rise has been increasing since the late 19th century. In an upcoming post, we shall look at predictions of future sea level rise." One very recent report, still in draft, projects a ceiling of 6 meters. The ACCE report states: "Rates of sea level rise at least twenty times the current 3.1 mm/yr sustained over more than a century have been measured for the transition to the current warm period following the termination of the last ice age and during some of the warmer intervals of the last ice age. Until improved predictive capability is achieved, this can be regarded as a reasonable upper bound of Antarctica's potential contribution to global sea level. This maximum rate (62 mm/yr) would lead to a 6-meter sea level rise by 2100, but such rates occurred when there was considerably more ice on the planet." http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/SCAR_ssg_ps/ACCE.htm I've seen others cap this at 2 meters, probably given the last line in the statement. Sea level rise has certainly been accelerating, but reaching 62 mm / yr seems very unlikely. Sorry for the double post above.
  13. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    I didn't make myself clear about the change in volcanic activity: I mean only subaerial emissions (not changes in the subduction regime on this short time scale), and usually only the effect of one or two major eruptions. Even then, I doubt that this is the only driver of ENSO. This is mainly because volcanic emissions can alter the weather patterns, and thus change winds, which in themselves influence ocean surface currents. The heat added to small spots on the sea floor is insignificant next to the power of the winds and the thermohaline currents. FYI there is no active subduction zone in the Arctic, only a divergent one (Gakkel Ridge). Not sure about the relevance of inactive ones. The active part of Alaska is to the south, where the north Pacific plate subducts, which is the cause of the Aleutians. The whole plate North America sits on is rotating counter-clockwise. This is a very large amount of facts you're getting wrong here. I'm not surprised anymore that you misunderstand all the references you've linked to.
  14. A broader view of sea level rise
    Ron Cram, My critique is of the journal, not the person. Since the journal is not cited and the editor has admitted to following a political agenda, it renders the journal's credibility rather weak and thus the study highly dubious. You don't seem to be addressing the problems with E&E, but instead appear to be dodging on misplaced ad hominen charges. Material in that journal is as good as self-published material. If an E&E study is all you have, there isn't much to discuss. I was hoping for more.
  15. It's the sun
    Patrick Re: "HOW does O2 cause cooling? Effects on the ozone layer? Interesting, but I need some numbers..." See: The rise of oxygen caused Earth's earliest ice age Thursday, May 7, 2009 "Geologists may have uncovered the answer to an age-old question - an ice-age-old question, that is. It appears that Earth's earliest ice ages may have been due to the rise of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, which consumed atmospheric greenhouse gases and chilled the earth."
  16. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Patrick Re: "A trillion milligrams = a billion g = a million kg = a thousand metric tons" A lot for you, nothing to the Earth. Everything is relative. The surface is 70-75% water. Water controls the climate it just so many ways (but it's the sun that gives the oceans most of it's heat potential). Re: "I still don't know what you mean... " The science isn't settled. Re: "1. So what if the policy at one time ignores global warming risk? Once upon a time, there were few restrictions on smoking and ciggarette advertising - why would people not restrict an unhealthy product? Well, it is unhealthy, and (libertarian objections aside) now we have restrictions." Because it's not a pollutant, it's perfectly safe mixed into the air we breathe and required by plants, a part of nature's carbon cycle. We have known about GHGs and CO2 as a GHG for over 100 years so you don't seem to realize that real scientists know it's not a problem. Never has been and never will. It's O2 that can be a bugger.
  17. A broader view of sea level rise
    Chris, I will have to brush up on CO2 through the centuries but I have a hard time swallowing a narrow range of CO2 variability. Consider the fact anthropogenic CO2 emissions has increased dramatically over the last two decades, yet the rate of accumulation in the atmosphere is about the same or even less. This shows the carbon cycle can have a hugely different natural uptake of CO2. 2. You write: "These rises {pre-1900 and pre-1950} in atmospheric CO2 are expected to make a significant contribution to the surface temperature changes during these periods." Not true. Also "the enhanced greenhouse warming during the two periods is 0.15 oC and 0.13 oC, respectively." Please! Have you ever heard the term "false precision?" The instruments available during this time cannot measure in hundredths of a degree. And 0.15C is not signficant, it is a hypothesis - an calculation. No one of the many pro-AGWers I have talked to think 9 ppm of CO2 is significant or even measurable.
  18. Philippe Chantreau at 09:24 AM on 15 May 2009
    A broader view of sea level rise
    NewYorkJ, that would be her honesty. The editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. An extensive search of the litterature (22000 journals) by the folks at the DeSmog revealed 4 research articles by her on environmental policy. In the case of E&E her editing is used in lieu of conventional peer-review. Last I checked, E&E was not listed in Journal Citation Reports: http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/scientific/Journal_Citation_Reports The issue of land use is not ignored at all by climate science and it is a significant contributor to CO2 production. There is a wealth of litterature on the subject, a few examples and summaries here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html#landuse sghwterttrrtrtt4r34r34trt34t5r34rt34tr34rt435rt43
  19. A broader view of sea level rise
    NewYorkJ, you obviously do not know what an ad hom argument is. An ad hom argument is when you go after the person rather than deal with the facts they raised. All you are doing is saying "Yeah, but it's true." It is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the question of whether or not Loehle's paper is accurate. If it is accurate, it could be published by the Devil himself and it would still be accurate. Ad hom attacks do not impress me. And they should not impress you either.
  20. A broader view of sea level rise
    Ron, I think we've established that oceans have likely continued to take up heat at least during the 5 year period to 2008. The scientific evidence supports that conclusion (see references [*] and [**] in my post #7 above). The magazine note by Loehle that you url hardly lends itself to a contrary conclusion, finishing as it does with:
    ”While the current study takes advantage of a globally consistent data source, a 4.5-year period of ocean cooling is not unexpected in terms of natural fluctuations. The problem of instrumental drift and bias is quite complicated, however, (Domingues et al. 2008; Gouretski and Koltermann 2007; Wijffels et al. 2008; Willis et al. 2004, 2008a) and it remains possible that the result of the present analysis is an artifact.”
    re #17/#20 Your assertions about the lack of contribution of land use changes to atmospheric CO2 levels, and the contribution of mid19th-mid20th century increases in atmospheric CO2 to temperature changes don't accord with the evidence: 1. Atmospheric CO2 levels are recorded in the Antarctic Law Dome cores going back 1000 years (see reference [***] in my post #9)...these have more recently been extended back 2000 years (see [*] below). These data allow insight into natural variability on the decadally-averaged timescale (since the CO2 data in these high resolution cores is averaged on that timescale). During the period from around 1100 to around 1570, for example, atmospheric CO2 levels were ~ 281 +/- 3 ppm. That gives an indication of the variation under relatively stable climatic conditions within a system in which carbon is cycled through the atmosphere/land and oceans. It's small, and especially so when yearly variation (El Nino years result in a slightly enanced [CO2], and vice versa for La Nina's, for example) are averaged out in the cores. Atmospheric CO2 levels dropped during the period of the LIA (275 ppm +/- 2 pm during the period 1600 to the middle of the 18th century). By 1800, CO2 levels were back to the pre-LIA levels of 283/284 ppm. In other words the carbon cycle had re-established its pre-LIA "equilibrium" by the early part of the 19th century. The rise in atmospheric CO2 levels from ~ 286 ppm - 297 ppm in the period 1850-1900, and from ~300 ppm to 309 ppm from 1910-1940, are very clearly outwith the natural variation seen in the preceding 800 years. They don't go up and down slowly over long periods (the fall in CO2 into the LIA was relatively fast), but go up and up rather quickly in the context of natural variation. They are very likely the result of anthropogenic emissions and land use changes. We could document the evidence for this, but perhaps this thread isn't the appropriate place. 2. These rises in atmospheric CO2 are expected to make a significant contribution to the surface temperature changes during these periods. It's very easy to calculate that within a climate sensitivity right in the centre of the likely range (3 oC of warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2), the enhanced greenhouse warming during the two periods is 0.15 oC and 0.13 oC, respectively. Since the total global warming from the mid 19th century to the mid 20th century was around 0.3-0.4 oC: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ the anthropogenic contribution from industrial and land use changes could rather easily account for the bulk of the warming during this period. So clearly it's NOT a "total fallacy to think a few PPMs of atmospheric CO2 in the last half of the 19th century is going to have a measurable impact on the atmosphere or ocean heat content or rising sea levels"! Within our understanding of the greenhouse effect, we certainly expect that these small but significant rises in atmospheric CO2 should cause the surface to warm, and the oceans to take up some excess heat and expand somewhat. [*] C. MacFarling Meure et al. (2006) Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L14810.
  21. Dan Pangburn at 05:23 AM on 15 May 2009
    It's the sun
    As experienced during the Maunder Minimum, the observation that there are few sunspots is associated with cold (see e.g. Fig. 2 at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/scarewatch/really_cooling.pdf ). This indicates a connection between sunspot count and energy reaching earth’s surface. It is revealing to plot against time the integral of the sunspot data reduced by a factor times the fourth power of the average global absolute temperature. This results in a graph with amplitude proportional to energy change and therefore an expected influence on average global temperature change. Adjust the factor so that the first part of the curve is fairly level. This graph shows a substantial and continued energy gain starting in about 1945. This corroborates the observation of a Solar Grand Maximum that went on for about 70 years and appears to have ended a few years ago. Now, look at the graph of average global temperature such as the NOAA data available at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat . Notice the approximate 30 year up-trends and down-trends that have been associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Note that from about 1945 until about 1975 the PDO down trend must have been a stronger forcing than the gain from sunspots since the temperature trend was down. After 1975 the PDO uptrend combines with the increased solar activity to produce the gain in average global temperature observed late in the 20th century. The sun has gone quiet and the PDO is in its downtrend. The PDO downtrend combined with the quiet sun is going to result in a continuation of the planet cooling trend. The sun has not been this quiet this long since 1913. Clouds are parameterized in the AOGCMs, are recognized as being very significant and are a recognized weakness in the analysis. Sunspot changes appear to be a catalyst for cloud changes and therefore have much greater influence than just Total Solar Irradiation. The Climate Science Community is, for the most part, unaware of the science (it’s not in their curriculum) that proves that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature and therefore earth’s climate. See my pdf linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the proof and to identify the missing science. Or email danpangburn@roadrunner.com
  22. It's the sun
    "It is except for AGW, this is faith-based as there is not evidence. " "In parts of the Mesozoic it was not as hot but had higher levels of CO2, There is zero correlation." It isn't that black-and-white - less than perfect correlation is not zero correlation. From the physics, CO2 must have an effect; uncertainties are more from feedbacks; uncertainties are not infinite. Where there are variations that do not correlate, maybe there were other things happening at those times, such as (depending on time scale and magnitude of variations): biological evolution (such as evolution of land vegetation (albedo)), changes in geography (albedo, direct mechanical effects on atmospheric and oceanic circulations, direct thermal effects on atmosphere and ocean, interaction of thermal and circulation changes and other feedbacks). ----- HOW does O2 cause cooling? Effects on the ozone layer? Interesting, but I need some numbers... ------ "It is except for AGW, this is faith-based as there is not evidence. " By the standard you must use for evidence, there is likely no evidence for: millions of years of biological evolution by natural processes generating/sustaining the diversity of life and its interactions Pangea a sizable asteroid hit the Earth ~ 65 Ma by the Yucatan Peninsula the moon landings the (H word; yes, I'll play that card in this case, since I am able to lump it together with these others so that the defining characteristic of the group is not the offensiveness of denial) the expansion of the universe heavy elements are manufactured naturally in stars by nuclear reactions and in supernovae and maybe a few other related processes... ? the Earth is round (because if the space program was faked, then all we have to go on is...) ? quarks
  23. A broader view of sea level rise
    Ron Cram, It's not an ad hominen to reference a quote from the journal's editor: "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?" I admire his honesty, but to answer his question: no - not if you want your journal to be respected. Rarely-cited sub-standard journals set up by like-minded skeptics don't carry much weight with the scientific community. It's no better than a self-published reference. What I do know is that the latest peer-reviewed research in the field now renders Loehle one of the last "ocean heat content cooling" holdouts.
  24. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    ps You don't see the increase because you are not looking hard enough. Everyone admits that it has increased and that is what the articles point out taken collectively. I have not included all because some are just so common place. It's pnly the recently become active (and recently discovered) that make the news.
  25. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Re: "The only aspect I don't have an immediate issue with, is that there may be a link between changes in volcanic activity and changes in surface currents (e.g. ENSO)." That was the whole point. But it's not just ENSO. It's the same at every subduction zone where sea floor meets continent. They are all cyclic in nature and the cycles are not uniform. There are at least three major subduction zones in the arctic (there are more but not currently active and therefore not recognized as such but logic dictates their locations by direction of continental movement). And a rifting area at N. E. Greenland. Alaska is currently active. Not from westward movement as the subduction zone is in Asia but along the north continental edge of Alaska. These can be seen on a good quality seafloor floor. It looks like the Canadian Shield is turning clockwise.
  26. A broader view of sea level rise
    Ian, I was not aware of any recent problems so I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. As I read over the link you provided, it appears to be the same problem being discussed twice- a slow internal leak is causing false pressure readings. The first notice indicates a few floats will be greylisted as uncorrectable. For the others, adjustments will be made. The second notice discusses the fact newer floats seem to have this problem in greater numbers. They are working on a more reliable testing procedures but also working on a new style of pressure sensor from a different manufacturer. We will have to wait to see what impact the necessary adjustments will have on the data.
  27. A broader view of sea level rise
    NewYorkJ, I know the reputation of the editor of E&E. I also know E&E has published papers no other journal would publish only to have the findings published in E&E confirmed in subsequent AGU journal articles. One example is the M&M paper on the Hockey Stick. I also know the reputation of Craig Loehle, which is very good. Ad hominem attacks, against a journal's editor or the author of a paper, do not carry much weight with me. If you can find something wrong with Loehle's paper, then you would be doing real science. If you find something, let me know. David, land use/land cover changes can impact temperature as Roger Pielke and others have been pointing out for a long time. But the main impact of land use/land cover changes is not to CO2. If it was, the issue would be more warmly embraced by the IPCC and Roger would not be so adament that CO2 is not the only impact. Contrary to IPCC statements, no one really knows how much of the warming in the last quarter of the 20th century was natural and how much was from 50 years of accumulated anthropogenic CO2. It is a total fallacy to think a few PPMs of atmospheric CO2 in the last half of the 19th century is going to have a measurable impact on the atmosphere or ocean heat content or rising sea levels. You do know that atmospheric CO2 levels change naturally right? You do understand the carbon cycle?
  28. David Horton at 16:00 PM on 14 May 2009
    A broader view of sea level rise
    #13 Ron Cram. There is some evidence, and the proposition seems obvious, that from the time humans started altering the environment on a massive scale through agriculture they were having an impact on atmospheric chemistry. Up until that point, hunter-gatherer humans, like other animal species, were consuming plants that were replacing themselves, leaving CO2 in balance. Agriculture changes the equation by extensive land clearance and the build up of numbers of domestic animals. However the changes are still not likely to be great. It is only in the industrial revolution that we start extensively burning the locked up carbon in coal and oil. And sure, this process accelerates, but from the time it began we started to sow the seeds, unknowingly, of the accelerating disaster we have now. So picking a precise starting point for human effects is somewhat futile. Recognising the reality of the effect is essential.
  29. A broader view of sea level rise
    Ron Cram, Regarding point #2, keep in mind Energy & Environment is not at all a reputable scientific journal. It was set up by like-minded skeptics and is not carried by the ISI. The editor even has admitted to following a political agenda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment
  30. A broader view of sea level rise
    Chris, 1. I'm sorry. I misread you. Now I see what you are saying. However, the real warming happened from 1975-2000, not from 1950. According to Labitzke of UCAR, about one-third of warming from that period was solar. Based on the conclusion of his presentation, solar did increase during this period. That was why I misread you. I was certain you were familiar with this commonly held opinion. http://cedarweb.hao.ucar.edu/workshop/tutorials/2001/Labitzke.pdf 2. The amount of data needed depends on the quality of the data and the physical theories in play. Yes, we can conclude that heat uptake by the oceans has stopped based on Argo data. BTW, one of the reasons I like Argo data is that it is freely available to everyone and therefore less susceptible to arbitrary and unexplained adjustments. Craig Loehle recently updated the Willis study with the latest data and guess what? It shows more pronounced cooling of the oceans. You can download the Loehle paper at http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152 3. BTW, Loehle points out some reasons to be skeptical of the Argo data. 4. Where are you getting your numbers for CO2? Have you looked at the amount of human emitted CO2? It is extremely minimal. Any change in atmospheric CO2 during these early periods had more to do with the natural carbon cycle than any human contribution.
  31. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Quietman I've tried wading through the 9 pages of comments, and my conclusions so far are: * not a single article you've linked to says what you think it says; none of them certainly support your ideas. * "geologically fast" is still orders of magnitude longer than a human life-span. * You do not understand the magnitude of the global Thermohaline circulation; it will probably overpower the effects of just about all the heat supplied by submarine magmas, and it will certainly smooth out any short term changes in heat supply. * there does not appear to be any evidence that tectonic and volcanic activity are significantly on the rise globally * the significance of planetary alignments on the earth has been falsified conclusively as nothing more than woo; and as soon as someone asserts they understand the fundamental forces of nature better than all the specialists put together, red flags go up anyway The only aspect I don't have an immediate issue with, is that there may be a link between changes in volcanic activity and changes in surface currents (e.g. ENSO).
  32. It's the sun
    ps see "Global warming and natural climate change in the past" This discussion does not belong in this thread.
  33. It's the sun
    not exposed to the air s/b now exposed to the air (refer to the paleomaps)
  34. It's the sun
    Re: "and science is nothing if not evidence-based." It is except for AGW, this is faith-based as there is not evidence. Re: "The peak of the Eocene was perhaps 6 oC warmer than now. Atmospheric CO2 levels were as high as 1500 ppm." In parts of the Mesozoic it was not as hot but had higher levels of CO2, There is zero correlation. Re: "Likewise the warming of the Eocene is linked to high atmospheric CO2 levels and cooling towards the late Oligocene was sequentially reduced CO2 levels." No it's increased O2 caused cooling, not reduction of CO2. One is a cause and the other is a consequent. Re: "We might account for 100 or even 200 ppm of atmospheric CO2 that way, but we're more than 1000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 out. CO2 levels can't have risen in the manner that you suggest - it's incompatible with the evidence." No, it's not when you take into account the massive increase in tectonic activity and bombardment from space of asteroids and comets (from about 70mya through the Miocene). Think just a minute of how much NOx and Methane was being released from former seabeds not exposed to the air.
  35. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    I've now read it. I still don't know what you mean...
  36. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Re 517 - I haven't gotten around to reading it yet; not sure what you mean...
  37. It's the sun
    Re 359 - when we say that it is only about 0.1 W/m2 (and, actually, I think that's rounded up from maybe 0.08 W/m2), we - here I am assuming what others mean - we don't mean that it is always exactly the same. But it cannot vary much very fast on large (regional and global) scales because much of the heat near the surface had to come from below, etc... a sudden increase in the heat flux would deplete the near-surface heat and it would take time for heat from below to build up the near-surface heat to a point where it can flow out at the same rate... and of course, the rate of radioactive decay within the crust is basically set in stone once the stone forms. Larger changes have to take millions of years... and there are negative feedbacks that would keep it from getting much larger or much smaller than what it would be following a billions-of-years long cooling trend. Re 363 - why, then, should you assume that changes in geothermal heat fluxes and continental arrangements should have any effect? - even though the later obviously and easily could, it would be an assumption (that certain physical laws held for other time periods, etc.) that it ever did... (Of course it (changes in geography) did, and of course CO2 did, etc.)
  38. It's the sun
    re: #361. The PETM obviously didn't have "zero duration". The greenhouse-induced warming took up to 20,000 years with a longer recovery time. It produced a large temperature rise, ocean acidification, and is associated with expulsion of a very large amount of 13C-depeleted carbon into the atmosphere (and oceans). It caused very significant extinctions of marine organisms. #363/364: The science is speaking for itself Quietman, based on careful assesment of evidence....and science is nothing if not evidence-based. The fact is that the PETM is associated with very high atmospheric CO2 levels, and these were 13C-depleted (possibly originating in methane clathrates), and the oceans acidified. These are all characteristics of warming from greenhouse forcing and CO2 uptake by the oceans. Likewise the warming of the Eocene is linked to high atmospheric CO2 levels and cooling towards the late Oligocene was sequentially reduced CO2 levels. We can be scientific and assess the relationship between raised/reduced temperatures and raised/reduced CO2 durng these periods. We can inspect the ice age transitions and observe that the glacial-interglacial transitions were generally associated with a temperature rise of 5-6 oC and raised CO2 of around 90 ppm (180-270 ppm through several of the transitions in the ice core record). Thus a global temperature rise/fall of around 1 oC recruits/sequesters around 15 ppm of CO2 into/from the atmosphere. The peak of the Eocene was perhaps 6 oC warmer than now. Atmospheric CO2 levels were as high as 1500 ppm. It's immediately obvious that such high CO2 levels cannot be due to the physicochemical equilibrium between atmospheric and oceanic CO2 that was responsible for temperature-linked CO2 changes during ice age glacial-interglacial transitions. We might account for 100 or even 200 ppm of atmospheric CO2 that way, but we're more than 1000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 out. CO2 levels can't have risen in the manner that you suggest - it's incompatible with the evidence. And of course the notion that CO2 follows temperature but not the other way round is logically flawed. Any phenomenon/event that releases large amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere must cause the Earth to warm. The Earth warmed rather quickly during the PETM as a result of the massive enhancement of greenhouse gases that has left multiple traces in the sedimentary record. That's what the evidence shows.
  39. A broader view of sea level rise
    for John Cook re my post #9. Sorry for calling you John Cross...I did get it right once in my post! If you want to edit my post and delete this one, you could tidy up my mistake... while I'm acknowledging/confessing my posting errors, I inadvertently failed to close a "blockquote" in a recent post on the volcanoes thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=9&t=221&&a=28 and that seems to have been carried through subsequent posts! I usually save my long posts with markups as a .htm for viewing in a web browser to chack that it's all O.K., but an unclosed "blockquote" right at the end of a message doesn't show up!
  40. A broader view of sea level rise
    Re #12 1. Ron, I'm not claiming anything of the sort. Can you clarify where you got that idea?! I pointed out that the evidence indicates the solar cycle results in a surface temperature response of around 0.1 oC of cooling max to min, and obviously 0.1 oC of warming min to max. I pointed out that there has been no warming trend in the solar irradiance since the late 1950's...if anything all measures of solar parameters indicates a small cooling solar contribution during the last two decades. There was very likely a small solar contribution to warming in the early part of the 20th century (1900's-1940's). 2. Well yes. 4-5 years is an extremely small time period in this context. It's not surprising that there are large uncertainty ranges in the measurements...however one cannot cherrypick extrema from uncertainty ranges! The bottom line is that the ocean heat/sea level rise "budget" seems to have been "closed" by analyses published in a couple of papers earlier this year (see my post #7 and papers cited there). The evidence indicates that there has been a steric (warming) contribution to sea level rise during this period. Thus one cannot conclude that heat uptake by the oceans has stopped since 2003, since the evidence indicates that it hasn't. Obviously we'll have a clearer picture (less uncertainty) as time progresses. 3. Fair enough. Unless additional errors appear in the Argo data one may as well assume that the Argo output is accurate. There may or may not be an inconsistency in the Argo data compared to the sea level-mass-steric analysis. 4. Atmospheric CO2 levels rose from ~ 286 ppm - 297 ppm in the period 1850-1900, and from ~300 ppm to 309 ppm from 1910-1940 (the two periods you specified) [see ref. [***} in my post #9]. Within a climate sensitivity of 3 oC of surface warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, this should yield warmings near 0.15 oC and 0.13oC, respectively. So the CO2 rise most likely did contribute to warming (and sea level rise) during these periods. Of course no one is suggesting that raised CO2 was the sole cause of warming during these periods. It's likely that there was a solar contribution to warming at least during the period 1910-1940; some of the warming during this period was also due to recovery from high volcanic activity (aerosolic cooling).
  41. Ian Forrester at 01:11 AM on 14 May 2009
    A broader view of sea level rise
    Ron Cram said: "1. So you are claiming changes to solar irradiance can cause cooling but not warming? The solar physicists I know will be very surprised to hear that!" Re-read what Chris said. He said that the drop from maximum to minimum was 0.1 degrees C. Funny that you should completely misinterpret that to "can only cause cooling." Also there are at least two other problems identified in the ARGO system besides the one you mention. See: http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/index.html
  42. A broader view of sea level rise
    David, my comment was linked more to industrial emissions of CO2 than to any historical debate about when the industrial period began. Look up CO2 emissions from 1850 to 1900 and you will see they were miniscule compared to emissions in the last half of the 20th century or compared to natural changes to atmospheric CO2 from the carbon cycle. There is no way CO2 can be blamed for sea level rise during the years 1850-1900.
  43. A broader view of sea level rise
    Chris, 1. So you are claiming changes to solar irradiance can cause cooling but not warming? The solar physicists I know will be very surprised to hear that! 2. My comment was intended to point out the error bars were nearly as large as the supposed change. Anytime I see that I have to become skeptical of any real change, especially when other scientists have already published saying there has been no significant warming. 3. The Argo data is far and away the best observation network we have for the climate system right now. The surface observation system is confounded with many problems, the greatest being the fact it is looking at atmosphere and not ocean storage of heat. Your dismissal of the Argo network because you don't like the data is troubling to me and should be troubling to you. The Argo technology is not that new. The instruments that measure temperature and salinity are very precise and reliable. The only problem the floats had were with the fall rate, so that the numbers being reported were thought to come from a different ocean depth. I do not know anything about the methods of L&W or the other papers you cited, but I do know about the Argo network which began deployment back in 2000. Argo has had global coverage since 2003, take very precise measures and now we know about the potential for fall rate error so it is being watched very carefully. 4. Regarding pre-industrial sea level rise, take a look at any chart of CO2 emissions. Very, very little CO2 was emitted from 1850 to 1900. In fact, CO2 emissions did not really kick in until 1950. CO2 rise cannot explain the increase in global temps from 1910 to 1942.
  44. A broader view of sea level rise
    David Horton, You could even go back a little further than this and link anthropogenic influences to LIA cooling. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4755328.stm http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/manvleaf-010709.html ...although others believe natural influences (solar, volcanic) are the key drivers of the few tenths of a degree of global mean temperature change during that period. Regardless, recent warming has been very rapid. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/
  45. Are sea levels rising?
    It's interesting to note that the jump leading into 1998 doesn't lessen due to the Inverse Barometer correction. Likely that jump was largely a result of thermal expansion as ocean temperatures shot up well above the trendline due to the super el Nino. Oceans have had slight cooling in recent years, largely as a result of ENSO values turning negative, yet sea levels continue to rise, indicating perhaps that land ice melt is accelerating. The next moderately strong el Nino could bring a sizable jump.
  46. Are sea levels rising?
    "I have seen the 2mm/year assumption in a lot of places including in the IPCC report of course there listed as 15-20 cm per century. I agree the 6 to 10 meter claims are rediculous! But maybe you better tell Al Gore. The claim in AIG is 20 feet." Common error. AIT doesn't put any timeframe on 20 feet of sea level rise. [I see John Cross already covered this] One could say Gore is being cautious. If you read the latest draft SCAR report, 6 meters is seen as an upper bound by 2100: "Rates of sea level rise at least twenty times the current 3.1 mm/yr sustained over more than a century have been measured for the transition to the current warm period following the termination of the last ice age and during some of the warmer intervals of the last ice age. Until improved predictive capability is achieved, this can be regarded as a reasonable upper bound of Antarctica's potential contribution to global sea level. This maximum rate (62 mm/yr) would lead to a 6-meter sea level rise by 2100, but such rates occurred when there was considerably more ice on the planet." http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/SCAR_ssg_ps/ACCE.htm
  47. How to cherry pick your way to Antarctic land ice gain
    "The article then transitions into a discussion of sea ice so smoothly, you barely even notice they're no longer talking about land ice." Yep. This confusion seems deliberate by the author. And it's land ice that has the implication for sea level rise. Also, here's more interesting spin from the Australian article: "Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise." A potential contribution of 1.25 m of sea level rise by 2100 from just Antarctic ice sheets is big news, yet the author here is downplaying it by comparing it to quotes (or misquotes in this case) by a politician. An excellent debunking of this trashy piece from the mainstream media can be found here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/the_australians_war_on_science_38.php Fran Kelly: Today, some positive news. Rather than melting, the science shows that ice is expanding in much of Antarctica and that in parts is getting thicker. ... Ian Allison: We have now new evidence that confirms that on average we are losing ice from both Greenland and Antarctica which is contributing to sea level ... Kelly: ... but you found something that suggests its perhaps not as rapid a melt as we once thought. Can you tell us about what you've found, the difference in the East and West in Antarctica. Allison: ... In East Antarctica there might be a slight increase due to increased snowfall. ... on average West Antarctica is losing more ice that the East is gaining
  48. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    ps Here's the latest in an ever growing string: "The volcanoes in the central African nation could be about to erupt, threatening Goma, which has a population of more than half a million people, scientists said Thursday. They made their observations on visits to the two volcanic peaks of Nyiragongo and Nyamulagira." - MSNBC Science News
  49. Climate's changed before
    Here is something that you should know already: The Paleogene Period of the Cenozoic Era: 65.5 to 23.0 million years ago The Paleocene (“ancient recent life”) epoch marks the beginning of the Paleogene Period and the Cenozoic era. The sea-level fell to expose dry land in much of inland North America, Africa, and Australia. South America however was cut adrift with its own unique evolving “ark” of birds, mammals, and reptiles. The Paleocene Epoch of the Paleogene Period: 65.5 to 55.8 million years ago The rifting of the North Atlantic cut off North America from Europe, and South America lost links with Antarctica. India and Scotland were home to mountain-building episodes. The sea-level rose and seas invaded much of Africa, Australia, and Siberia. Climates were generally warm or mild worldwide. Tropical palms flourished as far north as the London Basin. The unusual mixture of tropical and subtropical elements in the northern latitudes in the Eocene suggests that the mean annual temperature of these regions was not as high as in the present tropics, but that the flora was maintained by a greater rainfall than occurs in these northern latitudes today, with no pronounced seasonality in its distribution, and by the absence of winter frost. The Eocene Epoch of the Paleogene Period: 38-54 million years ago There was an increase in volcanic activity, and plate tectonic movement, as India collided with Asia. The last remnant of the supercontinent of Gondwanaland broke up as Australia and South America both separated from Antarctica The Oligocene also marked the start of a generalized cooling, with glaciers forming in Antarctica for the first time during the Cenozoic. The increase in ice sheets led to a fall in sea level. The tropics diminished, giving way to cooler woodlands and grasslands. Although there was a slight warming period in the late Oligocene, the overall cooling trend was to continue, culminating in the Ice Ages of the Pleistocene. The Oligocene Epoch of the Paleogene Period: 33.9 to 23.0 million years ago Source: Palæos
  50. Climate's changed before
    Chris Your examples are results of modern education just like these: "This finding has opened new doors in dinosaur research on this part of the continent: "It established that dinosaurs were nesting at this high latitude," said Miyashita. " Science Daily or Live Science "Some dinosaurs (warm-blooded, perhaps) were surprisingly good at withstanding near-freezing temperatures, they say. Witness the team's latest find, a diverse stash of dinosaur fossils laid down just a few million years before the big impact, along what's now the Kakanaut River of northeastern Russia. Even accounting for continental drift, the dinos lived at more than 70 degrees of latitude north, well above the Arctic Circle. " There is no excuse for this poor education. This started in the late 1960s with the long hairs and just went downwards since then.

Prev  2559  2560  2561  2562  2563  2564  2565  2566  2567  2568  2569  2570  2571  2572  2573  2574  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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