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  2574  2575  2576  2577  2578  2579  2580  2581  2582  2583  2584  2585  2586  2587  2588  2589  Next

Comments 129051 to 129100:

  1. Latest satellite data on Greenland mass change
    Taking the rate of ice loss at 179Gtonnes/annum equates to around 162Gtonnes water, which would give 0.45mm sea level rise, about the increase indicated. Iceland has an estimated 250 x 10E6 km3 of ice, and if you do the sums, it will take 1400yrs to melt if the melt rate does not vary, and mean sea level would rise 0.62m.
  2. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Re #33 IRL: Yes, the cooling was confined pretty much to the first half of the year. You can assess this by inspecting the monthly-averaged temperature anomalies. Here's the UK Hadcrut3 global temperature analysis: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3gl.txt The temperatures in early 2008 through May were highly suppressed (except oddly for March). Temperatures recovered in the second half of the year so that the last half of 2008 was as warm as the second half of 2007. And 2007 was one of the top three warmest years on record. Overall 2008 will be cooler due to the cold start. Despite that it's one of the top 10 warmest years on record. The prediction that warming would start again in mid 2008 was not a prediction from computer models. It was a prediction based on our basic understanding of the Earth's temperature response to rising greenhouse gas forcing, our understanding of the temporal evolution of La Nina events and so on...
  3. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    A few sums ....various sources give our annual energy usage from FF as around 14 terawatts. Looking around the Australian Bureau of Statistics gives the following population figures.... People 21 million Horses 400,000 Kangaroos 23 million Camels 400,000 Cattle (dairy and beef) 26 million Sheep 20 million Rabbits 250 million Simple maths - multiplying numbers by the basal metabolic rate at rest of each species gives a daily heat emission of 315 x 10E9 watts or 114 x 10E12 watts per annum. This figure increases with physical activity. In other words, the small selction of life forms listed from ONE country put 9 times more heat into the atmosphere than man does through FF consumption....and they represent a tiny fraction of the worlds animal species. How does the GW model accomodate this?
  4. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    "Equilibrium" and "thermodynamics" are certainly not only engineering concepts. They are fundamental to all processes in the natural world including all of the processes of life. The reason, for example, that protein synthesis within cells is coupled to ATP hydrolysis is to shift the equilibrium for the reaction: aa(1) + aa(2) <---> aa(1)-aa(2) + H20 in the direction of peptide bond formation such that the reaction occurs spontaneously under cellular conditions. Without coupling to a free energy source the equilibrium for the reaction as written lies far to the left and left to themselves all the proteins of our bodies would spontaneously hydrolyze back to their constituent amino acids (if very, very slowly!). One cannot consider the thermodynamics of life processes without considering chemical equilibria. In all living processes the organism is maintained in an "out of equilibrium" state through coupling to sources of favourable free energy. These phenomena maintain a homeostatic status until the organism dies, upon which time chemical reactions proceed towards their equilibrium state. In non-living systems (like earth processes), systems are far less constrained by homeostatic "control", and perturbations take the system towards a new equilibrium state. As the sun passes through its solar cycle, it drives a temperature response of the earth system which tends to equilibrate at a new temperature governed by the varying solar forcing. However because the solar cycle is rapid with respect to the relaxation times of the temperature response, the earth undergoes a rather damped (and barely detectable at the surface) temperature response. If there is a persistent change in forcing (e.g. the solar output changes in a persistent manner for a period that is long compared to the earths' relaxation time(s)), then the earth will come to a new equilibrium temperature at a rate defined by the relaxation times of the climate response (relatively rapid tropospheric temperature response; very slow temperature reequilibration of the oceans...). Likewise if there is an enhanced greehouse forcing through a significantly increased greenhouse gas concentration, the earth's temperature will respond towards a new equilibrium temperature around which cyclic and stochastic elements of the climate system will cause it to fluctuate. Of course more than one forcing contribution may affect the climate system at the same time and the situation will be more complex. However it is far easier to estimate the equilibrium temperature response through the summation of forcings (positive and negative), than it is to predict the temporal evolution of the temperature response which is affected by multiple relation times within the climate system as well as the stochastic and cyclic elements that provide the year on year (and perhaps decadal) fluctutations.
  5. Philippe Chantreau at 20:37 PM on 10 January 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Yes, Google Scholar. A tool to find science papers, authors etc. I don't understand your hang up about this. When you research something, you start with a review of the litterature. When you find an article, you obviously look at the references. But you also look at the cites. Why? Because if the article was cited in another paper, chances are that paper can be interesting for your research. It is a fairly universal thing. Just look up papers, you will see the cites.
  6. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    I'm very new here but can you tell me if in fact the cooling referred to at the start of this post "2007's dramatic cooling is driven by La Nina which historically has caused similar drops in global temperature and should recede in mid-2008" actually happened? I find it difficult to reconcile the various conflicting opinions but it seems the prediction that warming would recommence in mid 2008 is not borne out by reality as 2008 was overall quite cool. Was the prediction that warming would start again in mid 2008 from computer models? If so it seems to reinforce the findings that modeling predictions don't agree with the subsequent actuality..
  7. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Seemingly odd analogies: 388 - "are in phase with topographic maxima and minima, with the matchup dedending on whether the wavelengths are shorter or longer than the resonant wavelength. " Which is actually analogous to what happens when water flows over an obstruction at speeds faster or slower than the gravity wave speed in the water (I think the cutoff is near a Froude number of 1; when near 1 it is possible to have a hydraulic jump downstream of the obstruction.) (And this is also analogous to flow through a tube with a narrow section, with a Mach number either less than or greater than 1 - near 1, and it is possible to start subsonic and end up supersonic, etc...)
  8. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Nonlinearities: In addition to finding barotropic and baroclinic Rossby waves in a stratified fluid (p.214-219 in Cushman Roisin), Cushman-Roisin also finds mathematical solutions in the form of propagating vortices (p.219-223). Typically, one would have to find multiple wave packets to linearly superimpose to create some isolated anomaly, and each component may have it's own group velocity, so the anomaly will spread out in time (unless it just happens to on track toward some maximum compactness, in which case it will spread out afterward). (PS mathematically, this is actually closely related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: to construct the wave form for an electron with some location, one must put together many sinusoidal waves. A Gaussian distribution for location can be constructed from the linear superposition of an infinite number of sinusoidal waves, each weighted by a function of it's wave number, which is proportional to momentum; for the total to have a Gaussian shape, the weighting is a Gaussian shape over wave numbers. It turns out that the more tightly confined (smaller standard deviation) the Gaussian distribution in location, the less tightly confined (larger standard deviation) the distribution of wave numbers, and vice versa. Hence, one cannot know both the position and momentum of an electron to arbitrarily great precision.) ... And one cannot expect just any vorticity anomaly pattern to retain it's form over time while propagating. But due to nonlinearities, some forms can. I think, for waves in general, such forms might be called solitons (?). Holton, p.349, suggests some blocking patterns (somewhat persistent quasi-stationary high amplitude waves in the flow pattern) may be such "solitary waves" which maintain amplitude in the face of dispersion by nonlinear advection. (Other blocking can be caused by fluxes by transient waves). The vortices described by Cushman-Roisin (p.221-223) are such phenomena. They have rather interesting behavior in that, while the longest wavelengths of Rossby waves with PV gradient to the north will propagate westward with the largest speed for Rossby waves, and the shorest wavelengths will barely propagate, the smallest vortices propagate to the east and the largest propagate to the west, but the closer each is to the cutoff between them, which is something like the Rossby radius of deformation, the faster the propagation... __________________ Wave-mean interaction I: Holton Ch.10, 349-351, describes a very simple model that illustrates a form of low-frequency variability with topographically forced Rossby waves (see comment 388). This simple model takes external climate forcing into account as a basic state equilibrium zonal wind speed. Rossby waves are excited by flow over topography. Vorticity fluxes by Rossby waves **(more on that in a little bit) and the drag force (form drag) due to flow over topography (via pressure variation from Rossby waves) can act to change the basic state wind, which is otherwise tending to approach the equilibrium basic state wind (which physically could be determined by the distribution of heating and cooling). Under some conditions, three equilbrium states can be found; one is unstable and the other two are stable. Of course reality is much more complex but the chaotic switching in between regimes could be understood as a consequence of something somewhat similar to multiple equilbria. ______________ Instabilities: (PS do you like how fast this is going now?) ... has to wait till tomorrow.
  9. Latest satellite data on Greenland mass change
    Steve L #5 is WA NASA video ?
  10. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Google scholar ?
  11. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    From 380: " And if an anomaly occurs at an upper or lower boundary, my impression and understanding is that the RV field is doubled in strength (but has half the volume)" Because, if the conditions are such that the RV distribution is vertically symmetric about an IPV anomaly, then there is no vertical displacement (in terms of q and p relative to each other) on the quasi-horizontal plane (the isentrope?) that cuts through the IPV anomaly. One can remove the top or bottom half of the IPV anomaly and the RV field and put the remainder against a boundary. Since each half of the IPV anomaly should have contributed something to the RV field at each level, this suggests that the remaining RV field in the half volume is near twice the strength of that which would be produced from the remaining IPV anomaly if not next to such a boundary; hence, the RV field that would have been produced on the other side of the boundary has been added instead to the first side... etc.. I think ... ________________________________ As with gravity waves (and, as I recall from Holton Ch. 12, equatorial Rossby-gravity waves and Kelvin waves), the component of vertical group velocity along phase lines in the vertical plane is upward if the phase tilts with increasing height towards the direction of horizontal phase propagation (For Rossby waves, toward the west if the IPV gradient is to the north) and downward if oppositely tilted. In general, the vertical component of group velocity (which includes a contribution from the component of group velocity perpendicular to phase planes) for all these waves is oppositely directed from the vertical phase propagation. _____________________ Rossby waves have been described by their propagation through the air. Propagation relative to the surface requires adding the basic state wind. For a basic state PV gradient to the north (which is the default condition since the beta effect tends to dominate over much or most of the atmosphere), for a given wind speed to the east, there is a portion of the spectrum (in particular, for barotropic waves with phase lines aligned north to south, one particular wavelength) for which the waves are stationary relative to the surface. Disturbances may force Rossby waves. In particular, some, such as mountain ranges, persistent areas of deep convection over SST anomalies, and land-ocean thermal contrasts (?), form stationary patterns (or nearly stationary over shorter time periods). The large scale wind can be altered by these things into wavy patterns. These waves would tend to propagate; however, the forcing propagates through the air according to the basic state wind; thus, some portion of the spectrum which would freely propagate in the same way can be resonantly excited by such forcing (at least, if those wavelengths are present in the forcing pattern). From Holton p.220 - 222 (considering a simple but useful illustrative model), with no damping (friction, etc.), the amplitude of the resonant wave becomes infinite over time; shorter or longer wavelengths have troughs (vorticity maxima) and ridges (vorticity minima - in usual wave terminology, that would be the trough, but it is called a ridge because of how it appears in streamline patterns in the Northen hemisphere westerlies) are in phase with topographic maxima and minima, with the matchup dedending on whether the wavelengths are shorter or longer than the resonant wavelength. Adding boundary layer drag to damp the wave amplitudes, an infinite wave amplitude is avoided, but there is still a resonant response centered at the same wavelength, and the ridges are 1/4 wavelength upstream from mountains while the troughs are 1/4 wavelength downstream. The very simple model (Charney-Eliassen) does a good job reproducing the observed pattern of the Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes at the 500 mb level (p.222). These quasistationary waves are nearly barotropic, but not quite - there is some westward tilt with height, suggesting that wave energy is propagating upward, with the upward group velocity. This makes sense since, at least for the topographic forcing, the source is at the surface. (Other sources within the troposphere would still contribute to upward group velocity into the stratosphere). __________________________ Variations in basic state conditions (stability, vorticity, gradients of these things) will cause spatial variations in Rossby wave propagation, and thus cause refraction and reflection. And from what I've read, absorption and over-reflection (which I suspect is analogous to the stimulated emission of radiation) can occur. (I think it could also be said that there is emission - as in when a disturbance is introduced into the atmosphere from a non-Rossby wave source Such sources would include baroclinic and barotropic instability). One could view that in two steps: Changing the distribution of RV for a given IPV pattern, and changing the IPV advection pattern for a given RV pattern. Variations in the basic state wind can also distort the shape of IPV anomalies and thus change the wave vector and wavelengths of Rossby waves and therefore also affect propagation. For example, a wave packet with some group velocity might encounter horizontal or vertical shearing, which reorients the phase tilts, potentially reversing the group velocity.
  12. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    ps IF we are fortunate it will make life a little easier for us in the coming glacation, but it will not stop it, no matter how hard you pray.
  13. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    Yes chris, CO2 can cause a small temperature rise because it's a GHG. We all know that. We also know that it can not prevent an Ice Age as shown by the historical record and it can't cause catastrophic global warming because life still exists on this planet even though CO2 reached levels in the Mesozoic over three times the proposed "tipping point" and never tipped. Earth is not like venus and will not become like venus for another billion years if ever.
  14. Philippe Chantreau at 10:40 AM on 10 January 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Nonsense. Look for a paper in Google scholar and you'll see how many references were made to that paper. Find a paper on GRL and they have a tab dedicated only to that purpose ("cited in" tab) that even tells you what papers it was referred in and gives a link to that paper if available.
  15. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Phillipe By the 34 I refer to the fact that it is a one sided view. How many did not use this as a reference because they disagree? So the number, in itself is both useless and redundant (any only seems to occur in a refuted subject). I have never seen a "number referred" in a paper in ANY other field. So why is it there? To ATTEMPT to convince, and nothing more.
  16. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Patrick Thank you. Regardless of definition I consider you a scientist already because of your methods and studies, I am sure a Ph.D. will be there eventually. I appreciate your honest and thought out answers.
  17. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    ps If you refrase equilibrium to "attempt to achieve equilibrium with each other" then I could understand.
  18. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    typos: neg s/b beg; would s/b could
  19. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    ps By "word of god" I refer to an attitude such as displayed by Phillipe recently in his definition of what constitutes a scientist. Mr. Darwin and Copernicus as well as most of the great thinkers of the past would neg to disagree. Unfortunately we have very few great thinkers in the world today. What makes you think that Einstien would care if he were published in a peer reviewed paper or not? His position on life in general indicates that he would have cared less.
  20. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    Chris Please ignore the "shouting" emphasis. Most of my arguments are with ID/creationists over evolution so I am accustomed to using emphasis for such statements like THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS ONLY APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS to try to get it through their thick skulls. Equilibrium and Thermodynamics are engineering concepts and neither applies to living organisms or systems that are not closed. Life is constant flux, equilibrium is never achieved. And the Earth, like people, is very much alive.
  21. Philippe Chantreau at 16:20 PM on 9 January 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Thanks for the break, Patrick. Rossby wave propagation and transformations are beyond me but I can sense the aeshetic of it and I think I understand why you're into it :-)
  22. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    "Which makes me think that vertical variations such as an increase in S at some level will partially reflect the RV field induced by an IPV anomaly; and that reflection will be in phase with the incident RV field..." By analogy - the ocean, sandwiched between the atmosphere and the crust, is analogous to a fluid layer of finite static stability sandwiched between other fluid layers of near-infinite stability. ______________ ...So, consider, with a basic state IPV gradient in the y direction: 1. the pattern of IPV advection around an IPV anomaly as seen in the x,y plane (which would be qualitatively similar to barotropic PV advection around a barotropic PV anomaly). 2. the pattern of IPV advection about an IPV anomaly as seen in cross section in the x,z plane (or x,p plane or x,q plane - whichever vertical coordinate you want (there are more: log-pressure coordinates, sigma coordinates)). The mathematical details are different and will be altered by variations in basic state, but qualitatively there are essential similarities. Which implies that, setting aside variations of anomaly IPV in the y direction, the pattern of IPV anomaly in x,z will propagate in a way similar to the propagation of IPV or barotropic PV patterns in x,y, setting aside variations in z. SO, now I understand how and in which direction Rossby waves of a given tilt in x,z will propagate vertically.
  23. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman - Okay, there are scientists who don't publish in publically-available forums. (How many of those would be working professionally on climatology? - well I suppose the Pentagon...?) PS I am not actually a scientist (yet). (379)--"It only means that 34 authors agreed with the argument, nothing else." Does anything mean anything else? Taken all by itself I suppose that may be about it, but there's a context there... (377) - "Shows why sea level rise isn't a problem. From that chart it looks like what melted in the arctic has refrozen in the antarctic. I would think it relates to the 2007-08 La Nina (ENSO)." I don't know quite in what way ENSO is connected to that, but sea ice melt and growth has little direct impact on sea level (the little bit it would have comes from the ocean not being fresh water; otherwise it would be none at all). Sea ice has an indirect effect by holding land glacier flow into the sea back a bit (when in the form of ice shelves), and obviously will have other indirect effects via climate (albedo, local surface characteristics, affects on wind/water momentum transfers, ecology...). What affects sea level is melting and/or transfer of ice supported by land/rock to the ocean, and the density of the water (affected by temperature and salinity), and regionally, variations in those and in in the wind. And in the longer term, isostatic adjustments of the crust, and in the much longer term, plate tectonics/continental drift/mantle convection... (and in the much longer term, the chemistry and dynamics of the pre solar nebula ! :) ) And also, the global trend is not zero, from what I've been hearing... (377)- ""those than can, do while those that can't, teach." What about those that can teach? :) PS much of my motivation here is that teaching is a great way to learn; having a potential audience (I'm pretending at least some people are reading my comments :) ) is a great motivation to prepare. (378) - "Patrick Way too much detail. Take a break and look at the links from Arkadiusz Semczyszak and give us your opinion (in brief please)." I think globally sea ice changes have been significant and are worrisome (We've already had a taste of some political ramifications (Putin,etc.)). The explanation quoted by Philippe (374) about Antarctic sea ice is quite interesting - and sounds familiar - did I see it earlier somewhere? - well he said himself that he mentioned it or referenced it earlier... Is some of it related to AO/NAM (and in Antarctica, SAM)? Well, I suppose it could be - some probably is (although without knowing more specifics, there is the possibility that the portion is a negative fraction - ie that an opposite trend would be attributed to AO/NAM - which would mean everything else has to account for over 100 % - just as everything besides aerosols has to account for over 100% of observed warming... (PS I'm not saying - about NAM/SAM - that I think that this is the case; I mention it just to cover the bases). But even if that is, some of NAM and SAM trends are not 'natural' - in that they are anthropogenically-forced. What fraction? I really don't know. I do know ozone depletion would cause an increase in SAM in particular and may have some contribution to NAM (and increased CO2,CH4,etc. could exacerbate polar ozone depletion). I also know that at least some model(s?) have reproduced some increase in NAM as a result of greenhouse gas increases... And I'm still not sure I understand the causal link, but I have found a couple papers (suggested at RealClimate, thanks!) and am part way through the second. The problem is there is this other paper I also found which argued that the proposed mechanism wouldn't work ... BUT I can think of some other mechanisms... And then there's the whole tidal-forcing concept. It's intriguing but I'm skeptical. In case I don't get to it later: It seems more likely, based on the argument put forward, that stronger tides would cause more cooling than weaker tides would cause warming. Also, I saw no mention of the changes in the eccentricity of the lunar orbit, so I wonder how accurate the judgement of periods of several strong tides or lack thereof would be... The idea that variations are big enough over such timescales is hard for me to see - but here are some ideas: changes in area of exposed ocean at high latitudes due to changes in tidal currents that drive ice and icebergs around each other or islands or sea floor bumbs, and affecting ocean mixing via that... AND, driving tidal currents through hydrothermal vents, cooling the vents, thus increasing geothermal heat transfer back into the vents and the ocean (but notice how localized and small an effect that would be)... Other stuff, in brief: CO2 doesn't just go up and down a lot in the bulk of the atmosphere. (You'll find some papers about changes in ~100(?) ppm over hours - well of course, that's under the canopy of a forest, - or maybe in city streets with variations in traffic?? - The point being it's a small volume of air and not climatologically significant, at least not outside of microclimates (and then, only indirectly via effects on plants, etc., I would guess). My understanding is that outside of human activity (or maybe including it), it would take a catastrophic phenomenon to cause CO2 to change as much as it has as fast as it has - at least over the last few decades (even calculating how fast it would appear to have happenned if found in the ice core record (which can smooth out some things) at some later time, it still dwarfs, in terms of sustained rate of change, anything in at least the last ~20,000 years - that includes the end of the last ice age - see IPCC AR4 WGI Ch.6) "Take a break" I did! :)
  24. Philippe Chantreau at 14:50 PM on 9 January 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Actually it means that the paper has been cited 34 times in other articles, I believe. I also believe that it's pretty darn good and indicates that the paper is very relevant to other's research. Not that they "believe" in it. What a strange way to look at it. I do fine in English indeed, although it is my second language. Credulity is something that many would like to lend, and strangely enough, many seem willing to borrow... I like my definition, it is shared by most scientists, and I'll keep using it, that's entirely my prerogative, just like you think it's yours to impart disproportionate weight to non published ideas. I don't know what the heck you're trying to say with the mumbo-jumbo on teaching, professors and what not. I'm still curious to know what journal was Marosz pdf published in. Or was it an opinion piece?
  25. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Actually, L ~= 1/sqrt(1/X^2 + 1/Y^2) because 1/L^2 ~= 1/X^2 + 1/Y^2 PS in case anyone was confused by this, some of what I've written uses Microsoft Excel language: sqrt(x) = square root of x, x^3 = cube of x, etc... The relationship between L and Hp can be simplified to Hp is proportional to L * f/sqrt(S) if AV is approximated by f - which is good first approximation for much large scale motion of the atmosphere. N is proportional to sqrt(S) (for a given p and q), so if AV ~= f, then Hp is proportional to L * f/N which means that L is proportional to the internal Rossby radius of deformation for a height scale Hp. Perhaps also, then, the Rossby radius of deformation might be more accurately given by R is proportional to H*N / sqrt(f*AV) (For a given p and q, a small relative change in p is roughly proportional to a change in geometric height z). And if a gradient wind balance is used, then f may be replaced in the above with f_loc (see last part of comment 349, or Bluestein p.190). (Around a center of cyclonic rotation, the magnitudes of both f_loc and AV will be greater than otherwise, which suggests that for a given height scale, the Rossby radius of deformation is smaller in cyclones than in anticyclones; or for a given length scale of an IPV anomaly, the vertical scale of the induced RV and wind anomalies will be larger in cyclones than in anticyclones. Latent heating during ascent mitigates the dynamic effect of S, so the change in H/L or H/R for cyclones vs anticyclones should be enhanced for cyclones with precipitation.) ---------- (PS the reason for decreasing induced RV anomaly with vertical distance from an IPV anomaly, and the dependence of that relatiohship on S (or N), AV and f, and L, is that vertical stretching or contraction, which occurs with horizontal convergence or divergence, respectively, is necessary (for isentropic vorticity, without latent or radiative heating/cooling and without friction or mixing) to change RV, and horizontal variation in vertical motion in the presence of a nonzero S or N results in horizontal temperature variations that allow a change in RV over vertical distance to be in geostrophic balance or gradient wind balance. See also comments 313 and 319 above. ---------- Notice that the total vertical extent of the whole fluid (atmosphere or ocean) limits how much convergence and divergence of other layers of the atmosphere can adjust to an IPV anomaly at some level. Hence, ** Less total fluid depth might increase the RV anomaly at all levels that result from a given IPV anomaly???) And if an anomaly occurs at an upper or lower boundary, my impression and understanding is that the RV field is doubled in strength (but has half the volume)... Which makes me think that vertical variations such as an increase in S at some level will partially reflect the RV field induced by an IPV anomaly; and that reflection will be in phase with the incident RV field... Would a decrease in S result in a reflected RV field that is out of phase? These are things I have yet to figure out.) ---------- Variations in basic state properties can/will distort the RV and wind fields from the above description (see last "PS" section) (PS for the atmosphere in particular, Holton p.412-419 finds solutions for vertically propagating waves of various kinds (including Rossby (planetary in particular)) which increase in amplitude with height, in proportion to 1/sqrt(basic state density), which makes me wonder if the RV field of an atmospheric IPV anomaly will tend to be stronger above the IPV anomaly than below it?), but they should generally be qualitatively similar. ---------------- PS: Concerning the value of RV at the IPV anomaly (where 'subscript' 0 refers to basic state values and a ' indicates anomaly values): IPV'/g = RV'*S + AV0*S' = RV'*(S0+S') + AV0*S' For a given IPV', RV' may be roughly proportional to IPV'/S if AV0 and/or S' are small. However, under other circumstances, RV' may be between being proportional to IPV'/S and being proportional to Q_*IPV'/[S0^(3/2) * L * sqrt(f*AV^2/AV0)], where Q_ is the vertical thickness of the IPV anomaly itself, in terms of q coordinates. In terms of p coordinates, the thickness, P0, is equal to Q0/S. Of course, S changes at the IPV anomaly, and changes in the opposite way above and below it (although if Hp is much larger than P0 or Hq is much larger than Q0, the S' above and below the anomaly, which decays with vertical distance away from the anomaly as does RV', will be much less than the S' that occurs within the IPV anomaly). One simplication to the math (which was necessary even just to get some of the above relationships) is to assume S' is much smaller than S0, so that S is nearly equal to S0; such is the case with weak anomalies... --------- Anyway...
  26. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick My point from the very befinning is that the atmosphere does not play as large a role in temperature as the IPCC and the alarmists claim. Every new article I read only confirms that our models are wrong. They just figured out, after 30 years of AGW hype, that the NE part of the US (and eastern Canada) has not warmed and in fact has gotten colder while the west coast warmed. I have come to the conclusion that it's the west coast alarmists hot air that caused the warming effect in the first place. :)
  27. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    ps "Times Cited: 1 References: 34 " It only means that 34 authors agreed with the argument, nothing else. It does not lend credulity.
  28. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Patrick Way too much detail. Take a break and look at the links from Arkadiusz Semczyszak and give us your opinion (in brief please).
  29. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak Your link: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg Shows why sea level rise isn't a problem. From that chart it looks like what melted in the arctic has refrozen in the antarctic. I would think it relates to the 2007-08 La Nina (ENSO). ps Phillipes definition of a scientist is not correct, just his opinion. Many scientists do not publish papers because they work in the private sector and their research is the property of their employer. His definition is just academic snobbery. We have a saying in my country, "those than can, do while those that can't, teach. Sorry Phillipe, you son't have to speak polish to insult someone, english does you just fine. In Europe and Asia, the term "professor" is used to indicate a scientist rather than a teacher. I would think that you would know this since you said that you spent time in Europe.
  30. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    We don't need to address "paleoclimate models" Mizimi. All we are doing here is establishing three things: ONE: The "graph" that HealthySkeptic presented on post #8 is a hopeless misrepresentation of what we know of paleCO2 and paleo-temperature relationships. TWO: That if we address what the scientific evidence informs us on pale-temperature and plaeoCO2 levels, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that atmospheric CO2 levels have had a significant effect on the earth's tmeperature in the past (see data in papers cited in post #13). THREE: That if one is seriously a "skeptic" one should really apply one's skepticism evenly. Raising poorly-relevant "objections" against the scientific evidence while embracing very obvious nonsense isn't very scientific...
  31. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    Re #21 If you think that there is some pertinent data by the person you mentioned why don't you just supply a reference to the relevant paper(s)? I'm pointing out that rather recently someone else brought up the name Idso on another thread and referred to an article on their website which, sadly, was full of misrepresentations of the science and hopelessly out of date. I described the problems with their "analysis" of the science here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-CO2-lagging-temperature-mean.html (see post 36). It's not an abuse to point out that someone seems to be deliberately attempting to misrepresent the science, especially since I outlined some of the flaws in the shoddy presentation of the authors. Is that the same Idso's who's work you are suggesting we look at? We don't know, since you won't tell us! Why be so cagy? If some work of someone has impressed you why not point us to it? Otherwise we have no clue what you are referring to. Can you give us an example with respect to "isolating the variable" that you think is pertinent please? Otherwise I'm not sure what you are referring to here either. I'm pointing out that real world observations of the response of the biosphere to climate changes and other events (like drought, temperature rise, parasite infection) are likely to be more useful in assessing the effects of climate change in the real world, than experiments done in greenhouses (for example) that assess the effects of changing CO2 levels (for example) on plant growth under otherwise optimal conditions (e.g. nutrient and water supply, insolation and so on). In other words what happens under controlled experimental conditions may be of secondary relevance to the real world where changes (CO2 levels, for example) do not occur in isolation....
  32. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    Re #20 No, "AGW and all it's evidence" is certainly not "FROM MODELS1", and shouting using capital letters doesn't make it true. And you need to explain what you mean by "equilibrium lie" (???) The world did "go on" during long periods with higher CO2 levels than now in the deep past. Obviously these were different worlds back then in which species were adapted to prevailing environmental conditions. The solar output was somewhat reduced too. That's not to say that there weren't catastrophic events resulting in widespread extinctions, and many of these were associated with rapid enhancement of greenhouse gas concentrations that resulted in warming and associated climate change at a rate at which many species were unable to adapt. I've given some exmaples of these here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-CO2-lagging-temperature-mean.html (see post 28)
  33. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    Re #19 That's nonsense Quietman. You clearly know little about science or scientific publishing. A scientific paper is a presentation of observational/experimental data in support of conclusions/interpretations. These may or may not explicitly address a hypothesis. Many papers in the general area of climate and climate change, including many of the papers I cited in posts 13 and 14 are essentially descriptive and don't explicitly address hypotheses, nor are necessarily involved in the promotion of "arguments", although any scientific paper will have interpretations of the data presented (which the reader may or may not fully agree with in the context of the data presented). No one says the papers are "the word of god" (a strange notion!). The scientific literature provides the body of work that informs our understanding of the natural world. And notice that with the bulk of the papers I cited there isn't really an "opposition view". If we measure the CO2 uptake of the oceans then that's likely to be the CO2 uptake of the oceans, and there isn't really an "opposition view"...nor with the measurement of primary productivity following the European heat wave of 2003.....nor with the measurement of the loss of primamry productivity of Canadian forests as a result of beetle infection...and so on. Notice that neither a paper nor its "arguments" have to be "agreed" by the publisher. Of course Einstein would be published today. Obviously nearly 100-years on, he would present his work for publication somewhat differently to the manner in scientific manuscripts were submitted for publication then.
  34. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    Yes, we think we know a lot about past atmospheric composition, temperatures and so on in the deep past... but we don't know very much about ocean and air circulation, actual distribution of land mass and how that affected circulation just as a start. There is a lot we don't know about the deep past that directly affects climate which is why, personally, I hold paleoclimate models very very lightly indeed.
  35. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    #47....just re-read that paper and confirmed that often we see what we think we should see rather than what is there. The paper actually states 0.4kg/m2 increase in WV through the lower troposphere. Which if you assume is 8km deep allows an increase of 400/8000 gm/m3 or .05gm/m3. Air at 15C/~50%RH contains about 5.5gms/m3, so this increase is pretty insignificant and probably less than background 'noise', especially when you consider this is over a 10yr period.
  36. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    ..."barotropic PV is proportional to AV/H, where H is the depth of the fluid; this is most obviously applicable to a nearly incompressible fluid with a top and bottom such as the ocean, but I think it can be made to apply to the atmosphere if H is taken to be proportional to surface pressure ** - the important thing is that H be proportionate to mass per unit area within a fluid layer"... That last part is indeed the important thing when considering how PV varies with changes in H. However, my impression is that H must be an actual vertical scale to be correctly used in the Rossby Radius of Deformation R, where: external R = sqrt(g*H) / f internal R = N*H / f or is proportional to N*H / f ------------------- "For relatively weak waves, these baroclinic waves, as with the barotropic ones, can be mathematically and qualitatively analyzed as the result of linear superpositions of other waves or an infinite number of point anomalies or finite number of anomalies of finite size, etc." And so one might consider what the vertical cross section of the wind field would be for a given IPV anomaly. (Note that IPV/g = S * AV; S is inversely proportional to mass per unit area in between two isentropic surfaces of a set difference in q; hence, IPV is like a barotropic PV defined for incremental isentropic layers of air (or incremental layers of constant potential density within the ocean - in that case it wouldn't be called isentropic PV, but it would serve the same role in fluid dynamics). ) In a horizontal plane, the wind field of an RV anomaly isolated in both dimensions decreases in strength away from the RV anomaly, being proportional to 1/distance, and is directed in opposite directions on opposite sides of the anomaly; within the anomaly the wind field increases in strength out from the center. An IPV anomaly, when the atmosphere is nearly in geostrophic balance (or else a gradient wind balance)with it, will have induced a column of RV anomaly that extends above and below it. In the horizontal planes, the wind field of the RV anomaly is as described above. In the vertical direction, the RV anomaly and it's wind field generally will decay in strength away from the IPV anomaly - exponentially or roughly so if certain conditions occur (such as some parameters being constant in height or varying in just the right way, some approximations, and also, that the anomaly is relatively weak). Given such conditions, the rate of this decay (inversely proportional to the height scale in pressure coordinates, Hp), is, in pressure coordinates, proportional to the square root of S. It is less for IPV anomalies with larger horizontal extents/wavelengths (the length scale L) and for larger f and larger basic state AV. More specifically, Hp is proportional to L * sqrt(f*AV)/sqrt(S). The Height scale in isentropic coordinates (Hq if it comes up here again) varies the same way except that sqrt(S) would go in the numerator; this is simply because of the geometry of variation in p (pressure) relative to q (potential temperature) implied by S. PS I am using 'q' in place of the greek letter 'theta', which is q in a symbol font; In textbooks you will see q used for other quantities such as quasigeostrophic potential vorticity given in units of vorticity - watch out! PS In the above, L is representative of length scales in both horizontal dimensions - to be more precise, I think it could be given in terms of two orthogonal length scales X and Y as L = 1/(1/X + 1/Y) ?? ...
  37. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen rebut Lockwood's solar paper
    That seems rather illogical to me Alec...it lacks internal consistency and doesn't accord with basic physics. Although the most up to date analyses of solar outputs indicates that variation in solar parameters can have made only rather little contribution to the increase in the earth's temperature anomaly during the last several hundred years, let's assume that the sun has actually been important in the manner that you assert. The major increase in the solar output during the last 100 years was during the period around 1900-1940. We could look at the sunspot numbers as a proxy for solar output: e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot If we follow the temperature trend, we see that the Earth's temperature trend apparently followed the rise in solar output pretty much immediately: e.g. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ or: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ So there seems to be rather little "lag" in the response of the Earth's temperature to changes in the solar output. Likewise if one inspects Svensmark and Friis-Christensen's "detrended" solar-cycle-tropospheric temperature comparison (see second panel of John Cook's top article), the detrended tropospheric temperature follows the solar cycle rather faithfully with essentially zero lag (in fact, rather oddly, the temnperature change precedes the solar cycle chnge during the period ~1980-1990!). So there isn't a lag. However you are then proposing a massive lag between a solar contribtion and temperature change to account for the rather large temperature rise since the mid 1970's. However, even in that case your "pot of water" analogy is suspect. If you turn the heat up under a pan of water, the temperature certainly takes a while to reach its new equilibrium (hotter) temperature. However the fastest rate of warming occurs immediately after turning up the heat, and the trend to the new equilibrium temperature follows a hyperbolic time evolution. If you were to stick a thermometer in the pan, you would notice that the temperature doesn't sit unchanged for a long period before starting to rise... So on the one hand you're providing apparent real world evidence for a negligible lag between changing solar output and temperature response (the temperature response to the well-established small increase in solar output between 1900 and 1940-ish), and the (rather dodghy) analysis of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen which also shows essentially zero lag between temperature response to changes in solar output..... ...and on the other hand proposing a physically unrealistic huge lag between a solar change and the onset of a temperature response by reference to a false analogy. Notice btw, that there is pretty much no evidence for a cosmic ray flux (CRF) contribution to persistent changes in the Earth's temperature response. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen present solar cycle contributions...there's no evidence that the effects they purport to display are a consequence of CRF...they are rather more likley to be due to total solar irradiance variations which cycle in perfect (anti) phase with the CRF. Notice also that the link to Shaviv and Veizer is to a rather dodgy hypothetical analysis that is rather horribly flawed. In fact Veizer himself has presented data that essentially fatally sinks the hypothetical relationship between the purported cyclical CRF and temperature, by determining that for a large chunk of supposed CRF cycle, the earth's temperature was varying in the wrong direction and was actually responding in step with the atmospheric CO2 concentration: Came, R.E., J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer et al (2007) Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era; Nature 449, 198-202
  38. Determining the long term solar trend
    You really need to consider what "large/small" refers to in context. It's difficult to come up with a meaningful context in which our rate or return of atmospheric CO2 into the atmosphere is not massive: It's massive in relation to the time (100's of millions of years) it took to sequester this carbon in the first place. We're dumping it back in to the atmosphere at a rate somewher around 1 million times faster than it took to sequester. It's massive in relation to the cumulative increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's massive in relation to the rate of enhancement of the Earth's atmosphere greenhouse gas concentration. It's massive in relation to the rate of enhancement of greenhouse gas concentrations and forcings compared to recent Earth's history; e.g. glacial cycles of last million years....the greenhouse gas concentrations of the last 10 million years. It's massive in relation to the rate at which natural cycles (largely weathering) can remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. It's massive in the context of the rate of depletion of a non-renewable energy source...
  39. Models are unreliable
    You can't analyze the data in that manner Mizimi. See post #101 on the climate sensitivity and its relation to the temperature increase at equilibrium, and the contribution of other factors to the temporal temperature evolution.
  40. Comparing IPCC projections to observations
    re #36 Which data are you looking at Mizimi? You should link to the stuff you are describing when you are in the process of attempting to trash it. That way we can establish whether your assertions/complaints have any validity! From my reading the Mauna Loa collection/analysis method is rather careful and gives confidence that it's a true record of the well-mixed atmospheric CO2 levels especially when averaged on monthly and yearly cycles. The method of analysis is defined here, where the raw monthly can be sourced. What specifically don't you like about it?: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html The primary Mauna Loa data can be compared with a completely independent (Scripps group) data set also measured at Mauna Loa. The two sets of data have an average difference of 0.04 ppm and an annual SD of 0.12 ppm. Thus the methods of sample collection, calibrations and analysis seem not to have a significant effect on the local measure of CO2. The Scripps data can be accessed here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html The Manua Loa data can be compared with the CO2 measures averaged over all marine surface sites. These will be slightly out of phase with the Mauna Loa data, but the yearly average is pretty much within ~1 ppm of the Mauna Loa data. That can be accessed here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ and so on... What's your specific problem(s) (no "allusions" please) with these data remembering that our aim to obtain a valid and reliable measure of yearly averaged global CO2 concentrations for understanding our emissions, their accumulation in the atmosphere and their relationships to greenhouse gas forcings and their contribution to the Earth's energy "budget"?
  41. Models are unreliable
    Chris, the CO2 increase your figures give is 29% resulting in a GMT increase of 0.8 to 0.9C (for 1860/2000) The figures for 1970/2000 show a CO2 increase of 14.8% which yielded an 0.51C rise. If T response is logarithmic to CO2 concentration then we should see a proportionately lower T rise between 1970/2000, and that is not obvious from the figures.
  42. Philippe Chantreau at 12:56 PM on 7 January 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Sorry, I don't read Polish at all. What journal was this last document published in?
  43. Wondering Aloud at 08:53 AM on 7 January 2009
    Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    For Chris I look at your references and am unimpressed. Some are related some barely are, none of them are experiments that could possibly allow me to draw the conclusions you do and few are experiments at all. Instead you won't google a 4 letter name that is unusual enough that I can remember it off the top of my head and is therefore easy to look up. Instead you launch into abuse of the people involved, a rediculous straw man argument. Are their results reproducible? I don't know about Mendacity you seem more informed on that than I, my expertise is mainly scientific method and experimental design. When an experiment that properly isolates a variable repeatedly (reproducible) shows the same result and someone writes a paper that you think disagrees it doesn't mean the experiment is wrong! The most likely problem is on your end, failure to isolate the variable or to realize it hasn't been isolated.
  44. Philippe Chantreau at 07:39 AM on 7 January 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Arkadiusz, I don't understand what you mean by too small. I told you what I consider a scientist, it is far from being an unusual definition; I'll leave it to you to determine whether or not you meet the criteria. I don' care that much myself, don't take it personally Your link to the deadanimals blog leads nowhere. I had never heard of that site and, at first glance, it looks like a very poor source of scientific information. Why would I get information on polar ice from political blog? The reason I use NSIDC and Cryosphere today is very simple: they have teams who study the ice and compile data all the time. That's what they do. I don't understand why it seems to bother you that I don't go to blogs to get that kind of information. I note, on the other hand, that most of your links are from blogs, even when they are actually leading to the real stuff, like cryosphere today. You ask about the southern hemisphere SI anomaly. There is hardly a trend there, it barely makes it out of the noise, what exactly are you asking? Depending what error bars you use, you could find no trend at all. If I was to show a graph like that going the "other direction" (provided there is one), I can only imagine how summarily "skeptics" would dismiss it. Well, I'm affording myself that same luxury, usually reserved for so-called "skeptics." Climate change has not yet abolished the Southern Annular Mode, as far as I know. Ther is a very small upward trend in Southern polar sea ice. I linked this paper earlier: Author(s): Zhang JL Source: JOURNAL OF CLIMATE Volume: 20 Issue: 11 Pages: 2515-2529 Published: JUN 1 2007 Times Cited: 1 References: 34 Abstract: "Estimates of sea ice extent based on satellite observations show an increasing Antarctic sea ice cover from 1979 to 2004 even though in situ observations show a prevailing warming trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean. This riddle is explored here using a global multicategory thickness and enthalpy distribution sea ice model coupled to an ocean model. Forced by the NCEP-NCAR reanalysis data, the model simulates an increase of 0.20 x 10(12) m(3) yr(-1) (1.0% yr(-1)) in total Antarctic sea ice volume and 0.084 x 10(12) m(2) yr(-1) (0.6% yr(-1)) in sea ice extent from 1979 to 2004 when the satellite observations show an increase of 0.027 x 10(12) m(2) yr(-1) (0.2% yr(-1)) in sea ice extent during the same period. The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity, and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979-2004 and the extended period 1948-2004."
  45. Latest satellite data on Greenland mass change
    #5 - Quietman: post the NASA video!
  46. Latest satellite data on Greenland mass change
    TruthSeeker -- presuming "this claim" to mean the data described above, you've got it completely ass backwards. Click on the link that John Cook provides in the first sentence. There you'll see that what John is providing is a check of the claims put forward by those arguing that AGW isn't a real problem. This isolated instance and short time scale phenomenon that you feel is confounded with too many other variables is an example of an argument AGAINST AGW. But not only that, the information John provides shows how even the short, isolated, confounded example chosen by deniers actually shows the opposite of what they claim. Talk about grasping at straw!
  47. Models are unreliable
    I don't see your point Mizimi. If you take the US NASA GISS or UK Hadcrut data, the Earth's global temperature has risen by 0.8 - 0.9 oC since the mid-late 19th century until 2000 (I'm using your end date of 2000, but not your start date of 1800, since I don't think we know quite so well what the temperature was in 1800). In this time the atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 287 ppm (around 1860) to 371 ppm (2000). An increase of atmospheric CO2 from 287 ppm to 371 ppm will eventually give at equilibrium a temperature increase of around 1.1-1.2 oC within an idealized climate sensitivity of 3 oC of warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2. So even if atmospheric CO2 were to have magically steadied exactly at 2000 levels, we'd still have 0.3-0.4 oC or so of warming still to come if the earth responds exactly as predicted with a climate sensitivity of 3 oC per doubling. So there's nothing that needs reconciling is there? Of course in the real world we have to factor in the effects of atmospheric aerosols, changes in the output of the sun, volcanic eruptions, ocean currents and so on, if we want to address the specific profile of the warming trend over the past century or more.
  48. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:31 PM on 6 January 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    The polish professor A. Marosz has analyzed depth Antarctic sea ice cover. Sorry I find only polish language ( http://ocean.am.gdynia.pl/wydaw/Marsz1_aa2007.pdf), however, I’m proper seeing - even if only figures or tables, especially Fig. 1. (by polish - Rys. 1.) The 1 and 2 column of table - it’s average, 3 columns - it’s standard deviations . I will cite one - finale conclusion, in this paper: The Changes within last 50 yrs was only natural (influence AGW don’t statistic important), if walks about the area shelf and sea ice…
  49. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:04 PM on 6 January 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    It signify walk me about comment - your cites figure http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg - the newest than current_anom_south0325.jpg - What You think about it - It’s La NIna - ENSO, AMO effects ?
  50. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:39 PM on 6 January 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe: First: I only cites publications pure scientists, not my working. Both: By ten years I was research the correlations: meteorological conditions - aphids - Entomophthoraceae; together with the scientists from Yakima and federal department for Agriculture in USA)., next a twelve years as adviser for agro-meteorology - if it for You too small - sorry… …but and I don’t understand, why You don’t cites, in your post, this figure: current_anom_south0325.jpg? (f. e. from page: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008350.htm or http://icecap.us/images/uploads/current_anom_south0325.jpg.) It’s very interesting yet in “this Theme” ! But I think probably not too inconvenient for You, certainly (that for IPCC, I understand, hi, hi, hi…) ?!

Prev  2574  2575  2576  2577  2578  2579  2580  2581  2582  2583  2584  2585  2586  2587  2588  2589  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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