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  2575  2576  2577  2578  2579  2580  2581  2582  2583  2584  2585  2586  2587  2588  2589  2590  Next

Comments 129101 to 129150:

  1. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    1. (as if my numbering scheme makes any sense!) Why the 1/R^2 stuff? The dispersion relation (frequency as a function of wavevector) from Cushman-Roisin, stated in comment 361, was based on a basic state vorticity gradient equal to beta in the y direction ( beta = del(f)/del(y) ), due entirely to variation in f, with basic state RV being constant and zero; there is no basic state wind - Oh, and there is no internal stratification (zero static stability; constant potential temperature (or potential density in the ocean)). The same dispersion relation is found (in Cushman-Roisin - p.89) to apply to a situation with no basic state wind, constant f, but varying underlying topography, where beta (which is equal to the basic state barotropic PV times the depth of the fluid) is replaced with the depth of the fluid times the basic state PV gradient which is due to varying fluid depth. In other words, the propagation of barotropic Rossby waves is the same for the same barotropic PV gradient, (where 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), whether that gradient is due to variation in f or variation in fluid depth - I presume the relationship would apply to any such barotropic PV gradient due to any combination of beta and variable H. A key thing about Rossby waves is that they are quasigeostrophic or at least nearly so. The balance between wind and mass fields is approximated as geostrophic and while it is kept in mind that there is ageostrophic and vertical motion required to keep imbalances from growing indefinitely, it is assumed that the imbalance is never sizable - most of the wind field can be approximated by the geostrophic wind. This is an appropriate approximation for this purpose for much of the atmosphere except at low latitudes and except for small spatial scales and near the surface (Hence, near the equator, the gap in the spectrum of atmospheric waves between quasigeostrophic Rossby waves, and those fundamentally ageostrophic inertio-gravity and Kelvin waves and inertial oscillations, dissappears - and so there are such things as equatorial Rossby-gravity waves). But for Rossby waves to remain in near geostrophic balance, the RV changes induced by advection of PV must be balanced by changes in the horizontal pressure gradient (which in a barotropic fluid, results from variations in H due just to variations in the 'top surface'). With no preexisting pressure variation, there must be divergent or convergent motions, which bring the RV due to conserved PV and the geostrophic RV closer together. Which one budges more is wavelength dependent. For large wavelengths (which have small wave vectors), the same geostrophic RV requires larger winds and also that the pressure gradient extend over longer distances, so that the variation in pressure should scale with geostrophic RV * square of wavelength. The divergence required to accomplish this reduces the resulting RV variation per unit PV variation, thus slowing the phase speeds and reducing the frequency relative to what they would be if AV were conserved. The shortest wavelengths will have much less pressure variation over a wavelength, so that the same amplitude of PV wave produces a larger RV wave; in the limit of shortest wavelengths, AV is conserved. Of course, at that shortest wavelengths, the geostrophic approximation breaks down. IF, however, there is a basic state wind (necessary but not sufficient for some basic state RV gradient), then assuming it is nearly geostrophic, there is a basic state pressure variation. Advection of pressure variation along with PV variation can/will alter the divergence necessary to maintain near geostrophic balance, and thus the dispersion relation, phase speed, and group velocity patterns may be different. PS could the RV wave ever be 180 degrees out of phase with the PV wave? In that case (if it is possible - I'm not sure - maybe if the RV gradient was in the opposite direction as the beta and topographically-caused PV gradients, and there were an easterly basic state wind ???), waves would propagate in the opposite directions as previously described. But even then, some general concepts described in previous comments would still apply somehow. _________ 2. What if there is stratification? - nonzero static stability (which will be designated here as S which is equal to the negative vertical derivative of potential temperature with respect to pressure (or potential density with respect to ... some measure of depth in the ocean): S = - del(q)/del(p). Well, then there is not a wave which doesn't vary at all in height; but a nearly barotropic wave can exist. Such a wave is modified such that (at least setting aside what a basic state wind would imply) amplitude is larger near the surface for topographic waves and smaller near the surface for waves due to variation in f, as decribed in comment 322 above. Pressure systems associated with Rossby waves that are supported by beta would be cold-core lows and warm-core highs; whereas pressure systems associated with topographic Rossby waves would be warm-core lows and cold-core highs. There are also fully baroclinic modes. Cushman-Roision derived a dispersion relation (next comment) for horizontally propagating Rossby waves that reverse phase one or more times in the vertical; a vertical cross section would appear as a checkerboard pattern. 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.; hence, the checkerboard pattern could be thought of as a wave which propagates in the horizontal but is a standing wave in the vertical direction, resulting from two sets of baroclinic waves that propagate in the same direction horizontally and in opposite directions vertically, and turn into each other by reflection from top and bottom boundaries (I think in terms of the RV wave, the reflections are in phase with the incident waves, so that (some of the) RV maxima and minima, but not the vertical nodes, occur at the top or bottom - at least in the case of a fluid layer with definite top and bottom with no overlying or underlying fluids of comparable density ?).
  2. There is no consensus
    Scientists abandon global warming 'lie' 650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference WASHINGTON – A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming – labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion. Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone. In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report. more. As this topic is consensus, I feel that this is somewhat relavent.
  3. There is no consensus
    ps educate yourself http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/climate-change-perspective.pdf
  4. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    PS: Have you considered the net contribution to the earth's energy budget made by Life? All metabolic processes are exothermic, from whales to bacteria. Even decomposition produces heat. And the source of that heat is the sun. Not IR, but mostly visible light in the green/yellow band, converted by photosynthesis into complex organic compounds which are then metabolised....giving out heat. In addition water vapour is emitted by air breathers ( roughly 60% of metabolic heat is emitted in the form of WV)adding to the atmospheric WV total. And whilst you will no doubt argue that compared to IR it is tiny - it is also iterative.
  5. Comparing IPCC projections to observations
    #35 Actually, MLO produces 'raw' data for public access. The tables contain blanks where there are no readings ( eg. instrument failure), data culled from past records to replace 'unacceptable readings', and adjustments when there is an upslope wind from the old plantations at lower levels. So I consider my allusions are justified.
  6. Models are unreliable
    #99 I'm asking a question. In the 30yrs from 1970 - 2000, the CO2 level rose 14.8% and the GMT rose 0.51C. From 1800 - 2000 the CO2 level rose 67% and the GMT rose between 0.5 and 0.8C How do you reconcile these ??
  7. There is no consensus
    Re: "If you don't like the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC, take your pick." Ignorance is bliss.
  8. There is no consensus
    Re: "Climate contrarians aren't big on honest research. They tend to look for very selective data to support their assertions while ignoring the big picture and completely disregarding the wide body of evidence that opposes their pre-determined conclusions." Read the links posted in the volcano thread. The data is not selective, it is the facts about how the earth is currently changing and has always done in the past.
  9. There is no consensus
    ps Denial of facts will not change them.
  10. There is no consensus
    NewYorkJ Re: "An argument being made here is that human-induced warming could help prevent the next ice age. That argument might make sense if an ice age was known to be imminent (say, 100 years). Most indications are that it's tens of thousands of years away." The problem with your statement is that it does not recognize the fact that we are already in an ice age, the 4th or Neogene-Holocene ice age. If you read those links you will see that we are slowing down the onset of a glacation.
  11. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    ...(And the amount of energy in those shortest wavelengths is a very small fraction of the total radiant energy flux up or down)
  12. It's not bad
    A good book on this topic: http://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/142620213X This book has hundreds of references to objective peer-reviewed studies on the effects of global warming, at each degree C in global temperature rise. Essentially, costs immediately exceed benefits. With each degree of warming, the cost-benefit gap expands greatly.
  13. There is no consensus
    An argument being made here is that human-induced warming could help prevent the next ice age. That argument might make sense if an ice age was known to be imminent (say, 100 years). Most indications are that it's tens of thousands of years away. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5585/1287 In contrast, human-induced warming is effecting us now and over the next few hundred years, the strongest effects of which will hit us long before the next glaciation. This site has a good list of costs/benefits. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm A good book on this topic: http://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/142620213X This book has hundreds of references to objective peer-reviewed studies on the effects of global warming, at each degree C in global temperature rise. This is better than any indirect speculation. Essentially, costs immediately exceed benefits. With each degree of warming, the cost-benefit gap expands greatly. It may be comforting to hope that a warmer world will be a tropical paradise for Earth's billions of human inhabitants, but that's not the reality.
  14. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Concerning the breathing of the Atmosphere - (mostly the Magnetosphere) http://www.livescience.com/space/081216-agu-breathing-atmosphere.html If there is a significant impact on surface+tropospheric climate, it would have to be either 1. changes in magnetosphere, ionosphere, or sun itself directly causing changes in radiative forcing via a supposed change in albedo such as by cloud particle nuclei or clear air transmissivity changes ... (how much of that happens and is there any multidecadal trend?) 2. via interaction with the E-region dynamo, driving circulation changes in the ionosphere, which somehow changes circulation in lower layers, perhaps in the way the stratospheric conditions affect the EP flux from waves in the troposphere ... (how much EP flux is way up there and what does it do? ? ?) Because the ionosphere and magnetospere are extremely thin, just too optically thin (except at shortest wavelengths - UV, etc.) to have significant direct effect on the overall energy budget of the atmosphere by changes in infrared radiation.
  15. There is no consensus
    Quiteman, NewYorkJ: "No one denies that there is cyclical climate change" "You obviously have not been reading the comments at this website. This has come up several times, so I am glad you consider it a strawman. I suggest that you read chris' comments." Which scientist thinks there aren't ice ages, ENSO, etc.? If you're referring to the Chris in the following post, your assertion is demonstrably false. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm "I await proof. I wan't to see at least one prediction that is correct. The only accurate predictions have come from the skeptical scientists (deniers) like the late Rhodes Fairbridge. " Obviously you haven't been paying attention. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm Most contrarians have been so utterly wrong for the past 20 years one has to wonder why anyone would seriously continue to entertain their rantings if one is seeking credible sources in good faith. "THERE IS NO BALANCE, THAT IS EQUILIBRIUM AND TOTAL BS! " Because you say? The CAPS add a nice effect. "CO2 is not warming the oceans, thats why the results don't match the predictions. Parts of the ocean are warming while others are cooling." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.lrg.gif Globally, the oceans are warming. You also don't understand what the models say. The slower rate vs land is predicted by the models. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021592.shtml ENSO creates much of the regional and annual variability. "The warming parts correspond to undersea vulcanism or what the kids call plate tectonics." It's what adults would call a very silly and unsupported assertion. It even made the RC "Most bizarre new contrarian claim" of 2008. "Do the research. Skeptics do! " Climate contrarians aren't big on honest research. They tend to look for very selective data to support their assertions while ignoring the big picture and completely disregarding the wide body of evidence that opposes their pre-determined conclusions. NewYorkJ: "Re: "Yeah, all those scientists follow Al Gore. How silly." "You are crediting the IPCC with something it does not have (scientists). It in fact edits and limits the subjects of any and all papers submitted by scientists and is the reason they are leaving the IPCC." They don't have scientists? Or is it just scientists you don't agree with (which would be the vast majority of them)? http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf The IPCC, however, tends to be conservative with its predictions - resulting in the conservative common ground that most of its participants can agree upon. It tends to be conservative on sea level rise, for instance, even though real-world observations are showing more rapid melting in the Arctic than they project. "Sorry, but my view of anyone who has not left the IPCC by this point is someone that can not think for themselves. Sheep going along for the ride with what they view as "the winning team". Lots of BS and outright lies fudging numbers and skewing results to get funding. " If you don't like the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC, take your pick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change It's all a vast leftwing conspiracy. Convincing conspiracy theorists is a futile effort. "I strongly suggest that you actually read the skeptical papers that are being derided by Hansen and his cronies. " Hansen must have a lot of "cronies". I've read skeptical studies. There are only a small handful of them that have passed an independent peer review in a reasonably reputable journal, and results have been highly questionable and often later refuted outright. As an example, there are a few studies that made assertions about a potential significant Urban Heat Island Effect. It relied largely on UHA satellite data (managed by 2 "skeptics") that showed little to no warming. The data saw a series of signficant upward corrections which made the studies effectively obsolete. Example: http://www.ssmi.com/papers/mears_science_2005.pdf A discussion: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ Instead of bothering to scrutinize the satellite record, they just speculated that the surface data was all wrong. As it turned out, the climate contrarians managing the data were all wrong, as usual.
  16. It's the sun
    John Re: "Skeptic of the Week The award for most skeptic arguments in a single article over the past 7 days goes to: Lowest Sunspot Activity Since 1900 Tied to Temperature Drop Over the Past Two Years? by The Bully Pulpit (5 arguments) " That article acknowledges AGW and makes no skeptical arguments at all. Why did you pick it?
  17. It's the sun
    John Cook, you might want to include a link to cce's detailed description of the erroneous graph of sunspot rise since 1980 that is used in the Skeptic of the Week article.
  18. Models are unreliable
    Re #94 It's not obvious what your point is Mizimi. You've quoted lots of numbers, but they can only be considered with respect to specific relationships that address real or potential correlations between the parameters defined by the numbers. It's not clear what you consider the relationships to be, as so we can't really address your point...
  19. Models are unreliable
    Don't be silly Quietman. Of course "equilibrium as a concept" applies to natural systems. Of course the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to living organisms. One needs a basic level of understanding to address these things, but we're only talking about High School level.
  20. It's the sun
    John Cook, you might want to include a link to cce's detailed description of the erroneous graph of sunspot rise since 1980 that is used in the Skeptic of the Week article.
  21. La Nina watch: March update
    I would be curious to find out how this played out for the rest of the year. If I understand it correctly, since La Nina fizzeled out in MArch, we should start seeing an above average temps for the rest of the year. Has this been the case? Will someone update the date?
  22. Latest satellite data on Greenland mass change
    I am not sure what this claim actually shows. I know the intent is to suggest evidence of global warming, but it really is such an isolated instance and not free from the impact of contaminating variables. Furthermore, it is such a limitd data set (time wise) that no one should make any conclusion about the global climate based on this information. Why would anyone bring this up as support, it seams like a grasp at straw.
  23. Models are unreliable
    pps Someone once tried to tell me the earth was a closed system too. You are not in that camp are you?
  24. Models are unreliable
    ps Your argument sounds like applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics to living organisms. Are you a creationist by any chance?
  25. Models are unreliable
    chris Your house is engineered, the planet is not. Equilibrium as a concept does not apply to climate because it does not exist in nature. There is NO natural balance, NO natural state of the Earth, NO Earth normal temperature or climate. There is only a desired equilibrium but it is man's desire, not natural.
  26. There is no consensus
    ps If you have a good head for math read Patricks comments. He does explain how climate functions and although he doesn't realize it, actually agrees with me.
  27. There is no consensus
    Risky Re: "A warmer world is not cost free (droughts, floods, storms, famine kill too). Extinction of the species from either warming or ice age, I would have to imagine, is unlikely, but many things can happen short of extinction. Humans are supremely adaptable (perhaps only outranked in that regard by rats), so my guess is that we would survive either scenario." I agree that a few survivors might make it through another glacial maximum if they live close to the equator but without any semblence of civilization remaining. On the other hand we can easily adapt to warming - no problem. Relocation will be much easier than you think because wide tracts of fertile land currently incapable of supporting us will be available. I and most of the other skeptics agree that cleaner environment is essential to our future, it's only CO2 that is the sticking point. We all feel that CO2 is not a problem but essential and increased CO2 will not be catastrophic. Some of the computer sims are hopelessly bad because they lack important factors. One major error is desertification. All the signs point to a warmer, WETTER, world, not drier. If you read those links I posted you will see that the answer lies in growing trees and stopping the massive cutting and burning of our forrests.
  28. There is no consensus
    Re; #110 - thanks for the links. Re: #109 I think I already mentioned that I consider many ACC 'skeptics' to be believers in at least the possibility of ACC, if not the fact. As for the choice you offer - letting the house burn down OR letting the basement flood from a broken sprinkler - this implies we only have an 'either/or' choice. If it were that simple, couldn't we buy insurance AND fix the sprinkler (and you thought my analogy was asinine)? The problem I have with your suggestion is this - you are saying that we can somehow use artifiacial means (of which we understand little) to 'fix' a natural cycle (which we understand even less). It sounds like randomly twiddling the dials on the nuclear reactor (another asinine comparison) because last time we did this, it didn't go into meltdown. Playing with the dials must be preventing a meltdown, so we must do more of it. Continuing with BAU because AGW/ACC might not/probably won't happen is risky. Accepting that this approach is risky, then doing it anyway to try to forestall a natural cycle has to be the definition of insanity. A warmer world is not cost free (droughts, floods, storms, famine kill too). Extinction of the species from either warming or ice age, I would have to imagine, is unlikely, but many things can happen short of extinction. Humans are supremely adaptable (perhaps only outranked in that regard by rats), so my guess is that we would survive either scenario. Civilisation is another matter. In a major tick upwards or downwards in global temperatures, at the very least, we could expect a major loss of material culture - something like slipping from the Roman Empire into the Dark Ages. Worse than this is also possible. Given that atmospheric carbon levels are a major cause of the problem, and given that we are currently accelerating growth in atmospheric CO2 levels, it would be a prudent time to step on the brakes while research into the climate continues. Who knows, you may be right. We may have dodged catastrophe by dumb luck. Touching the brakes now (to slow and maybe pause the warming effect) gives us a bit more time to work out how lucky we are and how lucky we can continue to count on being. Has anyone seen any reliable arithmetic on what deep but realistic cuts in emissions now would do for atmospheric carbon levels (and warming) over the next 100 years or more? Any idea of the kind of timeframe we would need to go into reverse and see a cooling trend (as opposed to cooling cycle)? I am guessing (once again) that the natural carbon sequestration processes are far slower than anthropogenic GHG emissions. Quietman - I will read your links, but I don't doubt your potted paleohistory above. I just doubt it's relevance given historic and projected GHG emissions growth. Deep cuts in emissions now will not cut atmospheric CO2 levels in the near term, only stabilise them. If the warming effect has helped us, it will still be there for a good while.
  29. Are we heading into a new Little Ice Age?
    Mizimi YES!
  30. There is no consensus
    Neandertal References: ScienceDaily (Sep. 13, 2007) New Evidence On The Role Of Climate In Neanderthal Extinction Adapted from materials provided by University of Leeds ScienceDaily (Dec. 30, 2008) Competition, Not Climate Change, Led To Neanderthal Extinction, Study Shows Journal reference: Banks WE, d'Errico F, Peterson AT, Kageyama M, Sima A, et al. Neanderthal Extinction by Competitive Exclusion PLoS ONE, 2008; 3(12): e3972 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003972 AGW References: ScienceDaily (Dec. 19, 2008) New World Post-pandemic Reforestation Helped Start Little Ice Age, Say Scientists Adapted from materials provided by Stanford University ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008) Did Early Global Warming Divert A New Glacial Age? Adapted from materials provided by University of Wisconsin-Madison
  31. There is no consensus
    You misunderstand my position (and most skeptics) entirely. AGW is real. It has a small impact on the planet but not enough to prevent the next glacation. As far as risk goes, you should know better. If you have a choice of a risk of basement floodiing from a broken sprinkler system or your house burning down, which risk do you choose? We have a choice with AGW as well. We can thank AGW for what little extra warmth we have on this planet. Yes, maybe you are uncomfortable in the heat but I can tell you from experience at -60F to +140F that humans can take the heat but we die with the cold. Lets take a look at paleohistory. We evolve from prosimians into true primates in the Eocene and Oligocene. Conditions of the Eocene were high levels of CO2 and high temps all over the planet. And, we evolved in southern Asia, Jungles, Hot, Humid, and spread from there into Africa where there were less predator species (Beard, "Hunt for the Dawn Monkey). The Ice age (No.4) hits us in the Neogene, we continue to evolve along the equator in northern Africa into homonids. By the the the glacial maximum hits we have split from H. erectus into H. sapiens and H. neandertalensis and we are both in deep shit. We both get close to population levels that will quickly end in extinction but things warm back up. We were lucky, our cousins did not fare as well and their population continued to decline while ours recovered. This is history. What do you think would happen if we had a glacial maximum now? Extinction is near certain. So why would we want to actually stop the only thing that could actually reduce the impact of another glacation? Are you crazy or just have a racial death wish?
  32. It's the sun
    WA Same here, I started out accepting AGW because a prominent scientist said it was real. I did not bother to look into it until Al Gore came out with his movie and an alarm went off "why is this ex-VP pushing AGW"? Now I see that is is all politics (lies) but I still don't see the motive. But I have learned a lot I did not know about climate so it was worth investigating.
  33. Comparing IPCC projections to observations
    #32..is there a site giving access to raw data for Mauna Loa rather than the averaged tables?
  34. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    So we don't warm the atmosphere directly? The 14 terawatts of heat released by us annually has no effect on the global temp? It doesn't raise the temp at all and thus increase Tmin? The 6.7x 10E15 watts emitted annualy by the human population just by being alive doesn't affect Tmin either? Or the 3x 10E15 watts emitted by cows? All that heat is dissipated into the atmosphere and provides energy for WV to increase. Bear in mind too, that industrial WV emissions INCLUDE the energy needed to vaporise the water...no heat is required from the atmosphere, unlike 'natural' evaporation. One of the papers you referred to in another post indicated an increase in WV of 0.4gm/kg dry air over the oceans since 1988...far too much for just CO2 induced warming.
  35. There is no consensus
    Re #97 from Quietman. Thanks for expanding on your answer. I'll let NewYorkJ's response at #101 stand as a response. You haven't stated what you believe to be an acceptable level of risk - since you seem to believe there is definitely, absolutely, no possibility of AGW via carbon emissions or any other means. This strikes me as sounding more like an assumption than a considered opinion based on known facts. Odd, given the views expressed ('Or you can just assume the alarmist position ... and ignore the arguments entirely. To deny the facts is to show ignorance, that is not what science is about, that attitude belongs firmly in religion and politics'). Or possibly, you consider (like many other 'skeptics') AGW to be a possibility, but not as likely as the IPCC consensus. That would beg the questions, how likely do you consider dangerous AGW to be, and what maximum level of likelihood would warrant a 'business as usual' response? Since you raise the issue of facts, I wonder if there is a consensus between 'skeptics' and the rest of us as to what the facts are. 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (leaving aside positive and negative feedback effects). 2. Both positive and negative feedbacks exist in the climate, and are not fully (or even mostly) understood, leading to the possibility of suprises (pleasant or otherwise). 3. CO2 is released by the burning of fossil fuels. 4. Measured atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing, and are expected to continue to do so under BAU. 5. Fossil fuel use (and thus, CO2 emissions) has increased exponentially since industrialisation. It may take 50 or 100 years to run out of oil, and sufficient coal is left in the ground for a much longer period. If we continue with BAU, atmospheric CO2 levels will get much, much higher. This will occur in a period of decades - an unprecedented rate of change. The climate system as a whole is poorly understood - we are only beginning to build understanding. It is possible the IPCC and the various meteorological and other scientific organisations from around the world that contributed to the consensus view have got it so horribly (wonderfully?) wrong that we all have absolutely nothing to worry about - but how likely is that? So what do you reckon - how likely is AGW, and how much risk is too much?
  36. There is no consensus
    I strongly suggest that you actually read the skeptical papers that are being derided by Hansen and his cronies.
  37. There is no consensus
    Re: "Yeah, all those scientists follow Al Gore. How silly." You are crediting the IPCC with something it does not have (scientists). It in fact edits and limits the subjects of any and all papers submitted by scientists and is the reason they are leaving the IPCC.
  38. There is no consensus
    Re: "American Geophysical Union: "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming." THERE IS NO BALANCE, THAT IS EQUILIBRIUM AND TOTAL BS!
  39. There is no consensus
    You don't seem to see what is actually happening. If you take the time to study what is going on inside the earth you would also understand why the IPCC depictions are false. The hotspots relate directly to the earths tectonics. CO2 is not warming the oceans, thats why the results don't match the predictions. Parts of the ocean are warming while others are cooling. The warming parts correspond to undersea vulcanism or what the kids call plate tectonics. That's the driver behind the PDO, AMO, etc. It's the ocean that drives climate, not the other way around. It's the Earth that drives the oceans and it's the sun that drives the earth and the planets, in particular Jupiter that drives the barycenter and alters the way the sun reacts with the Earth. Do the research. Skeptics do!
  40. There is no consensus
    Re: "American Physical Society: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." I await proof. I wan't to see at least one prediction that is correct. The only accurate predictions have come from the skeptical scientists (deniers) like the late Rhodes Fairbridge. Sorry, but my view of anyone who has not left the IPCC by this point is someone that can not think for themselves. Sheep going along for the ride with what they view as "the winning team". Lots of BS and outright lies fudging numbers and skewing results to get funding.
  41. There is no consensus
    Re: "Basic Strawman. No one denies that there is cyclical climate change." You obviously have not been reading the comments at this website. This has come up several times, so I am glad you consider it a strawman. I suggest that you read chris' comments.
  42. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick I do see what you are saying but is it in fact catastrophic or just minor warming? Click Here for a recent article at Live Science : Earth's Atmosphere "Breathes" More Rapidly Than Thought By Andrea Thompson, Senior Writer, 2008-12-16 "Earth’s atmosphere was known to "breathe" in a cycle lasting nearly a month. Now scientists say the planet takes a quick breath every few days."
  43. We're heading into an ice age
    Mizimi I think Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge answered that question in his study of sea level cycles. It's referred to as the "Fairbridge curve" and I think wikipedia posted an explanation of how it works. I have not looked too deeply into it as I am more interested in his later "Solar Jerk" hypothesis.
  44. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    chris Re: (to WA) "It's about the real world WA. It's not about model studies" This is clearly "the pot calling the kettle black". AGW and all it's evidence is FROM MODELS1 There is NO REAL WORLD evidence for CATASTROPHIC AGW. And don't hand me that "equilibrium" lie again. Anyone who has studied paleoclimates and understands what CO2 induced AGW actually is and can do knows better. If you ever plan to convince anyone with half a brain that AGW is CATASTROPHIC then you had better find something better than CO2 or simply explain why the world went on for millions of years during the upper Mesozoic with the highest possible levels of CO2 and NOTHING CATASTROPHIC ever came of it.
  45. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    chris What you fail to grasp is that these papers are not the word of god. They are arguments presented based on the authors hypothesis and must be agreed with by a publisher (peer review). That does not make the papers any more correct or better than the opposition view. You can either accept or reject the hypothesis. If you accept the hypothesis you use it in your own work and cite it. If that hupothesis turns out false, it also will likely falsify your hypothesis. Many papers that are peer reviewed still go unpublished. The current vonsensus is that Einstien would not be published today with the current system, but it still would not mean that he was wrong. Reference: Will there Ever be another Einstein? By Joseph B. Verrengia, Associated Press
  46. There is no consensus
    Quietman, "1. Hypothetical, based on poorly written fortran code." I certainly hope this isn't the extent of your understanding of climate science. "2. Historically false, If the CO2 was the powerful GHG it is claimed to be there would be no life on this planet." Non-sequitur. "The alarmists base their science on the concept of equilibrium and deny that the earth goes through cycles" Basic Strawman. No one denies that there is cyclical climate change. American Meteorlogical Society: "Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[22] " "prophesized by algore and his followers." Yeah, all those scientists follow Al Gore. How silly. American Physical Society: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." World Meterological Organization: In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice". American Geophysical Union: "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate. " "This describes the AGW alarmist to a T." The above comments make the following comment: "in this case by infantile name calling." quite ironic.
  47. There is no consensus
    Re: “They argue not as scientists but as lawyers. When they argue, they pick one piece of the fabric of evidence and blow it up all out of proportion…Their purpose is to confuse.” - Pieter Tans This describes the AGW alarmist to a T.
  48. There is no consensus
    NewYorkJ They are called "deniers" because they are skeptics, plain and simple. This is what happens to science when fanatics reach a level of majority, we return to the dark age when dissent is punishable, in this case by infantile name calling.
  49. There is no consensus
    correction to 97: Neandertal ancestors s/b Neandertal cousins because the debate on admixture indicates that they were not ancestral to H. sapiens.
  50. There is no consensus
    Risky at 15:09 PM on 1 January, 2009 Re: post #94 - 'Assinine comparison': how so? Because your house CAN burn down, it is possible. This is very different from AGW since AGW is 1. Hypothetical, based on poorly written fortran code. 2. Historically false, If the CO2 was the powerful GHG it is claimed to be there would be no life on this planet. Upper Mesozoic and early Cenezoic had a constant extremely high level of CO2. Life flourished, our ancestors appear at the PETM, ie. it is the climate we evolved in. On the flip side, we nearly went extinct along with our Neandertal ancestors in H4 (glacial maximum) ***. It is COLD not hot that causes extinctions. So while warming will cause a few adjustments it would not be the catastrophe prophesized by algore and his followers. The alarmists base their science on the concept of equilibrium and deny that the earth goes through cycles and yet they call skeptical scientists "deniers". Skeptics realize that we are undergoing climate change, it is not AGW, it is not GW, it IS climate change, plain and simple. The amount of AGW added to this change is meaningless. All I have asked since day 1 is to see proof of this catastrophic GW. None has been provided, only that there is CC, no GW other than what is expected by natural cycles such as the PDO, Sun spot cycles and plate tectonics. *** "Neanderthal Extinction by Competitive Exclusion" William E. Banks1*, Francesco d’Errico1,2, A. Townsend Peterson3, Masa Kageyama4, Adriana Sima4, Maria-Fernanda Sa´nchez-Gon i5 There is a link to the above paper at the bottom of the article: Competition, Not Climate Change, Led To Neanderthal Extinction, Study Shows ScienceDaily (Dec. 30, 2008) For alternate reasons for climate change see (under arguments heading at the top of this page) The PDO and Volcano and sensitivity articles. Or you can just assume the alarmist position (fingers firmly in ears and eyes shut) and ignore the arguments entirely. To deny the facts is to show ignorance, that is not what science is about, that attitude belongs firmly in religion and politics.

Prev  2575  2576  2577  2578  2579  2580  2581  2582  2583  2584  2585  2586  2587  2588  2589  2590  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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