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  2589  2590  2591  2592  2593  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  Next

Comments 129801 to 129850:

  1. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe I have to agree there. Last year was quite unusual and without the freak weather and would likely not have melted as much as this year. It does remain to be seen.
  2. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    PS It isn't the speed of drift that is important, it's the vulcanism driving the drift which indicates a change in thermal energy released to the oceans.
  3. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick Re: "I don't think it would be fast enough to affect day-to-day life for most people if it happenned now" No more than the normal "wobble" that has been the norm for human existance on this planet, Ice Age 4 included. We almost went extinct once already. For supporting evidence for actions of oscillations you can check the threads on this site. John has written a few good posts on them. The origin is another matter as it is still a hypothesis (just like AGW) but somewhat harder to find papers for on the web (not a popular subject like AGW). The hypothesis has just as much merit as the AGW hypothesis however. If I can relocate the original papers I will post links to them here.
  4. Philippe Chantreau at 18:00 PM on 19 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    I don'tknow what predictions you are referring to, you're still not linking anything. The real experts were actually quite close to the mark. After all that thread on ice, you still can't look up NSIDC. You'll find all you need to know there. BTW, the answer is, they don't really know. It shows indications that the minimum has happened but only time will tell for sure.
  5. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    "Science does the best work possible with the best data that is available. Data are constantly sought, improved and correlated. Science is always a work in progress." I absolutely agree. And part of the process of improvement is to be open to valid critisism ( in the proper sense)and honest where data is sketchy or non-existent. Unfortunately for the scientists involved in this particular model, (I believe)it was high-jacked for other purposes and hence the current polarisation. Consequently resource which could be usefully addressing those 'iffy' areas are squandered on sawing sawdust.
  6. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Yes check for yourself... not just at that one spot. For tree ring proxies used in the famed hockey stick and elsewhere cherry picked might be too kind. Many of them may not even be good proxies for temperature at all. An average of selected doubtful proxies does not make for a reliable record. If you can find how they chose which proxies to use and which to exclude, and why, you will find interesting reading. We have digressed a long way. How about all of those predictions of the Arctic ice disappearing this summer? How well did they make out now that the minimum is past? Remember how the young ice from last winter was going to melt much easier and all that stuff?
  7. Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
    Have just graphed CO2 and GMT records from 1978 to 2007. By using the year on year change in CO2 plotted against GMT yearly change you get a remarkable match... I then factored the CO2 to get the 1998 peaks to align and then ALMOST ALL the peaks/troughs from 1978 onwards line up. Unfortunately can't find a way to put the graph on here! But you can always do it yourself ( unless someone tells me how to post it)
  8. Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
    Looking at a graph generated from the Global data column it appears to trundle along with more or less equal + and - shifts until 1998 when there is a large rise of around +0.5C which declines to zero (2000) From then on there is a further large rise peaking in 2005 at +0.3C and then falling back to +0.1C From 1998 on the graph seems to include two events which have pushed the GMT well above mean. The CO2 record shows a ggod correlation to GMT fluctuations AND a spike in 1998 and subsequent spikes at the 'right' places...but the scale effect is wrong. 1998 shows +0.5C when the CO2 rise was 1.0ppm (97-98) Later CO2 increases of the same magnitude are not matched by similar Temp rises. It seems some other factors are at work..??
  9. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe Thanks for the PNAS link, that is an interesting paper. But please note the last statement just above their conclusion.
  10. It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
    One point to consider: oil and gas as fuels did not come into widespread use until the mid 1950's and began to supplant coal from 1960 onwards. Coal was the major fuel before 1940 and emission controls virtually non-existant, so there would also have been a cooling effect from aerosols to (partially) balance GG emissions.
  11. Philippe Chantreau at 15:09 PM on 18 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    A few cherry picked proxies? That's your description. For those who'd rather check for themselves, the latest reconstruction is here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf+html All data, methods, and computer code are also available online.
  12. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    "I think within a human lifetime as it would explain the rapid changes of the past but obviously this needs to be studied further." A number of sudden sharp changes can happen within seconds but they are limited in magnitude and spaced in time. Mantle convection and continental drift/plate movements are measured in cm or in per year - that's not to say there isn't variance, but the conditions driving and shaping mantle convection cannot change rapidly, and it's not going to get up to tens of meters per year (except if you go back in time far enough when the mantle's viscosity was suffiently low due to higher temperatures... that's probably closer to the beginning of the Earth than to now.) More rapid vertical movements can occur on smaller spatial scales, I think, but again, there are limits. (I expect the larger horizontal scale vertical motions caused by variations in the underlying mantle to be more gentle.) The fastest continental drift that could happen would correspond not with mantle convection but with 'true polar wander', which has to do with moments of inertia - the asymmetry of the Earth about it's axis caused by a supercontinent elevated by a buildup of heat in the mantle beneath it, for example - whether or not this ever did become a large factor in geographic changes, I'm not sure - it has been hypothesized to have occured late in the Neoproterozoic. The rate at which this could occur for a given mass distribution can be calculated fairly well - it's just a question of what mass distribution is more or less likely. I don't think it would be fast enough to affect day-to-day life for most people if it happenned now, though I haven't read so much... "It drives the ocean currents and in turn the air currents, ie. ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc. are driven indirectly by tectonics, hence the climate itself." I still don't see a good reason to suspect that or evidence to support it, though.
  13. Temp record is unreliable
    theTree Yes it does have an effect, producing a false feedback through CO2 release which is a GHG. The argument on CO2 is climate sensitivity. Hansen claims a high sensitivity while Spencer claims a low one. The results thus far indicate Spencer is scientifically but not politically correct.
  14. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen rebut Lockwood's solar paper
    Mizimi Nothing should be tossed, just put into perspective, the same goes for CO2.
  15. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Re: "direct geothermal heat supply still generally wouldn't significantly affect climate, especially global climate, during most of Earth's history except near the beginning." It drives the ocean currents and in turn the air currents, ie. ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc. are driven indirectly by tectonics, hence the climate itself.
  16. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    PS One important factor when considering tectonic movement is that it is not entirely in the horizontal plane but also in the vertical. Portions rise while others fall and this can affect movement measured horizontally as well.
  17. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    WA I agree, botanic references in the historic records alone implicate a much warmer climate *in the locations where they were written) at that time. It proves that parts of the earth currently cold were warmer then but it does not prove it was a global phenomena. It was likely a situation more like today where we see climate shifts. I don't know what astronomy says but I am interested in knowing if it was truely a global phenomena (the current is not global as can be proven by looking at local climate histories that have remained stable).
  18. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Well I don't know I have seen a lot of things from astronomy papers to medieval records that strongly support a warmer middle ages. Cherry picked proxy studies showing otherwise do not convince. I have no idea about Soon or various others and I don't much like OISM. However for scientific method you might want to be careful. Robinson is best known as a whistle blower on scientific method. Linus Pauling made similar charges against him and rather famously lost the ensuing law suit along with the money for his Nobel prize.
  19. The link between hurricanes and global warming
    Philippe Re: "all the RC contributers" No, just one, but it made me loose all respect for the site. There are plenty of other sites with pro-AGW authors that I can and do respect (like this one).
  20. It's the sun
    PS In other words Camp & Tung demonstrate that the recent additional warming is not from TSI, with which I can agree.
  21. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Camp & Tung assume the IPCC's accepted sensitivity is accurate. If we take their numbers and lower the sensitivity to Spencer's numbers we get a very different result. Their study is on the solar forcing, the feedback is assumed.
  22. It's the sun
    Pep John's thread on Solar Cycles is also relavent to this thread. Naturally when I used this in the Arctic Sea Ice Melt thread I was attacked by alarmists who apparently did not read it.
  23. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick That is the subject of my studies of late and the reason for my interest in the work done by Fairbridge. There are many point in earth's history where there were abupt changes. How abrupt these events were is totally unknown but assumed to take time because we thought that planetary evolution was both constant and steady. We now find that abrupt changes can happen very quickly. I think within a human lifetime as it would explain the rapid changes of the past but obviously this needs to be studied further.
  24. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Another point on the schematic: It is estimated 90%+ of the earth's CO2 is locked up in ocean sediment http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Phytoplankton/ and that process is STILL going on....so how can there be any kind of a balance as the graphic indicates? The only way you can 'force' equilibrium like that is totally ignore other factors which simply destroys the basis of the argument.
  25. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    Water vapour is present in the upper troposphere; thus it radiates heat outwards and has a cooling effect, particularly in higher latitudes where insolation is lower than the tropics. As HS. says, increased cloud cover increases albedo, and since evaporation rate is a function of water/air temperature and turbulence, warming accelerates cloud production ... Increasing cloud (eventually) increases snowfall. All negative feedbacks.
  26. It's Urban Heat Island effect
    Isn't the comparison a bit off? The night-time shot is presumably a single pass compilation whereas the other is a year's data processed and averaged. I would therefore expect the UHI signal to get buried. Can't seem to find a temp anomaly picture at low enough time resolution to make a valid comparison.
  27. It's not bad
    From the Ministry of Ag, Ontario: "The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years... For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed." http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm Commercial growers all over the world have invested millions of $ into CO2 enhancement of greenhouses: Given that they are businessmen, if there was no appreciable crop increase they wouldn't be doing it- No? Now I would call a 50% increase in crop mass substantial, maybe not BUMPER, but clearly enough to warrant the cash investment. So there is plenty of empirical, current, evidence that raising levels of CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster. It isn't an issue, it's a fact. Just as clear is that concentrations up to 1000ppm the Rubisco Activase limit does not manifest.
  28. Philippe Chantreau at 16:08 PM on 17 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    I do not appreciate the condescending implication of "starters." I have some clues about all this. You bringing Beck in the discussion does not really indicate that you know better than I. However, I notice that you now are using better sources. So now we can talk. Jaworowski has his opinion and the link you give is just that, his opinion. He has consistently declined to bet against IPCC predictions, so I don't know how much confidence he has in his own opinion. Nevertheless, that piece is not peer-reviewed science. The book is quite interesting. It emphasizes the fact that the ICE-EDGE is the really important area for production, since open water becomes very quickly nutrient depleted. Production of phytoplankton is good but eutrophization hardly qualifies as a boom for marine life. It is really anyone's guess how that ecosystem will fare if the Arctic becomes totally open in the summer. However, the book seems to suggest that the longer the water is open and the larger the open area, the quicker it will be nutrient depleted. I noted another return on your search query page indicating a lack of success at netting krill, why is that? http://www.imr.no/arctic/cruise_diary/phytoplankton_bloom_on_spitzbergen_bank The AGU paper is about a computer model to simulate blooms and does not really go beyond that, at least as far as the abstract says. Am I to assume that you trust computer models for complex systems involving biological and physical components? The Siberian forest paleo data is interesting but what exactly is your point there? Does it really suggest a much different total latitudinal repartition ot just different boundaries? How exactly is it applicable today, when humans have so much influence on ecosystems? The bristlecone vertical growth paper says this: "Average density above tree line is greater than below tree line, though no statistical significance can be shown." If I had the classic, obnoxious skeptical attitude, I'd say that you really can't draw any conclusion from this because of the lack of statistical significance. I won't go as far, but say that it remains to be shown that this is more of an extension in vertical repartition than simply a upshift. As for your other links on growth rates (and your summary dismissal of the Rubisco activase problem on the other thread), it considers trees in isolation of ecosystems. There is no doubt that biomass can store carbon, everybody knows that. The problem is that we won't let it happen. Let me put it on other words: how likely is it that the enhanced growth rates, will compensate for the land use changes? How about more frequent wildfires? How about parasites and invasive species? You made the argument that complexity restricts our comprehension about climate, but complexity is even more of a restricing factor with forecastin the behavior of ecosystems. You have no problem betting on it, that's your take. The tree paper also says this: "However, the scientists who conducted the study said such high growth rates probably will not be sustained as the experiment continues. They emphasized that the results do not indicate that more lush plant growth would soak up much of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning."
  29. Philippe Chantreau at 14:18 PM on 17 September 2008
    What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    Your post #14 is accurate but you could have traded "somewhat" for "less than 1%." Science does the best work possible with the best data that is available. Data are constantly sought, improved and correlated. Science is always a work in progress. If you want to talk about a really inexact science, we should start with economics.
  30. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    " Sometimes no action, sometimes slow and sometimes quickly. One was on "continental drift" (tectonic activity) rate changes and another on mountain building at subduction zones. So yes, geologically speaking these things can happen quickly," but how quickly is quickly?
  31. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    A study of satellite data on clouds and water vapor indicates that prior predictions of substantial Global Warming are wrong. The study introduces a new method to diagnose the total radiative feedback parameter. Corrected analysis will result in low climate sensitivity where the GCMs predict insignificant global warming with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. The subject is discussed at http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm . A completely independent analysis reveals that there is insignificant net positive feedback. This has the same effect on the climate as the finding of low climate sensitivity. Examination of the temperature data of the last and prior glaciations from NOAA as determined from Vostok ice cores reveals that temperature trends reversed direction irrespective of carbon dioxide level. This proves that there is no significant net positive feedback. Climatologists, who apparently don't know how feedback works don't realize this. Unaware of their ignorance, they impose net positive feedback in their GCMs which causes them to predict substantial warming from carbon dioxide increase. Without significant net positive feedback, the GCMs do not predict significant Global Warming. An assessment from a third perspective also determines that there is no significant net positive feedback. It can be seen at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/index.html
  32. Philippe Chantreau at 03:47 AM on 17 September 2008
    The link between hurricanes and global warming
    Healthy skeptic, you really think I'm pulling this out of my rear-end? Denigrating scientists and accusing them of intellectual dishonesty, fraud, etc is so common among skeptics, it seems to be all they have. Even the moderate Quietman has no problem about accusing all the RC contributors of being biased and suggests that their funding is a cause of their "views" despite the fact that they do not receive funding from anyone to keep up the site. I've never heard you protest because he was denigrating these scientists. Do you even know what some of Gray's claims are? Have you checked the existing research about his claims? Find me the published papers that Gray would, according to you, be alluding to in the WSJ story, then we talk again. Gray is a respected expert on hurricane forecasting. He has published many papers on that subject and tropical meteorology. His track record of publications on climate science is quite different. But, as I said, if you have papers that would be of interest, link them. That what this site is all about. However, save us the memo circulated for the 2006 conference on hurricane and tropical meteorology, it is not a peer-reviewed science paper. Gray still calls on deep water upwelling from the tropics into the THC in this piece, an idea that has been discredited for a long time. He also seems to believe that evaporation can somehow make energy disappear. He makes all sorts of claims on historical behavior of the THC that do not have supporting evidence. Nobody is infaillible. Interesting is the fact that Gray testified in Congress that the Termo Haline Circulation was accelerating (while there was no real oceanographic evidence of it), leading to increased hurricane activity, then changed his theory when evidence was published that the THC was actually slowing down. As glider says, scientists don't know everything about hurricanes, which are really more a feature of weather than of climate.
  33. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Phillipe: try these as starters:- ice core records siple curve pre ind co2 www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm http://books.google.co.uk/... http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JC002994.shtml http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK279&q=arctic+phytoplankton+bloom&meta= Whilst it is off topic you might like to read these on treeline movement and CO2 response which show that the biosphere is responding with negative feedback. http://www.sciencedirect.com/... http://216.239.59.104/... co2 effect on trees growth rate sour oranges
  34. The link between hurricanes and global warming
    #11 Philippe >> "Another what on what list? Not on the list of real science papers, or otherwise scientific references that Mizimi is pointing to. So far you got us Beck, who manages to fumble with his own made up BS, and a WSJ article. Impressive. Last I look, WSJ was not about science.... Gray is one train late (and some of his ideas about climate defy the laws of physics, but that's another story). " And a damn fine story too, I'll bet. LOL! Are you seriously suggesting that Prof. William Gray's more than 40 years of tropical meteorological research experience is not "real science", as you call it. This attitude of denegrating well respected scientists who don't agree with your world view is reminiscent of Creationist tactics! It is certainly not a scientific approach.
  35. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick Unfortunately the ENSO hypothesis I had put in my notes but I did not write down the source. At the time I was looking to find out what drives El Nino for my own knowledge so it was not important to me to note the source. I remember it was a dot-gov site and I searched for "el nino". Re: Not happening quickly. There is an article at ScienceDaily.com (or LiveScience.com) that explains why we need to rethink rates of change for the earth. It seems that the earth works in spurts. Sometimes no action, sometimes slow and sometimes quickly. One was on "continental drift" (tectonic activity) rate changes and another on mountain building at subduction zones. So yes, geologically speaking these things can happen quickly, we just don't take notice of the changes unless we happen to be monitoring them (and we have not been for very long).
  36. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    # 222 cce >> "The climate change over the past few million years has zero, zilch, nada, nothing to do with any change between the '30s and today. They are completely different mechanisms." What evidence do you have for that? cce>> "Every metric tells us that it is warmer now than in the '30s. You reject this conclusion, based on numerous independent observations, in favor someone's crackpot theory about plate tectonics." A large number of skeptics believe that the GW is happening. What they have trouble swallowing is that it is happening as a result of human activities. cce>> "(3) The IPCC accurately summarizes the state of the peer reviewed science, which is why the relevent scientific societies (who are responsible for actually producing the science) endorse the IPCC findings. Yes, they do at the moment. But recently, more and more scientists are changing their minds (as good scientists should) and rejecting AGW when the data and observations don't agree with the hypothesis. And AGW is just that at the moment, an hypothesis.
  37. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe Distain is a little strong. I use the wiki sites for a quick reference but I don't take them seriously and double check what I read. I see too much inconsistancy and errors in subjects that I am very familiar with. As I said before, Palaeos is two sitesL Palaeos.com and Palaeos.org, the dot-org site is a wiki and while better than wikipedia is still questionable and needs to be verified. Kind of like peer-reviewed papers (more than an article but less than established documents). The references posted at both, however, are reliable means of cross-checking. A wiki that slams people (or any site that does this) I simply don't go to. I come to this site with an open mind and to learn more about Climate Change. But as a skeptic I question both extremes and take neither as fact. It has helped my understanding quite a bit. I just don't care to argue with someone that has a closed mind as you have seen. I do not address anyone once I have seen the trend in their arguments. I have done some editing on Wikipedia but essentially spelling and grammar. When I disagree I go to the discussion page to point out the errors and let the original author do the edits (and there are many errors).
  38. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Quietman - I went back and looked - it appears I did skip over the link from your comment 8. When I click on there now, though, it takes me to a list of other science (and politics about science) blogs (which sidetracked me because they were interesting). Aside from that, nowhere did I see in any of the links you supplied here a claim of some recent change in geologic activity - the closest being speculation that changes could be occuring related to an ice stream in Greenland (doesn't apply to all of Greenland) and the Pine Island glacier (doesn't apply to all of West Antarctic ice sheet) - neither of which are affirmed as being due to a recent change in geological forcing - so it is still quite possible that any recent changes there could be due to changing climate, with some such locations perhaps being more sensitive or having different thresholds because of a constant geological factor. I interpreted other articles (such as those concerning explosive submarine eruptions or the mid ocean ridge in the Arctic) as being new discoveries - not indicating a change in the actual thing that had been discovered. (If there is some quote to contradict that which I missed please point it out to me). "The current hypothesis on the cause of ENSO is not the volcanic eruptions, that is symptomatic not cause, the cause is undersea volcanic vents along the subduction zone as explained in the tectonics article." I missed any such connection made between submarine volcanic activity and ENSO behavior - could you provide the quote from the article? (I'm not saying that geothermal heating itself wouldn't have some effect, but I think (those calculations I did at "Science and Society") that except in some rare extreme cases, the temporal variation on such short timescales would be miniscule compared to so many other available variations that might trigger or modulate ENSO behavior. I don't think compositional fluctuations from hydrothermal vents would have big enough effect (such as on buoyancy, on a large-enough spatial scale) to be significant in ENSO either. ..."not all volcanos produce them"... [aerosols] ..."or outgas the same compounds." Agreed. "SO2 outgassing hss a different effect than CO2." Agreed. "Particulates from undersea eruptions do not reach the atmosphere." Agreed. "SO2 and CO2 released by these submerged volcanos have two dramatic effects: convection currents and acidification of the ocean (something blamed on AGW but actually volcanic in origin)." Well, no I disagree strongly there. First, it isn't AGW itself, technically, but the emission of CO2 that is a major cause of AGW, that is directly causing ocean acidification as well (not that climate itself can't affect (bio)geochemistry, but in this case I don't think that's a big factor). Second, the amount of CO2 geologically outgassed is miniscule compared to anthropogenic emissions, and more importantly, it didn't change a lot just recently (on a timescale to matter to AGW, or even to glacial/interglacial variations). The long term SO2 emission rate probably isn't changing much either. Of course there are short-term variations, like single eruptions, but overall these are relatively constant fluxes, and so biogeochemical conditions will long since have responded to them until fluxes balance, so there is a steady state on intermediate time scales. "Recent tectonic activity has been observed under antarctica recorded as earthquakes along the transantarctic mountains (an ancient fault line or plate edge)." Now, that's interesting. But even if it were unusual in the last 100 or 200 years, is it unusual in the last few thousand years? "The thinning of the crust under Greenland is directly related to it's active volcanos, mountain growth and seafloor spreading or rifting." But that's not the kind of thing that happens quickly. My overall point being that there isn't evidence of changes in geological activity over such a time period such that they would be causing a significant part of the climate change over the last decades or even centuries (except for explosive volcanism into that air that produces aerosol cooling, which is accounted for by climate theory and models), and also, there isn't really a reason to suspect it as a significant factor. But of course a relatively constant geological condition, such as a hotspot under a part of greenland, could have an effect on the response to climate change, such as the response of overlying ice to warming at the ice surface and above.
  39. The link between hurricanes and global warming
    It is interesting the reduction in OHC is just brushed off as "short term cooling". There is a reason why since 2003 the oceans have stopped gaining heat. It cannot be ignored since it is at the core of the AGW argument. See Hansen et al 'Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications'. Amazing. Ten years of OHC rise and it becomes the "smoking gun" for AGW. Five years of cooling and it is "short term" insignificance. Where is the missing heat? Isn't the real truth about hurricanes as is the case in other aspects of climate that "scientists" really don't know as much as they portend? Cloud dynamics, convection, solar and others are not well understood either. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033950.shtml This paper is still in press (need subscription to view abstract), so will link to this blog: http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-paper-us-hurricane-counts-are.html Now, what makes anyone think that small changes in solar activity does not also affect earth's climate as a whole?
    Response: Several years of ocean cooling is not unusual over the last 50 years of ocean warming. Solar activity certainly does have an effect on earth's climate - it's believed the 11 year solar cycle has an impact on global temperature of around 0.1C. So it wouldn't be surprising if this had an impact on hurricane intensity which is increasingly being linked to sea surface temperatures. More on the link between sun and climate...
  40. Philippe Chantreau at 05:48 AM on 16 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Mizimi, people who deny the reality of evolution and want to have creationism taught as if it was science are irrational and superstitious. Allowing them to alter school curricula will be detrimental to education. I have not yet personally met a Christian scientist who believed that ID or creationism should be called a scientific alternative to Evolution. You seem to go on a tagent and essentially make a strawman, but I won't discuss it. What evidence do you have that sea ice melting will be beneficial to the cycles that you so vaguely and loosely describe? Studies? Links? If you are so intent on respecting the complexity of climate, how can you suscribe to the simplistic and fabricated nonsense that Beck spreads around? There is an enormous amount of real scientific litterature out there on every aspect of climate (even hypothetical ones) and on the all shebang as well. Your disdain for wiki is rather strange, Quietman. I recently noticed they have a lot of links to Palaeos.
  41. It's the ocean
    Looking at the maps you will note that the warming occurs along ridge lines. This is NOT coincidental, nor is it caused by AGW but quite the opposite. Refer to comment 13 in the volcano thread linked above.
  42. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick From "Could Volcanic Activity In West Antarctic Rift Destabilize Ice Sheet?" (the first one you found): "However, this study also shows that the land in West Antarctica has been rising beneath the ice sheet in some areas and subsiding beneath it in others, over roughly the past 25 million years. Some areas have subsided to as much as 8500 feet below sea level. This tectonic restlessness contrasts markedly with the stability of the regions that lay beneath the northern hemisphere ice sheets of the recent geologic past, and its affect on the history of the West Antarctic ice sheet has not yet been evaluated." This relates again to the tectonics article linked to in my comment (13).
  43. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick Yes, I linked to Neds blog because you make an interesting argument in the Bertha thread. I thought that John and some of the other posters here would also find it so. On the arctic volcanos, these were new massive undersea eruptions in 1999-2001 along the arctic ridge, this relates to NEW increased seafloor spreading. The 2007 article on tectonics supports this and the subsequent additional heat convection currents concept. The current hypothesis on the cause of ENSO is not the volcanic eruptions, that is symptomatic not cause, the cause is undersea volcanic vents along the subduction zone as explained in the tectonics article. The aerosol issue is not involved in my argument because not all volcanos produce them or outgas the same compounds. SO2 outgassing hss a different effect than CO2. Particulates from undersea eruptions do not reach the atmosphere. SO2 and CO2 released by these submerged volcanos have two dramatic effects: convection currents and acidification of the ocean (something blamed on AGW but actually volcanic in origin). Recent tectonic activity has been observed under antarctica recorded as earthquakes along the transantarctic mountains (an ancient fault line or plate edge). The thinning of the crust under Greenland is directly related to it's active volcanos, mountain growth and seafloor spreading or rifting. These are like puzzle pieces, each one is not very significant in itself. but added together, along with what little we understand about gravitational stresses, begins to make some sense of what occurs in very long climate cycles.
  44. It's the sun
    Mizimi Thank you, I was not aware of that.
  45. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe My point about Wiki is that I don't go there. As I said they (and you) may be right or wrong. All I said is that the medeval thermal maximum is disputed. The reference I used may be a poor one but it is not the only one. I have seen this many times in different places but the only place I see it as lower is at Real Climate. But the point is irrelevant. I have no argument.
  46. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe Re: your comment 230: "You can argue ad nauseam about why what you believe is not in the existing published science, I won't discuss that any more, it is in fact off topic in the context of this blog." Re: my comment 232: "And yes this is off topic and needs to be dropped. " Re: your comment 233: "Don't tell me to drop it when you're the one who brought it up." I was in agreement was I not?
  47. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    Philippe: Try reading the posts. #14 would be a good start. About accuracy: climate science is a remarkably inexact discipline in that it uses a curious mix of data: Proxies - which means we have no direct evidence and therefore use evaluation of causually connected processes to determine data. Yet logic tells us the farther we are away from an event ( both physically and temporally) the less we can dicriminate the underlying factors that caused the event. Satellite data which are supposed to be more accurate than older data sources yet even these sources disagree with one another.. Older data sources are used when we don't have 'accurate' or long-term satellite sources. We have no accurate data on biomass response to climate changes, only guesses because the numbers are too big and too diffuse. We do not even have precise data on how much fossil fuel is being consumed...and so on. Yet we are being told that the future of civilisation depends on ameliorating a warming trend calculated on these data and a remarkably precise figure it is- given the background data. So forgive us our desire for a bit more precision before we commit ourselves one way or the other.
  48. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Phillipe: "It matters to us because of the social implications of having irrational superstitious people designing school curricula and shaping policies." So if we dumped all the historical "school curricula" designed and taught by christians and muslims and hindus etc and all that followed from them.....just where would we be? Still sitting in our caves, probably. And by inference, every scientist who is a christian, muslim, etc etc is an irrational superstitious person who should be shut out of any process of determining how society should be shaped? And of course their work must be unacceptable since they are irrational and superstitious. How many scientists working on climate change have religious beliefs? When can we start the witch hunt? #226 On ice melt and sea temps et seq. Like all things to do with climate, no single subsystem works out in isolation. That is our biggest problem, we do not have enough knowledge to complete a model. I quoted a very small part of a cycle which is happening right now. Like all parts of the overall system it gets more and more complex and inter-ractive as you trace each component. More plankton=bigger predators right down the food-chain, locking up CO2. Plankton and other biota die, drift to the ocean floor and lock up CO2 for 1000's of years. More plankton= more sulphur dioxide = more clouds. Climate is as intricate as life, if not more so; every sub=system is dependent to a greater or smaller extent on all the others through feedback mechanisms and it is foolish to try and isolate parts of the whole and say "This is the answer". It is not a simple system and thus cannot be resolved in a simplistic manner.
  49. Models are unreliable
    There is only one complete and exact computer of global climate and that is the planet itself. By definition it complies with all laws of nature including physics and quantum mechanics. Einstein said “no number of tests can prove I’m right but only one is needed to prove I’m wrong”. That one test that proves to be wrong the theory that added atmospheric carbon dioxide causes global warming was run on the planet computer and the results are archived in the Vostok ice cores. They show that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. Those who understand how feedback works will know that this temperature trend reversal is not possible with significant net positive feedback. Thus, as far as global climate is concerned and contrary to the assumption in the GCMs, significant net positive feedback does not exist.
  50. Models are unreliable
    Dan: Depends what you take as significant. The time span is important,as well as the net feedback quantity. A very small change over a very long period ( like glacial periods) can eventually have a profound effect, This is the basis of Chaos Theory. One of our major problems is that we do not have enough hard data to quantify these matters to sufficient degree to allow a reasonable model to be constructed. We have a lot of information, knowledge and some data, but mostly we have guesstimates derived by various means ( some quite dubious), and that isn't good enough for a system of this complexity.

Prev  2589  2590  2591  2592  2593  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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