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

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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.

Recent Comments

Comments 129951 to 130000:

Quietman at 06:18 AM on 26 March 2009

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Patrick It is because we tend to look at the last steps in a process rather than the initial steps. I read recently how ENSO is caused bt trade winds. It's the same type of argument as CO2 causing warming. We look at the last step rather than the root cause. Trade winds are caused by ENSO's root cause, vulcanism/tectonics, not he other way around. I don't know about Australia but here in the U.S. education took a nose dive with JFK. I read articles and papers about "new" discoveries that I was taught in high school. So what do we do? We treat symptoms to cover up a problem and ignore root cause entirely. So what causes the cyclic natiure of tectonics? Gravity. The relationship of the Earth to other objects with gravity. Our math on this is wrong because we can't even determine what gravity is. By our current math bothing happened in 1976 but by observation of the real world it did. It initiated a change in plate tectonics. The change in spreading rates and subduction is proof positive. Compounding the problem is that the corruption is at an all time high. Accordiing to his former boss, Hansen would have been fired for incompetance if he did not have Gore's support. The communist/socialist supporters of the radicals are undermining us with their new "green" cover for their "red" agenda, trying to turn people against capitalism.

Patrick 027 at 03:45 AM on 25 March 2009

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
"but we understand more about some things than others. We understand less about gravity than magnetism or electricity for instance." In what ways, exactly? Surely, quantum gravity and dark matter, dark energy, etc, are not well understood, whereas QED works out quite well, so far as I know (though there will ultimately some underpinning that is not yet understood thoroughly and that is likely to be related to quantum gravity, etc. - for example, string theory). But what difference does that make to gravitational interactions among the Sun, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, dust particles, ions, etc, of the Solar System? Meanwhile, there is a complexity to how the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field, geomagnetic field, and the ionosphere interact, and how that might interact with the fluid mechanics of the atmosphere, and I don't see a good reason to expect this plays a big role in most climate changes.

Quietman at 03:00 AM on 25 March 2009

Climate's changed before
Sort of a witch hunt? That is how ignorance always reacts to real science.

Quietman at 02:58 AM on 25 March 2009

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Philippe Exactly, but we understand more about some things than others. We understand less about gravity than magnetism or electricity for instance. So we can be more certain about the things that we have a better understanding of. Example, we have a much better understanding of neandertal than australopithecus and therefore can draw better conclusions about the former than we can about the latter.

Philippe Chantreau at 14:08 PM on 24 March 2009

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Quietman:"What we have is a "working knowledge" of gravity." That applies also to evolution, the standard model, gene regulation, and everything in between. It's all a matter of how refined the working knowledge is and how precise the working can be. We don't really know what an electron is. We have a theory that we name that, we know how that theoretical unit behaves in a range of conditions, how it interacts with other theoretical units. We have an idea of subunits composing it, to the extent that we have broken it down as far as the energy levels required have been reached, but there may still be other levels waiting to be discovered. As good as that is, it's still only a "working" knowledge. Science does not provide absolute certainty or exhaustive knowledge, except perhaps at the most basic levels of a field.

David Horton at 15:35 PM on 21 March 2009

Climate's changed before
Anyone still following this thread will be interested in http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/131143/Wham_Bam_Climate_Spam.html. Comment number 94 suggests that it is much too mild and gentle and what is needed is a full blown offensive against denialists.

Patrick 027 at 04:52 AM on 21 March 2009

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
... I was not. This volcano, according to the article, is being fed directly by a mantle plume. A growing plume - or at least one which is still growing in it's surficial manifestations. A mantle plume doesn't just happen overnight. This is all very interesting but has no bearing on climate changes over the last century, millenium, the Holocene, ... etc.

Patrick 027 at 04:43 AM on 21 March 2009

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Before I read that, I'm going to take a wild guess - that this is a volcano in northeastern Africa that produces lava with a very low melting point - it can be picked up with a spoon; the magma is produced by geological heating of some kind of sedimentary rocks with chemistry that is not very similar to bulk crustal compositions - although it might not be all that dissimilar from other sedimentary rocks (?) but it is unusual, perhaps, for such a molten mixture to not mix in with a much greater amount of magma of more common composition. Now I'll see if I'm on the right track...

Steve L at 10:45 AM on 20 March 2009

Christmas cartoon on melting North Pole
I don't see it, Quietman. I'd like to see an example of Chris denying those things as you've indicated in your post #19. Please give evidence.

Patrick 027 at 06:17 AM on 20 March 2009

Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
Bruce Frykman - very interesting issues. The next ice age probably won't start for another 30,000 to 50,000 years from now (see IPCC AR4 WGI Chapter 6, also Berger and Loutre, "An Exceptionally Long Interglcial Ahead?", Science vol. 297, Aug 23 2002, pp.1287-1288) - without anthropogenic influences, Berger and Loutre's work find nearly constant Northern Hemisphere ice volume for the next 50,000 years (eyeballing the graph, slight peak 20,000 years from now just a few percent of the change since the last glacial peak, followed by a slight decrease to less ice than now between ~ 25,000 to 45,000 years from now; followed by a much larger increase, about 1/2 the difference since the last glacial maximum, between 50,000 and 60,000/65,000 years from now); with an anthropogenically-driven increase in CO2 to 750 ppm (easily attainable, unfortunately) and then decreasing to "natural" (presumably about preindustrial) values by 1000 years from now, the Greenland ice sheet dissappears, mostly in a few thousand years, essentially zeroing out Northern Hemisphere ice volume, which only starts to recover signifantly in 20,000 or 25,000 years and doesn't return to the natural trajectory until about 50,000 years (and results in the next glacial maximum between 60,000 and 70,000 years from now being about the equivalent of a Greenland less in ice volume). Most interglacials are shorter but there has been at least another long interglacial in the last 500,000 years. The ~20,000 year precession cycle also causes changes in low-latitude monsoons, so one might expect the Sahara to be more moist in ~ 10,000 years from now, as it was several thousand years ago - however, the strength of the precession effect is modulated by the eccentricity of the orbit, which is declining, so the next few cycles in precession will have a reduced effect. The changes in radiative forcing associated with Milankovitch cycles are very slow compared to recent anthropogenic changes (and have a different shape - the important effects are the regional and seasonal redistribution of solar energy, resulting in less or more favorable conditions for either ice sheet formation and growth, or disintegration or decay, which then has a globally-averaged feedback, to which CO2 responds as an additional positive feedback, etc.) However, some climate changes may occur more rapidly in association with the crossing of thresholds. Still, I suspect they would be (given our present and increasing knowledge and assuming continued survival of modern civilization) easier to prepare for and/or adapt to than the more immediate threat of anthropogenic climate change. Whether our descendents decide to mitigate the changes artificially or allow them to occur, well I guess that's up to them (it would be interesting for scientists to observe such long-term natural climate cycles, and with such a long history under the belt of a continuous society, people might get a little bored with Holocene conditions (or more likely, Anthropocene or post-Anthropocene, depending...), and it might be hard to maintain artificial forcing (some types may be prone to sudden collapse, worsenning the threat of sudden climate change - although other schemes could be much more resilient to short term 'mistakes' in management)...) I would argue that it is unwise to rely on unforeseen major game changers to solve global warming adaptation and mitigation problems in the future (at least to do so without correcting for the externality now to encourage such future advancements as well as to reduce the size of the future problem with more immediate advancements (energy-efficient buidings, cheap mass-produced solar cells and solar concentrators, safe C sequestration, perhaps 'Beano' for cows??) ), but how will technology, agriculture, medicine, politics, and culture have changed over 1000+ years? But there are still constraints - the second law of thermodynamics, the safety issues of bringing asteroids into Earth-orbit (?), the unlikelyhood that people will genetically-engineer their descendents to survive on smaller diets (prefering instead to pass down the joy of good food). Future climate-control mechanisms might be integrated into asteroid deflection systems. In preperation for disasters of limited predictability (next Yellowstone supereruption? - or will that become predictable 100+ years in advance?), population size might be reduced (humanely - etc.) from a peak around 2100 down to just a couple billion ?? - so that people have room to migrate (spare farmlands, etc). They wouldn't want to drop the population too low because of the economic advantages of specialization.

Philippe Chantreau at 04:40 AM on 20 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Good luck with your next mid terms!

Patrick 027 at 15:06 PM on 19 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Not a grad student - yet.

Bruce Frykman at 09:42 AM on 19 March 2009

Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
As we slowly emerge from the last ice age does science predict glaciation to increase or decrease? At what phase of the Milankovitch cycles should we expect glaciation to increase? ie when will the teeter-totter reverse itself? Will it be less tan 25,000 years if so how shall we begin to prepare the next 100,000 generations to deal with it? What do "policy makers" say on this vital public matter?

Bruce Frykman at 09:32 AM on 19 March 2009

Temp record is unreliable
I need clarification on what is meant be "average" in the context of temperature station readings. What are we interested in here daily averages, monthly averages, hourly averages etc. Ie is "average" simply some arbitrarily collected(high+low)/2 or are we talking about some fully intergrated average. Just what is the standard? Another question is what does science say about the type of average that is used to calculate the presnet state of the earth's "fever" (referring to your spokesman Al Gore's expression for it.) Do we do RMS averages, a simple arithemetic mean, or is a modal or median average most appropriate in determing the state of the this "fever"? Maybe can we mix them all up and wave some abra-cadabra (correcting the data) over it and voila - the current state of the earths fever is determined to 5 decimal points. How does science deal with migrating weather stations? If I decide to place 500 weather stations in Arizona next year and call them "official" will the USA develop a strong "global warming" signal or just Arizona? or doesn't it matter at all? Conversely if I fund 10,000 weather stations in Siberia can I cool the planet's present fever?

Bruce Frykman at 09:04 AM on 19 March 2009

It's not bad
"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." How much colder should the earth be to idealize the benificial ascpect for man. Of course I am most intested as to what "peer reviewed" studies have concluded. Another thing I am most intersested in is what "peer revied studies" have concluded thet the DOW jones should be at by the year 2025. Dont you alarmists have any sense of humility as to what you think you know. For the record "peer review" is simply a call for rudimentary error checking - it is not thesis confirming and it is by no means systematic, thorough, or even unbiased. It has its place but it is neither an essential nor required component of sound science. Theory confirmation is derived by outcome - not opinions of self proclaimed "experts"

Bruce Frykman at 08:47 AM on 19 March 2009

A Great Science Fiction Writer Passes - Goodbye Dr. Crichton
I did read state of fear and decided it was not great fiction but its commentary on environmentnal extremism and the global warming alarm scam was right on. I think many are attempting to diminish the man as a clear thinker just because he using science fiction as a venue. Many who work in science and are trained in core disciplines use fiction as a venue for their commentary Here is what got from the book and have had confirmed to my own satisfaction in a number of ways: 1) The environmental movement is not a movement of idealism but instead one of elitism. This is why the extremely wealthy global warming profiteers and hollywood and government elitists who push this nonsense will condemn joe 6-packs SUV but never their own use of private jets. The size of ones car is the issue but certainly not how many mansions one owns or the carbon footprint of each of them. The research grant con-artists equally jealously protect their budgets to consume fossil fuels and their world travel priveleges. No one holds tele-conferences, prefering resort venues and 5 star hotels and wining and dining on the taxpayer dime to hold "meetings" to discuss and condemn the rest of the world for attemping to improve their own lives. Invariably these meetings are held during the coldest winter months at places with low latitudes and a nearby beach. Their own world travel junkets are necerssary to condemn the thermostat setting of those who say home during our terribly frigid winters. 2) Global warming is not global. This an odd contradiction. If we "average" all of the surface temperatures we see a "warming signal" over the past 100 years or so. Individual monitoring stations do indeed simulataneously show cooling trends so that the US "warming" trend doesnt "bath" us in warmth but rather "spatters" us with it. New York City registers an alarming "global" warming signal while Albany a few short miles away simutaneously cools. Thats really odd and the only conclusion I can draw is that the data has been biased buy something other than planetery trace gases distributions in the atmosphere.

Bruce Frykman at 06:39 AM on 19 March 2009

There is no consensus
6) The surface 'record': There is none. There exists no instrumentation demonstrably designed to accumulate the earths "surface" record - Can any "scientist" out there tell me what the surface temp was in Green Valley AZ 100 years ago - dont try because it did not exist - so is it part of the surface "record" today? 7) Greenhouse warming theories are not about surface "records" anyway - its about atmospheric temps which appear to be very stable since they have been systematically collected for this purpose - that shoots the theory so the debate has to focus on a completely flawed surface "record" Why? 8) If there were a real climate threat this scam industry funded by criminal politicians who promote this hype would alter their own ways and no longer have "carbon club prints" the size of dinosaurs compared with the rest of the world's population of titmouse sized "carbon footsie prints." Why do you jet all over the world by the hundreds of thousands to attend gala conventions held at world class resorts and pleasure spas to condemn the little people in keeping their hearth warm back home where you all just left minus -20 in searh of "global" (read Bali) warming?. I know Bali, Rio, Durban, The Seychelles, etc etc are nice places to go on the public dime when its cold back home - but doesn't this realluy give the big fat lie to your message? 9) Computer models - GIGO: Modeling behavior is a legitimate method of science but you can't model behavior you can't possibly understand - if you could you could model next months temperature - of course you can't do that so you try to predict what will happen to us after we are all dead - and this brings us right back to the point of religion whose "peer-reviewed" theories compete head-on with yours as to just what happens to us after we all die. This is the only "science" outside of religion that cannot prove any of its assertions. This deligitizes the entire field and this state supported religion would more truthfully term you people "climate priests". No computer model has ever "predicted" climate change and "postdictions" (altering the model to fit past behavior) is nothing less than fraud. 10) Proxies - are only legitamate if the proxy can be used to confirm data flawlessly time and time again that can be directly collected by some other suitable means. Proxy A can not be used to confirm Proxy B If one can directly correlate proxies with directly collected data then the proxy is only a fantasy relationship that can never be proven. Carbon 14 is a legitimate proxy method since the accuracy and range of carbon 14 dating can be correlated through directly collected historical records. No one should have any cofidence in proxies whose accuracy cannot be demonstrated today. -- more later --

Bruce Frykman at 05:52 AM on 19 March 2009

There is no consensus
Why I am a skeptic: 1) The climate change debate is fueled by cash: huge sums of it directed by politicians to research institutions, "green" businesses, and government "green" agencies and regulators, all of whom seek personel gain through profit or careerism. This is not unlike any other unwarrented influence attained by combining religion and state to the detriment of human liberty. Replacing black robed preists with white coated "scientists" does not alter this unwholesome relationship. 2) The politicians and press who promote AGW will entertain no counter arguments, we do not hear debates but only lectures by those who seek to gain from this scam. 3) No legitimate science would ever allow the many fradulent claims made for it by its most ardent political supporters to go unchallenged based upon any respect for honesty. ie a warm winter in Alaska is offered as "proof" of "global" warming while a cold European winter is just "weather". Nonsense of course, but no refutaion from the scam artists whose careers depend on the scam. 3) Science is never driven by 'belief' or 'consensus' and certainly science is never 'settled' Not even Newton's 'Laws' of motion. All of these nonsensical statemements have been made by the people who seek personal gain from this scam. And which authority claims to speak for these legions of lock stepped "scientists"? Who granted this authority over consensus taking other than politicians? Who "authorised" anyone to speak for this "science"? If science is "settled" by authority or consensus at what date did this policy begin? 4) If liberating fossil fuels is the problem, then planting trees to suck up excess carbon dioxide is nonsense since anthropogenically planted trees (APT) will utlimately die of either fire or rot both of which will liberate the previously assimilated carbon right back into the atmosphere. Yet the "scientists" (scam artists) allow the politicians who fund them to get away with touting this nonsense - no legitiamte science would ever allow this "indulgence buying" to go unchallenged. Equally if carbon dioxide is great tree food then nature will "plant" trees of its own naturally fecundity and not be dependant upon APTs.(Anthropogincally Planted Trees) 5) If the "average" (will some "scientist" define "average" global temperature in terms that have a precise meaning) temperatures are rising "globaly" then no place on the globe should be exempt. If it's on "average" warmer at point 'A' over the past 100 years it cannot possibly be true that the signal will not be equally felt 100 miles away at point 'B' If there is any significant difference between 'A' and 'B' then it is not "global" but only local. Can point 'A' "globally warm" while point 'B' "globally" cools? More points to follow....

Quietman at 08:26 AM on 17 March 2009

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Why Is The Nyiragongo Volcano Lava Different From Others? Mar 13 2009

Quietman at 08:17 AM on 17 March 2009

Climate's changed before
UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory Scientists Claim Earth Is Undergoing Natural Climate Shift but like the telegraph said "Nobody listens to the real climate change experts".

Quietman at 08:14 AM on 17 March 2009

The link between hurricanes and global warming
Noteworthy: Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity [still] lowest in 30-years IMO

chris at 06:27 AM on 17 March 2009

Did global warming cause Hurricane Katrina?
I didn't bring up newspaper articles, you did HS. You referred to a newspaper article (the Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal). It's right there in your post #12 above. The problem with getting your info from newspaper opinion articles is that the opinionator can say things that might not be a true representation of the scientific evidence. That seems to be the case with the newspaper piece you referred to. You didn't look at the evidence HS. You looked at an opinion piece in a newspaper. The science (see post #13) supports the interpretation that ocean warming is the result of enhanced greenhouse warming.

Philippe Chantreau at 15:16 PM on 16 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Your wealth of knowledge is impressive Patrick. I'm curious: are you a grad student of atmospheric physics? If yes, any specific area of study?

HealthySkeptic at 14:02 PM on 16 March 2009

Did global warming cause Hurricane Katrina?
No chris, unlike yourself I look at all the evidence, not just that offered up by the scientists embedded in the current paradigm. Why you keep bringing up newspaper articles all the time I have no idea. I respect Prof Gray's scientific opinion since he is one of the leading researchers in atmospheric science not because of something I have read in a newspaper! What credentials do you posess? (Besides being able to post a mass of vaguely-related papers and articles to prop up your a priori beliefs).

HealthySkeptic at 13:51 PM on 16 March 2009

The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
Chris, We may know "how sea levels are measured" and we can certainly "look at the data directly" however there appears to be a wide spectrum of interpretation of the data and the potential consequences. More and more climate experts, such as Morner, are either changing their minds with respect to AGW, or speaking out against it. I am a scientist in an unrelated field but I remain skeptical because, despite protestations of the "party faithful" such as yourself, there simply is no scientific consensus. Until there is, I will remain a skeptic. -------------------------------------------------------- Some papers by Morner;- "Climatic Changes on a Yearly to Millennial Basis: Geological, Historical, and Instrumental Records" By Nils-Axel Mörner, W. Karlén Contributor Nils-Axel Mörner, W. Karlén Edition: illustrated Published by Springer, 1984 ISBN 9027717796, 9789027717795 Mörner, Nils-Axel (2004). "Estimating future sea level changes from past records". Global and Planetary Change 40 (1-2): 49–54. doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00097-3 Mörner, Nils-Axel; Tooley, Michael; Possnert, Göran (2004). "New perspectives for the future of the Maldives". Global and Planetary Change 40 (1-2): 177–182. doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00108-5. Mörner N.-A.; Laborel J., Tooley M., Dawson S., Allison W., Islam M.S., Laborel F., Collina J., Rufin C. (February 10 2005). "Sea Level Changes: The Maldives Project Freed From Condemnation to become Flooded" (PDF). IGCP Project No. 437 Puglia 2003 - Final Conference.

tonydunc at 14:44 PM on 15 March 2009

There is no consensus
I have been concerned about Climate change since the late 70's when my brother in law warned me about the dangers of the earth as a heat sink, and a room mate explained work she was doing about the degree of deforestation in th Amazon, Congo and Southeast Asia. When I heard about Mauna Loa I became, as the "deniers" here would call, an alarmist. The main deniers of ACC here all seem to present a reasonable face and continually provide information and links to support their arguments or to question assertions of those that support ACC. But many of their arguments appear to me to be strained at best, and most telling I have yet to see much admission of fallibility. Both John and Chris, and others have made many many observations and provided countless sources backing up their assertions, many of which have not been effectively countered, yet the deniers continue to proclaim their views almost unchanged. I was dissappointed that Chris left one of the discussions because some arguments were brought up to counter his assertions after he left, and I do not know enough to assess their validity. But in every case that he has responded his arguments have been clear and totally supported. the argument that the deniers here are not as critical of sources that object to ACC as they are to sources that support them is extremely important. Also that there is no competing theory. As with the anti evolution debate, there are dozens of competing theories, almost all mutually exclusive. The interest seems to be on proving ACC to be false rather than finding out the truth. Quitman keeps insisting it is a tectonic issue, and all very clear, yet it seems to me that Chris effectively demonstrated that every one of his contentions was not supported by research. that in fact we know the amount of carbon produced by tectonic effects, and it is 1% of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. I have yet to read anything that Chris or John have written that was factually in error or where their conclusion was not justified. The fact that there are almost no peer reviewed articles that contradict ACC is a towering argument. That does not by itself mean that the consensus is right. It does not mean that there is not a huge conspiracy . But a huge conspiracy on this scale would require some massive fudging of data, or a degree of peer pressure that is clearly not occurring. Certainly in Soviet Russia there was a mass conspiracy supporting Lysenkian genetics. No papers were allowed to be published in scientific journals that did not support it. Yet all the real scientists knew that this was happening, and went along with it because they would face severe penalties if they didn't. I know of no scientist who supports ACC who is "pressured" to do so because of pressure and therefore does not publish valid research data that would counter it. I know of no scientists who refuse to look at research because they are scared it might force them to disbelieve ACC. This does not mean that there are not political pressures to support ACC that distort aspects of how it is presented and that have serious political imperatives. Those should be faced head on and counteracted. Many people on this site have pointed out the obvious and sometimes shameful attempts to bolster anti ACC views that were unscientific. this should not be disregarded. Nor should the funding by right wing and energy based organizations that have an ideological or financial agenda. but there has been sufficient time and thousands of research papers detailing ACC and if it was incorrect in the main then a competing theory that fit all the facts would have emerged. I consider myself an alarmist because there IS a consensus on climate change and almost nothing is being done about it. That is very alarming. There are potential consequences that are indeed catastrophic. ACC is not a problem in isolation. There are innumerable environmental crisis that are happening at the same time, many of which are greatly exacerbated by ACC. Not all are real and not all will be as bad as some predict. I do know that deforestation, certain kinds of pollution, the devastation of ocean life, biodiversity loss, and contamination of various parts of the environment are accelerating. Atmospheric CO2 is accelerating as well. Yet in spite of worldwide political and public consensus, almost nothing is being done that could conceivably have any effect. It is like a car heading toward a cliff, we can see it, but instead of taking our foot off the accelerator and on the brake, we are untying the shoe on the accelerator, so that if we do want to stop we can take the shoe off and press not quite so hard with our bare foot. As Risky puts it, why not just really slow down CO2 production. If we do cut it drastically and it turns out not to be a big problem, we can gear back up very easily. However if we don't, the risks of Greenland melting are quite real. It might not, but it might. There are many who believe that IPCC conclusions are ridiculously optimistic. There are thousands of scientists who are convinced research show significant ACC is happening, and that the consequences could be devastating. So lets cut back to pre 1990 levels for 20 years and see what the research shows then. There are extremists who either don't understand science and therefore make false exaggerated claims. And there are ideologues who believe that they have to overplay their hand to counter the "enemy". But I am in contact with some of these people and none of them believe that they are wrong but are pulling this scam because they will get rich. They all believe they are right, and just want to keep the evil corporation from destroying the planet. On the other hand we do know the tobacco companies knew they were wrong, but lied and obfuscated about cancer as long as possible. We know that Financial companies knowingly lied to all sorts of people. We know the govenrment covered up what companies like Enron and Anderson were doing, and knew that the current financial structure was "toxic". It does not seem unreasonable to suppose that Exxon,and the Heritage foundation would lie, knowingly lie, about ACC in order to keep making huge profits. The idea that the profit motive is what is driving the science behind ACC seems almost ludicrous given recent history and the structure of our economic system. I, however am fully an alarmist, because I think it is possible that the Greenland Ice cap could melt substantially in 50 years. I do believe that there could be a tipping point that affects the Sargasso ocean current or some other currently stable climactic factor in a period of a decade or two. I do believe there are potential consequences that could wreak havoc on our society and on the world. I also believe that there could be solutions that will mitigate the problems. I also believe that nothing serious will be done about the issue until there is some devastating crisis that puts the deniers into shell shock, and that forces action. By then it may be too late to avoid some of the seroius consequences. these polite websites that argue back and forth will seem rather bizarre then. ACC could be wrong. I think it extremely unlikely, and I think that it will be not because it is "wrong" but because there is some other deeper issue that really LOOKS like ACC, just as Quantum relativistic physics really LOOKS newtonian in daily life. the arguments of the deniers (except for Quietman, since he is convinced his theory explains everything) are not consistant systematic theories and are just flotsam thrown to obscure matters. If the consequences were not so serious I would think it was great. but the "debate" is actually causing serious delays in making necessary immediate changes in human activities. it has been the United States for the last 20 years being the lynchpin in stopping concerted efforts to cut back CO2 emissions, and that has allowed China and india and others to increase their CO2 output to US levels, and now they are starting to obfuscate as much as we have.

Patrick 027 at 10:17 AM on 15 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Upward expansion of the atmospheric mass and pressure levels by warming and additional moisture are distinct from the rising of the tropopause relative to pressure levels.

Patrick 027 at 09:41 AM on 15 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
The cooling of the stratosphere and layers above due to a greater greenhouse effect will cause a density increase; the mass falls somewhat (except below some level where the effect of thermal expansion of the troposphere pushing overlying mass upward dominates). But in pressure coordinates, there is little change (pressure levels fall to lower geometric heights, following the mass distribution, with some adjustment due to the variation in gravity with height (a very minor issue for most of the mass of the atmosphere - actually, if I bring that up then I think I should also mention that the increased humidity of the troposphere should cause some slight increase in surface pressure and push the atmosphere upward just slightly). What I was wondering about, though, is what the direct radiative effect of a greater greenhouse effect is on the horizontal temperature variations of the stratosphere. Generally, the warmer parts of the stratosphere should cool the most; and also the parts which lose the most heating by LW radiation from below (surface and troposphere) - so I wouldn't expect the direct effect to have a strong cooling of the polar winter stratosphere, for example .

Patrick 027 at 09:26 AM on 15 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
... see IPCC AR4 WGI Chapter 9 p.675 http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf of course, these are annual average respones...

Philippe Chantreau at 06:31 AM on 15 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Although this might be an effect more for the layers above the stratosphere. Not sure.

Philippe Chantreau at 06:31 AM on 15 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Possibly contraction (increased pressure and temp lapse rates)?

Patrick 027 at 05:17 AM on 15 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
" but the greenhouse effect also has direct effects on the upper atmosphere that may be similar. " No, wait. The total effect of solar brightenning, ozone depletion, and increased CO2,CH4,N2O,etc, are all expected to cool the lower stratosphere more at higher latitudes than at some lower latitudes, although there is some interesting complexity(IPCC AR4 WGI Chapter 9 ? see diagram on p. ?) the changes in north-south temperature gradients are quite similar for the lower stratosphere between CO2,CH4,etc and solar forcing, at least from mid-to-high latitudes - exactly what the direct effect of the greenhouse effect on the stratosphere is besides general cooling...?

tonydunc at 21:12 PM on 14 March 2009

tonydunc at 19:29 PM on 14 March 2009

There is no consensus
I have spent the last few hours and have ben fascinated by the amount of information on this site. I came to this site because I had ben looking for some scientifically credible source to critique the claims of this article i had been referred to that seemed quite scientific ( the only one I have ever seen that really firt the bill). it turns out that this thread covers that article. Here is one link http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm Hopefully someone here can give me a critique of their specific points. the main being that CO2 could not possibly be a factor in the increasing temperatures, and that increasing temperatures are not of any concern. Increasing temp is due to a gradual readjustment from the "little ice Age" I know some of their points are covered in other threads here, but this seemed the most likely place to put this

Mizimi at 04:42 AM on 14 March 2009

CO2 measurements are suspect
Here is a comparison of geochem vs satellite (AIRS) data on CO2 levels : http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0817/2008GL035022/2008gl035022-op03.jpg

Patrick 027 at 14:10 PM on 13 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Regarding comment 469: "Aside from those questions, how much multidecadal variability is there in the solar wind?" On that point, my impression is that climate models are able to simulate the little ice age, which suggests that if the solar wind varied with total solar forcing back then the way it does now, setting aside possible nonlinearities in the magnetic field and climatic response that just happen to make it a bigger factor now, then it seems likely that the sun is not contributing a whole lot more (over twice as much, which is minimally what it would take to overcome anthropogenic forcing, assuming high end estimates of solar forcing and near-high end estimates of anthropogenic aerosol cooling, to make solar forcing dominant, and only just barely - anthropogenic effects would still be important, and greenhouse forcing even more so as it would be partly canceled by aerosols in that case, more than is expected) to climate change now than is thought. Same for TSI UV effects on upper atmospheric circulation - it is possible to imagine that there is some aspect of changing atmospheric circulation patterns and regional changes, aside from global average temperature increases, that has some special connection to TSI in UV - and for that matter, ozone depletion has had an effect on SAM (Southern Annular Mode); but the greenhouse effect also has direct effects on the upper atmosphere that may be similar. Directly-radiatively forced effects on the upper atmosphere (above tropopause) shouldn't have a lag time over one year (actually a few weeks??), whereas tropospheric and surface changes and stratospheric changes in response to those changes will have a lag time of over a decade, maybe ... well, it's more than one decade. So if solar forcing has not increased much since 1980... etc. ---- Regarding where I left off on comment 439: Rossby wave propagation properties of the basic state will not just vary vertically. Sloping reflective surfaces can change the horizontal orientation, resulting in changes in the north-south group velocities of waves between incident and reflected, and between incident and refracted... And Rossby waves can be/are refracted and reflected horizontally. The synoptic-scale wavelengths (midlatitude cyclone activity) cannot penetrate far into the stratosphere; The quasistationary Rossby waves (longer wavelengths) can propagate up provided the wind is westerly and not too fast (wavelength dependent). In summer, the winds generally reverse within some distance of the tropopause, becoming easterly within most of the stratosphere by volume (I'm not sure by mass offhand, as density decreases roughly exponentially with height). In the winter, the wind speed generally decreases up to a point but remains westerly up into the mesosphere; a point is reached where it speeds up again with height - this can occur in the lower stratosphere at higher latitudes from the tropopause-level average maximum westerly winds (at high enough latitudes, the average westerly wind increases with height from the surface up through at least the lower stratosphere (Holton, p.407)) - generally maximum winds are reached somewhere near the upper stratosphere/lower mesosphere (by geometric height) and then decrease again (Holton, p.407) - the summer hemisphere has a maximum in easterlies above the stratopause. I started with the idea of Rossby waves described by formulas that I think were derived with assumptions that some things were nearly constant with height and that the basic state horizontal wind shear is not a big factor in the IPV gradient. I'm not sure off hand how a more complete understanding will change the picture. Anyway, climate changes involving increasing horizontal temperature gradients in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (I don't know about upper stratosphere) could change how these waves propagate and thus cause changes to circulation patterns, including positions/strengths/qualities of prevailing westerlies and storm-tracks, by changing wave EP fluxes between the stratosphere and troposphere as well as by changing the storm track activity itself and the Hadley cells, etc. So is this what's happening?

harmonyfuture at 11:02 AM on 12 March 2009

It's the sun
I posted this on what may be a dead end Mars warming story. Could any comment be made on possible chemical reactions resultant from storm activity on the surface of Mars. Excuse ignorance, ignore if stupid. Thanks

harmonyfuture at 10:56 AM on 12 March 2009

Mars is warming
If anyone visits again, could any comment be made on possible chemical reactions resultant from storm activity on the surface. Excuse ignorance, ignore if stupid. Thanks

roundton at 03:58 AM on 12 March 2009

There is no consensus
Hi, Thanks for providing this forum. You write: The consensus position is generally defined as "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities". I agree that is one consensus view, but I can certainly envisage agreement with that particular statement being combined with a dissenting or agnostic position as to the relative importance of different human inputs. So one could adhere to one consensus position on global warming, but at the same time be a sceptic regarding another position, for instance the view that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases". Would you also regard the latter statement as reflecting a consensus? If so, fine, but it will be a different and smaller consensus than the first one.

Gord at 22:00 PM on 11 March 2009

It's the sun
The Energy Budget Diagrams show 342 w/m^2 for the "Incoming" Solar Energy above the Earth's atmosphere. 67 w/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere, 77 w/m^2 is reflected by clouds and 30 w/m^2 is reflected by the surface. This leaves 168 w/m^2 absorbed by the Earth's surface. The AGW Energy Budget Diagrams state that the Solar energy actually reaching the Earth's surface is only "an average" of 168 w/m^2. However, the method they use for their calculation involves representing the spherical earth as a disk. While this calculation is mathematically correct to determine the "average" solar flux through the disk, it does not represent the actual variation in Solar flux. Most of the direct(straight on)absorbtion of Solar energy occures near the equator (even with the Earth's changing axis). The Polar regions absorb far less Solar energy because the energy is received at an angle. Near the equator the Solar flux is measured as high as 1000 w/m^2...which is vastly higher than the 168 w/m^2 average. -------------------- Basics of Solar Energy "Collection of Solar Energy Amount of captured solar energy depends critically on orientation of collector with respect to the angle of the Sun. Under optimum conditions, one can achieve fluxes as high as 1000 Watts per sq. meter" http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph162/l4.html -------------------- The Oceans have an emissivity near 1, which means that they will absorb just about all Solar energy available and heat up. Boltzmann's Law states: P = e*BC*A*T^4 Where P = net radiated power (Watts), e = emissivity, BC = Stefan's constant (5.67X10^-8), T = temperature Kelvin and A = area ..when rearranged gives P/A = e*BC*T^4 (Watts/m^2) If P/A = 1000 w/m^2 e = 1 BC = 5.67X10^-8 and solving for T we get T = 364.42 deg K or a whopping 91.42 deg C!! On average, the Ocean mean surface temp at the equator is a much lower 29 deg C. Also, the mean Ocean surface temp for the entire planet is about 18.69 deg C. It is very possible that the Sun's heating of the Oceans (which is about 70% of the Earth's surface)can account for most, if not all, of Earth's +15 deg C average temp.

Gord at 21:29 PM on 11 March 2009

It's the sun
There are only two significant energy sources that can directly affect the Earth's temp: 1. The Sun 2. The Earth's molten core. If these two energy sources were elliminated, the Earth would cool to near absolute zero. The Earth's atmosphere is NOT an energy source. The AGW'ers have produced an Energy Budget Diagram (which excludes the Earth's molten core, so I will as well) The Sun is the ONLY energy source in the following diagram. Here is a link to Kevin Trenberth's paper: Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf Look at Fig.7 The earth’s annual global mean energy budget Do you see the amount of Solar Radiation absorbed by surface of the Earth?....it's 168 w/m^2. Do you see the amount of Back Radiation from the Atmosphere that is absorbed by surface of the Earth?....it's 324 w/m^2. Do you see the amount of Surface Radiation from the Earth?.....it's 390 w/m^2. Do you agree that the Sun is the ONLY energy source in this Energy Budget Diagram? Do you agree that the average Atmosphere temp is Colder than the average Earth's Surface temp? Does the Earth's surface radiate MORE energy than it "consumes" or receives from the Sun? Does the Back Radiation absorbed by the Earth's Surface exceed the energy it receives from the Sun? Does the Back Radiation not come from a colder atmosphere? ------------------------------ "Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3 ---------------------- Perpetual motion "The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, the term more generally refers to any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed." "Perpetual motion violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both" "A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces energy from nothing, giving the user unlimited 'free' energy. It thus violates the law of conservation of energy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion ------------------ It's pretty clear that AGW violates: 1. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 2. The Law of Conservation of Energy

chris at 06:02 AM on 10 March 2009

The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
HS #32, For whatever reason Nils-Morner is asserting something that is demonstrably untrue. We know how sea levels are measured. We can look at the data directly (see papers in my post #27). People do say things that aren't true in newspaper interviews...or perhaps they're mis-quoted. That's why skeptics preder the science to newspaper articles!Whatever the reason for Nils-Morner stating something that doesn't accord with the facts in a newspaper interview, it doesn't change the reality of the methodology of measuring sea levels. And it's not about "paradigms" "creationists" "warped views" and all those other non-science things you want to pursue in lieu of an argument. It's about the methodologies of measuring sea levels! Perhaps you're less interested in the reality of how sea levels are measured (it's a pretty prosaic subject!)and prefer to hold onto a falsehood from a newspaper article. That's fine..

chris at 05:43 AM on 10 March 2009

Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
The fact that Scotese has a very nice paleotectonic site doesn't mean that the temperature sketch that is shown there is a meaningful representation of the Earth's paleotemperature as we know it. A rather better one would be something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png Likewise if we are interested in (i) what the paleoCO2 levels were and (ii) the relationship, between paleoCO2 levels and paleotemperature we would probably want to use some real paleoCO2 data, wouldn't you say? However there isn't any paleoCO2 data in the sketch that someone has presumably created to attempt to fool us (he fooled you and Mizimi and HS, but not the skeptical individuals here). The CO2 curve is a model created to capture the broad changes in CO2 that would arise from knowledge of continental movement, weathering rates, and so on. It has a temporal resoution of 10 million years. It's a very nice model, btw. But it doesn't have much meaning as a source of comparison of paleotemp and paleoCO2, particularly if one is interested in the specific relationship between temperature and greenhouse gas levels in the deep past. Fit for purpose, Quietman....that should be one of the considerations a skeptic applies to data...

chris at 05:25 AM on 10 March 2009

Did global warming cause Hurricane Katrina?
HS you can "get this straight" by reading my post (rather than engaging in contrived indignation and attempted "argument" by hyperbole!). As I said in my post #13, "Gray's assertions about the source of raised SST doesn't accord with the scientific evidence", and I demonstrated the rather straightforward evidence on which my statement was based. You don't seem very interested in the science, and find unsupported assertions and vague insinuations about climate scientists in newspaper articles "compelling". That's fine.

Patrick 027 at 05:10 AM on 10 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
""laisser-faire"" - Thanks! (I may be able to remember it by thinking 'laser fairy'.)

Philippe Chantreau at 12:14 PM on 9 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
That would be "laisser-faire" Patrick. Indeed the vast majority of skeptics have little grounding to their skepticism in scientific realities. The real problem I see is that they don't even have a true skeptic attitude. What strikes me the most is the extreme scrutiny applied to all the evidence supporting AGW and the extreme complacency about anything opposing it. When you get "references" like Morano, the OISM, Beck and what not, that pretty much shoots down any possibility of dialog. The (very) few real skeptics I've encountered would not bring up that kind of nonsense, or anything that they did not scrutinize carefully. Perhaps that's why there are so few of them.

Patrick 027 at 05:18 AM on 9 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
"And of what significance to the conclusions have any 'mistakes' by Mann, etc, yeilded?" Please pardon the grammar. And of what significance have been any 'mistakes' by Mann, etc, to the conclusions? -- Marc Morano most definitely has an agenda. There are a class of people who refuse to accept the science because, from their perspective, either 1. government must be made small (enough to drown in your bathtub - Grover Norquist) and so any problem for which a government solution is a wise choice must therefore not exist; 2. Taxes must always be cut and never be increased, hence a CO2 tax, regardless of the logic, must be opposed in order to 'starve the beast' (so that it can be drowned in one's bathtub); 3. Any 'beliefs' by those on the other side of the political spectrum must be opposed; 4. Government policies will fail (well, of course, if you have no-bid contracts, silence whistle blowers, deprive programs of necessary funding...); 5. Anyone who does not pursue Laizze-Faire (spelling?) ultimately has a communist agenda, doesn't understand and value the free market (I do like free markets, I understand the logic, but they are not 'my lord and savior'); 6. Policies pursued to mitigate cliamte change will hurt the poor (but why should the government do something specifically to help poor people - I thought small-government conservatives were against wellfare); 7. in some cases, God is in charge and humans have no influence over anything; and/or God wants us to add CO2 to the atmosphere to bring about a garden of Eden (that's not what would happen); and/or God is going to destroy the world soon anyway; and/or seeing value in nature is somehow paganism (and yet valuing money is not?); and/or (I'm infering this one) they don't believe in evolution so why should they believe anything else from science (although there are noted exceptions - anti-religious people who accept evolution but are ideologically blinded to global warming; religious people who don't believe evolution but who see our destruction of the creation as a bad thing).

Patrick 027 at 03:55 AM on 9 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
"Every single anomality can be explained by one of the multitude of climate forcings that cause the various cycles in the climate." ... "The bottom line is where is the proof of AGW?" But most of the warming over the last century can be explained easily by CO2. Where is the proof that other forcings have any effect? Of course these are both over-simplifications. All forcings contribute; some are of opposite sign so the total change in forcing over the last couple centuries or so happens to be about that of CO2 alone. The climate may be more sensitive to some forcings because of spatial-temporal distributions (efficacy) (black carbon on snow), and some forcings may have different specific regional effects (aerosols); but (while solar and ozone effects on upper atmosphere above the tropopause - however, global warming in general may produce some of the same stratospheric circulation changes) there is no convincing case yet that we should expect the response to solar forcing to be amplified by a factor of 2 or 5 or 7 ... relative to that from CO2. --- Any single mistake by Spency, Soon, etc... could be attributed to an honest mistake, but multiple mistakes erring to one side can sometimes raise suspitions - moreover, they are mistakes - thus they are not correct. Obviously, Exxon has an agenda. And of what significance to the conclusions have any 'mistakes' by Mann, etc, yeilded?

mjp at 13:02 PM on 8 March 2009

There is no consensus
I just wanted to post a thanks to all posters. And thanks also to the site editors for leaving both sides free to express their views. Wading through all 131 comments has given me a fair idea of who is dealing with the facts and who is obfuscating and manipulating. Great site.

Philippe Chantreau at 12:40 PM on 8 March 2009

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
"There is a large difference between those scientists that do NOT have an agenda making an honest mistake and those "scientists" WITH an agenda being decietful with the evidence and telling lies." Sounds like a perfect definition of Spencer/Christy, or Soon/Baliunas, or Loehle, etc... But of course, your skepticism would never turn its gaze to that side. If that's how you consider Spencer's ridiculous post on WUWT, once again, whatever. Not so sure I'd take your word on any aspect of "reality." Nothing personal, though, just that way of arguing you have. Like when you say you don't know who Morano is, or when you mention the possibility of climate correlation with Mars just before saying that, "of course there's no correlation." You know, I may be younger than you but I know bad faith when I see it.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments