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  2593  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  Next

Comments 130001 to 130050:

  1. It's the sun
    /// QM:In other words the earth is not very sensitive to CO2 as a GHG. If it was we would have looked like Venus during the Mesozoic. So the simple answer is that the IPCC has seriously overestimated the sensitivity to CO2 while doing the opposite for TSI. /// No we would not have looked like Venus during the Mesozoic because Venus and the earth are different in many ways. For one thing Venus is nearer the sun. It has no magnetic field to protect the atmosphere and it has no plate tectonics or satellite. But carbon dioxide has the same properties on Venus as it does on earth. I would though like to see some evidence that the IPCC has overestimated sensitivity to CO2.
  2. Models are unreliable
    The models did a pretty good job stating where hurricane Gustav would end up. Should the people of New Orleans have ignored them as well - because they couldn't be 100% certain of their accuracy?
  3. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    HealthySkeptic: NewsBusters is exactly the type of source you do not read for GW information. Their claim “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias” is the dead giveaway. GW and AGW are not ideological debates; they are scientific debates. Read the science.
  4. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman. You do have a side and I think you have a bias. The term global warming alarmist is inherently judgmental and, if I may say so, negative. The phrase global warming denier or skeptic is more neutral. Surely you can see this. But even the term "skeptic" is often misused when discussing GW or AGW. A skeptic is "a person inclined to question or doubt" an accepted opinion. But most people who might call themselves skeptics simply do not believe in GW or AGW. I've tried to honestly debate some of these "skeptics" and they don't merely question or doubt GW; they simply do not and will not believe, and they can't quite explain why. And this is more than just a matter of semantics. It goes to the heart of what you believe or don't believe and whether you are being honest with yourself about your beliefs and disbeliefs. As you have guessed, I'm a GW/AGW believer. I'm not sold on the details yet. There is still much to learn. Real believers and real skeptics could work this through honestly. But with all the name-calling and accusations (esp. on the Internet), there seems to be all too little real debate. For example, your referring to someones post: "That is your opinion, and theirs. The best have already left the IPCC because they were true scientists who refused to have their work altered. This line of argument is both childish and foolish. ..." is not helpful. When did you become the sole arbiter of what line of argument is "childish and foolish"? I think you need to take your own advice about doing your homework. Mainly, read technical papers and stay away from right wing blogs.
  5. Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
    John, In response to #5, Steve L, you said>> "... the skeptics suddenly have lost their skepticism for climate models -or at least for these results." What makes you say that, wishful thinking perhaps? Until computer models can actually predict something that can be confirmed (rather than spit out questionable "correlations" in 20:20 hindsight), I think most skeptics will remain just that.
  6. It's Urban Heat Island effect
    uuuuuh...is it me or are the colours all wrong? Canada, Greenland, Siberia all hotter than the Sahara desert?
  7. It's not bad
    What about global warming reduces heating fuel consumption? Philippe: We should hold very lightly info that doesn't have empirical data tacked onto it....eg: Co2 fertilisation ( or lack of it) Jasper Ridge have been conducting controlled experiments on plants for the past 3 yrs and their data shows 1/3rd increase in biomass if CO2 alone is increased, and up to 85% increase if water/minerals/ temp are optimised WITHOUT extra CO2.
  8. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Some crude sums......... 85 - 90% of the 33C elevation of GMT is due to W.vapour. Thus the GG's are responsible for 10-15% (3.3 - 5C) MM CO2 emissions are ~27E9 tons so allowing for MM CH4 emissions (3.0E9tons CO2 equivalent), total MM GG's are around 30.0E9tons (2005) Total atmospheric CO2 = 3.0E12 tons (2005) Thus MM GG contribute 1% of 3.3-5C (.033-.05C) To double total atmospheric CO2 content from 3.0E12 to 6.0E12 solely from MM CO2 @ current increase of 30.E9/a requires 200years. (385ppm to 770ppm assuming all CO2 remains in atmosphere - wrong but never mind). Assume direct lineal warming effect (wrong but never mind)GG's would then contribute to a further GMT rise of 3.3-5C over 200 years. This is 1.65-2.5 C /century. or .17 - .25C/decade. GISS data for land/Oceans: 1980-1990 show a rise of .15C 1990-2000 show a rise of .15C 2000-2007 show a rise of .10C GISS data for met. stations: 1980-1990 show a rise of .15C 1990-2000 show a rise of .19C 2000-2007 show a rise of .12C So it looks like we can expect GMT to rise from around 14 to 15.5 by 2107 Numbers are fun.
  9. It's the sun
    Great posts, we think alike. The real climate fear from actual science is swift change, which the world past shows how volatile it truly is. CO2 views as an industry and population agenda. Ultimately humans have a natural tendency to tackle problems viewed solvable, especially when the problem involves their back end. The "other climate” mentioned have been known for quite a while but CO2 was narrowed which is ludicrous. The world itself will never be narrow.
  10. Did global warming cause Hurricane Katrina?
    John, Your article correctly states that there is no observable link between GW and hurricane frequency. However, your inference that the ink between sea temperatures and hurricane intensity can be attributed to GW is seriously flawed, as explained in this article by William H. Gray, professor emeritus in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University;- Hurricanes and Hot Air
  11. Do growing glaciers disprove global warming?
    Well that didn't work, did it. :( You'll have to look in the original linked document for the graph I'm afraid...
  12. Do growing glaciers disprove global warming?
    I came across this article on the net recently;- Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide which includes the following graph of glacier shrinkage ;- This data goes back a lot longer than the data in John's article above and tends to refute his conclusions. Any comments?
  13. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    I'm not sure the IPCC has any other choice but to lie at times. Well, not lie exactly, more correctly they are forced to be more and more inventive with their AGW hypothesis. A typical example can be found here;- Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge No wonder more and more scientists are defecting from the sinking ship.
  14. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    Mizimi, "...maybe we have been around longer than anyone thinks????" :) We'll have to call that one the "Fred Flintstone Theory" ;)
  15. It's the sun
    Pep For some reason the link I posted for you is dead. I probably made another typo so here is the text, just copy and paste: http://www.livescience.com/space/080901-mm-night-shining.html
  16. It's the sun
    Pep I actually do not disagree with AGW, it is a valid hypothesis. What or more specifically who I disagree with, are alarmists who twist the works of skeptics and totally neutral scientists either into a denial or falsely supporting AGW, and activists who seem to worship their word as gospel. Dr. Hansen is without any doubt an alarmist from his "or we are all toast" statement, rendering his judgement clouded in my view. And since he is the primary author at Real Climate, it in turn is alarmist, so I don't go there anymore. My issue with CO2 is purely one of sensitivity. I see other causes that are stronger than CO2 induced AGW simply because AGW is weaker than originally thought and the emphasis on CO2 in particular is distracting the science and preventing finding the actual problem. I don't know if it is a blind faith, cognitive disonnance, an agenda or something else. I was taught to question everything that did not seem logical and that had stood me well in an engineering environment (I am now retired) so I do not understand their irrational behavior. If you are interested in what I think is happening see the volcanos thread, which I feel is related to this thread via Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge's (non-peer reviewed) solar hypothesis.
  17. It's the sun
    Pep I found the original story (I still can't remember where I put the lik originally). Strange Clouds Spotted at the Edge of Space By Jeremy Hsu, Staff Writer, posted: 01 September 2008 08:50 am ET, 30 Comments A brief opening quote: “The noctilucent or “night-shining” clouds are at an altitude of 47 to 53 miles (76 to 85 km), where meteors and bright aurora lights are not uncommon and the atmosphere gives way to the blackness of space.” and from the body of the article: “Another likely source of water vapor is methane oxidation” It's an interesting read. :)
  18. It's the sun
    Good one, so when do they arrive back home? I’ll watch this thread for the link, and thank you.
  19. CO2 lags temperature
    Austerlitz The relationship as stated and accepted by the IPCC may indeed be false, I agree. But there is a feedback that has a minor effect and can be viewed as symptomatic. Spencer gives a good explanation for this, the sensitivity to CO2 is lower than the sensitivity of other drivers/forcings and easily overcome which is indicated in the current cooling trend. The idea that CO2 caused AGW therefore is rather meaningless since it is not strong enough to have driven climate change from 1975 through 2007. Recent articles on ocean oscillations and plate tectonics/vulcanism indicate that "The solar jerk" is at work.
  20. It's the sun
    Pep We had been discussing CH4 and tropospheric clouds in a recent article on how they form with Mizimi. Unfortunately I don't remember where I put the link to the article but I don't think it was flying cows. I believe it may have been about methane hydrates but now I can't remember. :)
  21. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PS People use real names on different sites and handles on others to avoid witch hunts. The alarmists are the witch hunters in the AGW argument and many are fanatics so skeptics use a handle. I use my real name on sites that do not have the crazies around to hassle me.
  22. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Lee Re: " The IPCC is headed up by the 600 leading climate scientists in the the world. " That is your opinion, and theirs. The best have already left the IPCC because they were true scientists who refused to have their work altered. This line of argument is both childish and foolish. When you have a valid point to make I will respond otherwise I will not longer reply to you. DO your homework and think for yourself. Since the hypothesis of AGW was first proposed many other factors have been determined. Read all of the threads. To blindly accept the word of the IPCC is to accept AGW on faith. I do not believe in blind faith. As for lies, yes deniers have lied. But not skeptical statements. You have to learn how to discern truth from falsehood and more importantly accept that no one is infallable, not even Hansen.
  23. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    HealthySkeptic: Wow! Look what insignificant little ol' Life did in the Carboniferous...nearly wiped out atmospheric CO2 and ........that GMT!! Good job we learned to make fires................tho' looking more closely at the graph, there's a big upswing in the Permian....maybe we have been around longer than anyone thinks????
  24. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    C: "As noted above, it is critical to understand that ecosystems in the 21st century start from an already massively ‘shifted baseline’ and so have lost resilience. Most habitats are already degraded and their populations depleted, to a lesser or greater extent, by past human activities." Consider the vast changes to the British environment: modern Britain has been transformed in a relatively short period of time from dense woodland/wetlands to what it is now...an 'idustrialised' landscape. Consider the only bird to have become extinct throughout this process is.........the Great Auk, hunted to extiction. Wild boar, bears, wolves...hunted to extinction... the list goes on. Nothing to do with climaste or environmental changes.
  25. Models are unreliable
    QM: Yes, just recently, which prompted me to look for further info on how a shifting barycentre could affect climate. One thought which I am currently pursuing is adiabatic cooling of the upper atmoshere caused by the tidal effect of sun/moon. As the barycentre moves it causes the shape of the atmospheric envelope to alter, effectively expanding the volume, which should cause a cooling effect.
  26. It's the sun
    I wouldn’t worry about cows but methane hydrates are a concern. As a side note: I can’t say CO2 doesn’t contribute to warming, more likely so. Absorbs infrared energy. I agree to disagree in other words.
  27. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    My user name is my real name Quietman, as is every other person on this website who speaks the truth.
  28. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman, I have pointed out SPECIFIC lies. I've provided references to back up my claims. The IPCC is headed up by the 600 leading climate scientists in the the world. Deny that if you can. BTW, my user name is my real name.
  29. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Re: I'm sure everyone in California would be interested to know why their state is "despicable." Ask anyone from the other 49.
  30. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe I know about the tricks they are playing on Spencer. He's eccentric but not nuts. They are trying to discredit him any way that they can. But who sounds nuttier? Another NASA scientist tried to discredit Dr. Fairbridge in a discussion by saying his papers are not peer reviewed. That is an alarmist tactic that will soon backfire. Papers that they refused based on lack of peer review will soon be printed because they are turning out to be factual. The IPCC can only supress the facts for so long. That is why they are now looking into solar forcing and why you now get a lot of hits instead of just one when doing a search for "The Solar Jerk". Eyes are finally opening.
  31. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PS Lee you have not pointed out any lies at all. Just because it's not in the bible does not make it an untruth.
  32. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Re: "Oh yeah, one more observation Quietman, are you claiming that the IPCC doesn't employ good science? Your whole position is predicated on the assumption that those scientists are either incompetent, or liers. Which is it?" A little of both. The IPCC has no (zero) scientists. That is not how things work. SELECT scientists submit and review papers dealing primarily with what the effects of AGW will be. They do not do any work on proving the hypothesis at all because they have assumed it to be fact. The IPCC then deletes any papers or comments that do not support AGW. It's kind of like a high school click, outsiders have no voice and papers submitted are simply rejected. This is BIG money and the IPCC isn't going to let the gravey train stop any time soon.
  33. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Lee Grable The IPCC is a political body and like all politicians they lie a lot. The lie is "Global Warming". The warming is not Global, it is regional, and caused by heat escaping from the mantle at subduction zones and ridges. I have placed many links on the "Volcanos" thread that back up my hypothesis. The cause of tectonics is gravitational stress. The Earth has a sizeable moon to keep the tectonics going. Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge explained how gravitational forces affect sunspots by affecting the suns barycenter. Jupiter has the largest effect but the effect is increased during planetary alignments, particularly the inner planets and the gas giants. The TSI stopped leading temps in 1975. 1975 was a near complete planetary alignment and 1976 was the full alignment that is quite rare (most people will never see one). There was a lot of speculation about earthquakes and other forms of vulcanism at the time but nothing drastic happened ... that they could detect at the time. But something quite drastic did happen and vulcanism/tectonic movement has increased and much of it is increased activity in the subduction zones, hence the record El Nino's (ENSO) that we have been experiencing since. Chris lists the years of the El Ninos higher in this thread in an attempt to prove me wrong but the El Nino is cyclical, it has happened for a very long time. It's strength is what has changed. The same goes for the other oscillations. The South Atlantic anomally is reducing the magnetic field from eastern South America to western Africa. Tropical storms have been forming farther east, closer to the red sea, making Hurricane forcasting more difficult. Have you even read the other comments on this site? PS You asked who is the liar. The spokesman for the alarmists is Al Gore, and he tells lies. The scientist who brought this up is "we are all toast" Hansen (Real Climate) and he has lost his cool and who knows what else. Sorry, but "we are all toast" is a lie.
  34. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Sorry about the spelling, my eyes are going fast.
  35. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe I am 60 years old and I heard the word used by a californian in Viet Nam in 1968. He had joined my company shortly after the Tet Offensive. Nelieve it or not they did draft hippies. PS I never look at Real Climate anymore after finding out how their site is funded and by whom. It is THE alarmist site.
  36. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    #163. Sorry dude.
  37. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    #153 Lee Grable >> "John Cook. I'm sorry. " So you should be.
  38. Do growing glaciers disprove global warming?
    In an interglacial period such as today, why are we surprised that glaciers are receding? How is this fact supportive of AGW?
  39. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Oh yeah, one more observation Quietman, are you claiming that the IPCC doesn't employ good science? Your whole position is predicated on the assumption that those scientists are either incompetent, or liers. Which is it?
  40. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    And why is it that when one of you denialists get backed into a corner, you bring up Al Gore? Last I looked, he's a politician, not a scientist.
  41. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    I've pointed out specific lies told by the deniers side. Point out SPECIFIC lies told on this website. And gosh, I'm really sorry that I called you dude. I know how germaine that is to this disscusion.
  42. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quitman, put up or shut up!
  43. Evaporating the water vapor argument
    My god, all that extra Dihydrogen Monoxide in the environment! How horrible! What are we going to do!!! The dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide
  44. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    Mizimi, Your point is no better illustrated than by the graph posted by 'Wondering Aloud' in #4 above;-
  45. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    John said >> "There are numerous positive feedbacks in the climate system. As temperatures rise, more water evaporates into the atmosphere - the increased water vapor absorbs more heat..." You continually promote the positive feedback of increased water vapour, but what about the negative feedback of increased solar radiation reflectivity caused by increased global cloud cover?
  46. Philippe Chantreau at 11:11 AM on 2 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    RC has an interesting post on how Spencer works sometimes. Very telling: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/langswitch_lang/de Another good one about Spencer: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/01/spencer_is_totally_off_his_roc.php. "Humerous" indeed. What exactly are the criteria to establish that Spencer should be more trusted than Hansen? Spencer and Christy had some errors in their 98 (I believe) paper on MSU data. Errors were later corrected but S&C let skeptics used the wrong data for a while. Deltoid had a post on the revised numbers: http://timlambert.org/2005/07/spencer/ Those links are to blogs posts, but each treats of Spencer publication/work. Quietman, hippies are now in their 60's and never used the word "dude." It actually belongs to college crowds all over. I'm sure everyone in California would be interested to know why their state is "despicable."
  47. There is no consensus
    From this weeks "Skeptic of the week": "In particular I am referring to the arrogance, the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science; and the politicisation of the IPCC process and the science process itself." LOL - I Love it!
  48. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    And please do not call me dude. That is a california hippy term and I find both despicable.
  49. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Lee Grable See Al Gore, between 10 and 35 lies depending on whose opinion you read. See Any paper that contains the words "global warming" contains lies. As for truths See any paper on any subject that contains the words "climate change" or "climate shift" or just about anything other than "global warming". An example Kay et. al. (linked by john) is an honest paper because it does not attempt to alarm or place blame on AGW. Good science does not accept a hypothesis as fact, it accepts it as a hypothesis until it has been tested. A hypothesis such as AGW can be tested by prediction. It has been and it has failed the test. Instead of moving the goal post to meet the hypothesis, make the hypothesis more realistic as Dr. Spencer has pointed out. Dr. Spencer is obviously more familiar with the science than you are so why do you choose to believe "Or we are all toast" Hansen over a calm and somewhat humerous Spencer.
  50. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    John A little more support for my hypothesis: Tectonic Plates Act Like Variable Thermostat ScienceDaily (Aug. 14, 2007) — Like a quilt that loses heat between squares, the earth's system of tectonic plates lets warmth out at every stitch. Adapted from materials provided by University of Southern California.

Prev  2593  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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