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  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  Next

Comments 130051 to 130100:

  1. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quitman, put up or shut up!
  2. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    I pointed out lies that you deniers have told. Show me tne lies that the scientists have told. Come on man, it shouldn't be that hard.
  3. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    John Cook. I'm sorry.
  4. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman,You have a side. That much is obvious. Show me the lies from the 'alarmists' side dude. Are you saying that the graph provided in the "it's the sun" thread on this website is a lie? Prove it. You seem to be claiming that the info on this website is a lie. Prove it. That's all I'm saying. And once again, let Jim Cook decide which one of us is out of line. I'll abide by his judgement.
  5. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PS Alarmism is not science, skepticism is. Re: "You don't have any say." A little hostile are we? The lies come from both deniers and alarmists, those of us who are skeptical do not need to lie, we simply ask for proof of your hypothesis. Make a prediction that pans out for a change, just once, and you will convince us skeptics. So far it's a no hitter.
  6. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Lee Grable I do not have a "side", th4e sides are alarmists and deniers and I am neither. And what do solar graphs say? Without the sun GHGs are meaningless, they are a feedback of solar radiation. It's cooler now because the sun is not providing as much radiation for GHGs to act on (not rocket science). You fundamentalist types ever do any reading?
  7. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    As far as the solar graphs, look at the solar graphs ON THIS WEBSITE!! It's been layed to rest. You continually prove my point. You concider the very few facts that don't support the MMGW are valid, and yet you concider that the vast majority of facts that prove that MMGW are valid are'nt. The very despription of blind faith. And if John feels that I'm violating some sacred comment board rule, then let him speak up. You don't have any say.
  8. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    One side KNOWINGLY LIES,(the skeptic side), one side doesn't,(the science side).Who do you believe? Quietman?
  9. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman, who are you to "concede the point of accuracy"? Lies are Lies. Period!! Your side LIES.Period!! It's importent to every disscusion on global warming. Period!!! I find your 'arguement' to be more of the same denialist claptrap junk that I've seen everywhere that this subject is discussed. Period!!
  10. Animals and plants can adapt
    Good article. The only fault I see is "The IPCC storyline scenarios such as A1FI and A2 imply a rate of warming of 0.2 to 0.6°C per decade." which just has not happened but it does not change the message or impact of the article. Kudos to Professor Barry Brook.
  11. The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
    Mizimi & HealthySkeptic That was what came to mind when I read this article (see comment one). However if the sea level is read purely from satellites then the reference points make this argument moot (for actual sea level). But I agree that the conception is from sinking land, not rising seas.
  12. It's the sun
    Pep See Mizimi comments for formula.
  13. Water levels correlate with sunspots
    Re: "If so, the basic thesis if not the specifics of the paper may be true - the ocean absorbs heat then releases it again 30 years later." This may be tied to the 20-30 year cycle of the PDO somehow.
  14. CO2 lags temperature
    theTree Unfortunately some threads here are also a bit heated but it is still much better than RealClimate.
  15. Al Gore got it wrong
    Anthony Interesting links, thanks.
  16. Models are unreliable
    Mizimi I would imagine that the difference between full and new is reflected sunlight and whatever radiation it may contain. This would have an effect on GHGs (I am thinking water vapor and methane which a recent article at LiveScience talks about. Re: "This has prompted a look at the effects of a shifting sun/earth/moon barycentre on earth climate." Have you ever read The Solar Jerk by Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge?
  17. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    cce Sorry to disagree but it has everything to do with it. The cause of these oscillations is the same thing that we are now experiencing. If CO2 were a strong GHG you would not be alive to ponder the question because the Earth would be another Venus right now. Your argument has as much logic as the creationist or the I.D. proponents. That is why skeptics consider AGW alarmism to be a religion, there is a hypothesis but blind faith in a hypothesis simply is not logical.
  18. CO2 lags temperature
    I came here seeking some clarification. I now have a headache. Nevertheless, thank you everyone for a thoroughly scientific and impersonal debate on this topic. Its refreshing to read a thread like this minus all the politics and high emotion that usually comes with it
  19. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    John, In your response to Wondering Aloud in #5 above you said;- "... But the overall assertion 'when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer' is correct." The paleoclimatological evidence simply does not support that view. In the past, the Earth's atpospheric CO2 levels have been thousands of ppm higher than they are today, with no corresponding global warming. In fact, some periods that should have been excessively hot (such as the late Ordovician) were ice ages!
    Response: Actually the paleoclimatological evidence offers strong support for the causal link between CO2 and temperature. Solar activity has been gradually increasing over Earth's history. Around 550 million years ago, solar output was about 5% less than current levels. The combined effect of sun and CO2 correlates well with climate.
  20. Determining the long term solar trend
    John, In your response to Quietman in #4 above, you say;- ".... it's a feedback mechanism. We pump CO2 into the air, it causes warming, the warmer temperatures cause the land and oceans to give up more CO2 - you have a positive feedback loop." There are two sides to that coin. What about the negative feedback loop of the water cycle? Higher temperatures also mean more atmospheric water vapour... more water vapour, more clouds... more clouds, more reflection of solar radiation, and hence cooling.
    Response: Here's a summary of peer reviewed research on the positive/negative feedback of water vapour.
  21. What 1970s science said about global cooling
    Frank Bi, re #10 "Denialism" is only stupid when the thing you are denying is a fact.
  22. Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
    I'm also interested to know what sort of timeframe of continued cooling or continued unchanging global temperatures would be required for the proponents of AGW to concede that global warming had indeed stopped... 20 years, 50 years, 100 years... what?
  23. Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
    Ummm, John.... In your article 'Did global warming stop in 1998?', with regard to global mean temperature anomaly data you say;- "They find the linear trend over 1998 to 2007 is a warming trend in all three data-sets." Yet above you say;-" You're on shaky statistical ground asserting a climate trend over short periods." You can't have it both ways...
  24. The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
    Yes and if you choose a location like Hong Kong, which is subsiding, to collect sea level data (as the IPCC did), of course you will "prove" that sea level is rising. Perhaps the IPCC should use sea level measurements from Venice and the Neatherlands as well... those should prove their case once and for all. :)
  25. Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
    John said>> They find the linear trend over 1998 to 2007 is a warming trend in all three data-sets. Taken alone, none of the three data sets in your Figure 2 above show any credible warming trend. In this data, the trend lines appear to trend very slightly upward only because of the skewing effect of the two lowest points in 1999 & 2000.
  26. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    cce>> Tide guages tell us it is warmer now. Not according to Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
  27. It's the sun
    Atmospheric lifetime has to be accounted for, hydroxyl oxidation of CH4.
  28. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman, It is not the "long return from an ice age" over any time period. It's not apples and oranges. You are talking apples and aliens from outer space. The "erratic" temperature changes over the last 5 million years have nothing to do with the temperatures of the 1930s versus today. The data we have from the '30s is accurate enough to establish that it is warmer now. Land based measurements tell us it is warmer now. Ocean base measurements tell us it is warmer now. Tide guages tell us it is warmer now. Simultaneous glacial melting in every region tells us this. It is a fact, established from independent lines of evidence that it is warmer now than in the '30s. No one is saying that measurements in the '30s are better than they are now. I'm interested in how anyone could come up with such a characterization based on anything written in this thread. And 1934 is not the warmest year on record in the US. It is statistically tied with 1998 for that record.
  29. It's the sun
    Pep Interesting presentation on how it's important. It shows how strong it is as a GHG. For many years now paleoclimatologists have felt that it was the feedback that produces increased warming, not CO2, and I agree with them. The CO2 article is misleading because they say it follows temps closely but do not mention the lag which various papers put anywhere from 200 -/+ 800 to 1000 +/- 300. Afterall, they are biofeedbacks not cause, and CH4 is way stronger as a GHG than CO2. I think that the manner in which they present these GHGs is misleading.
  30. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    So warming oceans release CO2 ( or absorb less, the end result is the same) thus causing a further rise in temperature which feeds back and so on. Except the glaciers/ice-caps start to melt and lower the ocean T and slow down ( or maybe halt) feedback. Evaporation increases and more heat is lost to space in the upper atmosphere. Land Biomass begins to pick up. Oceanic CO2 release decreases the acidity of sea water and carbonate fixing biota do better and lock up more CO2 allowing more CO2 to enter the oceans. The climate has demonstrated historically that it is very stable despite quite large changes in the sub-systems modulating the Heat in - Heat out process. Life has equally demonstrated it can cope with large climatic changes and that it actually prefers it to be warmer.............
  31. Evaporating the water vapor argument
    BTN: Post script: be careful.....the next thing that will happen is that the alarmists will start trying to limit w.v. emissions ( I have a 95% confidence in this)
  32. Are we heading into a new Little Ice Age?
    "Even if the sun did return to Maunder Minimum levels (which is unlikely), CO2 warming would overpower the solar 'cooling'." In what way? CO2 simply delays the loss of heat from the system, it does not 'add' anything; so if the sun returns to MM condition there will be less heat coming in thus a drop in GMT...and that drop will depend on the length of the MM period. No?
  33. Comparing IPCC projections to observations
    Victor: There is much evidence that the IR 'blocking' effect of CO2 is limited to around 100m from the radiant source; if I remember rightly around 94% of re-radiation occurs within this zone. Thereafter convection and conduction take over and the heat is lost to the upper atmosphere. There is a limit to how much IR can be blocked which is only partially dependent on the CO2 concentration. The effect is roughly logarithmic ( not linear) so a doubling of CO2 will not necessarily double the amount of re-radiated IR. If the satellite data shows an increase in outgoing IR ( continuously) then this could be an indication that saturation point is being approached.
  34. The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
    Silly question...do we have any ideas about how much the land is sinking as this has an obvious effect on sea levels. For example, southern and eastern England is sinking as Scotland rises; other continental plates are being lifted/subducted ( admittedly on long timescales, but the masses involved are rather large in themselves)due to tectonic activity....??
  35. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    I find it curious that a distiction is drawn between 'climate' and 'weather', presumably on the basis that weather is the end product of the process 'climate' and is transient. But in truth, the weather has an effect on climate as a feedback mechanism. IF ( a big if) Solar/CR/Fluxes have any effect on cloud formation ( and I vaguely recall things called cloud chambers)then because they are influenced by the earth's magnetic field there may not be an obvious direct correlation. There may not be a direct causal link...but there may be an indirect one. We should not dismiss ideas simply because they do not fit the model or we can't (yet)find an obvious effect; science is about investigating ideas, obtaining HARD data and then fitting that additional data into the model.
  36. It's the sun
    Possibly because the interest rest with CO2, ice cores, and ocean on this NOAA site so it covered the bases. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the second GHG http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/forcing/Methane.pdf Search NOAA
  37. We're heading into an ice age
    sandy Distance to the shore is irrelevant, height above sea level is relevant. But a small factor is left out when the alarmists talk about sea level rise and that is porosity and absorbtion. The Newark Basin in New Jersey is not very much higher than sea level and yet it was swamp lands during the mesozoic, not ocean bottom. Much of the coast that will flood is swamp land now. During the Mesozoic the midwestern US was an inland sea and remains lowland today. A catastrophic rise in sea level will most likely result in a return of the inland sea, something that alarmists fail to mention.
  38. We're heading into an ice age
    Samboc Well said. Warm is better than cold.
  39. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    The side argument over deceit aside, I would like to point out that the scientist who started the cooling fright in the 70s actually has not changed his position. Reading his work indicates that there should be an upcoming glacation regardless of any warming but the timing was and still is unknown. The panic was caused by the media reading timing as immediate into his work.
  40. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Mizimi You are correct, the overall slope is negetive. I am referring to the current slope of the past 5 million years as positive.
  41. It's the sun
    Pep Interesting site. They mention CO2 as a GHG released from the ocean but did not mention CH4 that was released at the same time. Now why is that? They also fail to explain why the cycles do not have the same effect because they are ignoring other cycles that happen to overlap. Read "The Solar Jerk". Mizimi I agree that the earth has cooled and that the overall trend is one of cooling (each thermal maximum is shorter and less intense) but short term (for the earth) is slowly coming out of Ice Age 4 and temperature slope for the last 5 million years is positive (there will likely be another glacation or two but it is really unpredictable).
  42. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    The 'temperatures' for paleoclimate are proxies and need to be treated very cautiously. What does emerge from them is a general cooling trend from Cambrian to present with some 'bumps' along the way (Devonian,Cretaceous, Paleogene). What is obvious from the records, however accurate they may be, is that the earth has experienced far greater climatic changes in the past and LIFE has coped with them all. And some of those changes have been very rapid. So historically the answer to the topic question is YES. (but maybe not in the form or abundance we know)
  43. We're heading into an ice age
    Samboc: Don't worry about the sun cooling down just yet, providing it doesn't do anything silly it will follow the normal sequence for its type and increase in luminosity ( by about 10% over the next billion years). And you're right: warmer is better as the paleorecord shows. The view that sea levels will rise to the levels predicted is based on assumptions, not facts. All that water has to come from somewhere- snow,glaciers, icecaps, thermal expansion et al. There are many unresolved factors such as land rebound, greater oceanic uptake of CO2 due to rising ocean volume decreasing the GG efect at the same time as ocean warming releases more CO2...and one can go on and on. We currently simply do not have the ability (or data)to fully understand and accurately model the climate process, so it is not reasonable to take action that would have severe economic and societal repercussions until that time arrives.
  44. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    QM: Well stated!! ( although I still see a downward trend in paleoproxy record!) Mankind in general ( and politicos in particular) is often very myopic when it comes to 'proving' a current view is THE right one. It is interesting to note the shift in emphasis from Global Warming to Climate Change. You can't argue against one of these...guess which?
  45. It's the sun
    A rider....I appreciate proxy data is pretty anecdotal; but regardless of the absolute conditions pertaining at those times we DO see a trend which does not support a positive,continuous feedback causing catastrophe. The carboniferous period actually teaches us a valuable lesson about how biomass substantially impacts CO2 levels: without the CO2 locked up during that period in oil/gas/coal we wouldn't be having this debate..........
  46. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Sandy Winder: In the context of the survival of civilisation, yes I do see it as irrelevent. That does not mean I am not concerned! Bubonic plague killed over half the population of Europe in the 14th century (estimated 35 million people) and a quarter of the worldwide population. The population in Europe recovered within a century. The 634 million you mention represent 10% of the world population so the effect of that 7 metre rise ( even if it killed them all) would have less effect on civilisation than the bubonic plague. The timescales are roughly the same..100yrs, the difference is that we have the ability circumvent the effects of rising sea levels so the net outcome will not threaten civilisation. It depends on what your perpective is, survival of the individual or survival of the species; marked global cooling would be a lot more difficult to survive than the equivalent level of global warming.
  47. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    M_B: The Younger Dryas period temp changes were so abrupt it is impossible to ascribe them to 'normal' climatic modifiers. One leading hypothesis is that the rapid dumping of Lake Agassiz ( via the Great lakes) into the N. Atlantic interrupted the thermohaline circulation there. Western European climate is effectively held 4 - 5C above 'normal' by TH circulation, so any decline would seriously impact that region's climate.
  48. It's the sun
    QM: Point taken, however if you plot proxy temps from Cambrian to present you get a downward trend in GMT from around 21C GMT to present 13.8C. Also latest thinking on Venus proposes the lack of a magnetic field has allowed water vapour to be dissociated by UV and the lighter H atoms stripped away by solar wind effects thus eventually depriving the planet of any water and therefore no oceanic component to modulate heat tranfer.....connect to the impending reversal/decline of our magnetic field??? Regarding climate sensitivity to CO2 modulation: This seems to me to be considerably overstated. Again, paleoclimate proxies indicate far higher CO2 levels than now without any thermal runaway. During the Carboniferous period CO2 levels were around 800ppm yet the GMT was apparently only 14C. Later, in the Mesozoic, CO2 jumped to circa 1800ppm and the GMT rose to around 17.5C...hardly supporting the idea of thermal runaway or tipping.
  49. It's the sun
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html Glacial-Interglacial cycles
  50. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Samboc & sandy The next ice age can not begin until after the current one ends. We ARE IN an ice age, Ice Age 4 known as the Neogene-Quarternary Ice Age. This is an interglacial period within the confines of Ice Age 4. In other words this is colder than normal and slowly returning back to earth normal (hot). Before you ask what is normal, you should know that all 4 of the ice ages only constitute about 10% of the earths history (but a much higher percent, maybe 40%, if you only count from the beginning of life). That means that 90% of the earths history (or about 60% of its inhabited history) is a HOT earth (but habitable despite extremely high CO2 levels ay times). The information is available at both government and university sites. I suggest becoming familiar with the scientific terminology at these sites and then look at the graphs of paleoclimates. The alarmists like short terms, 30 years rather than say 50 or 100 and for paleoclimates no more than a few hundred thousand years rather than millions because it makes AGW look pronounced and they can't account for high temps and low CO2 or low temps with high CO2 because it does not fit their models or their agendas.

Prev  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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