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  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  2610  2611  Next

Comments 130151 to 130200:

  1. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    If the issue is irrelevant, why bring it up?
  2. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Lee Grable The entire issue is somewhat irrelevant. U.S. records show that 1934 eas the hottest year and that the 30s were all warmer than normal. At that time many parts of the world did not even measure temps so the argument for global temp is moot. The level of accuracy compared to today was terrible and it's still not all that great. But we can't ignore that fact that the polar ice has melted to an unusual degree and glaciers are generally in recession so we need to face the fact that parts of the earth are warming. What is needed now is to determine the actual cause and if it is curable. I don't think CO2 is the cause but humans may still be partly at fault through other pollutants such as fertilizers. But we can not say that we know for sure what the cause is and should not stop looking. I still feel that there is much more forcing from the earth itself than some are willing to credit.
  3. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    So let me get this straight,if the data shows that temps in the 30s were hotter than now, the data is accurate, but if on further review the data shows that the 30s weren't hotter than now,the data isn't accurate? Heads I win, tails you lose.
  4. Models are unreliable
    Poptech Re: comment 29 Please correct me if I am wrong but was not Fortran 66 (1966) not machine dependent as well as structure dependent? I am not familiar with Fortran 95 as I stopped using Fortran 77 around 1983 and switched to Pascal so my code would be transportable.
  5. CO2 lags temperature
    Actually I should have said that the results were immediate but we did not see any symptoms for a few years. Many of the recent finds are only known to be recent but not all have a date associated.
  6. CO2 lags temperature
    Mizimi The AGW argument here is based on the fact that TSI stopped following the temp curve in 75 or 76. And they are right on that account, it did. So we know solar forcing has the capability but what happened in 1975-76? The single major event was a full (once in a lifetime) solar alignment. It won't happen again for a very long time. The results were not immediate but started within a few years of the event. The earth became active, plate movement increased speed, new volcanos appeared and old ones became active, large earthquakes, tsunamis and stronger ocean oscillations which are caused/controlled by vulcanism/tectonic activity. In Dr. Fairbridge's hypothesis on gravity affecting the sun we can surmise that the effect would be strong enough to affect the earth as well, stirring things up, so to speak. This explains why only the northern pole is a problem and not the southern pole. It also explains the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly and why we had glacial melts. If you take into account all the anomalies since 1975 you start to see the pattern.
  7. It's the sun
    sandy winder John has asked us to keep the threads relevant to the subject matter. So we argue for or against CO2 on all but for the sun only here. The problem, of course, is that there is no single simple explanation and thats why the models don't work right. Most of the argument here concerns TSI and Camp & Tung show that is a strong forcing comparable for that of CO2 (using IPCC sensitivity). However if the IPCC/NASA figures are too high (which another NASA scientist says they are) then the suns forcing is stronger. But that is still not the whole picture. The earth itself is very active right now. It's hard to go to a science news site without seeing a new discovery about current vulcanism/tectonics. Dr. Fairbridge's hypothesis explains this indirectly. It's all about the entire solar system and the interactions between sun and planets due to something we still do not understand fully: gravity.
  8. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    sandy winder Re: "Recent data confirms the rapid increase in melting." Yes it does indeed but the temps have lowered, proving that the melting is internal and nothing to do with GHG.
  9. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    cce Regardless of how accurate the measurements were the warming did occur. That is not and never has been my argument. My argument is that it is not CO2 induced AGW. The exact amount is irrelevant.
  10. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    to s/b too
  11. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    cce Re: "And it is not the "long return" from an ice age. Those influences require thousands of years, and are not relevent to temps in the '30s compared to now." Apples and Oranges. Not thousands but millions (yes the earth is older than 6000 years) regardless of your bible. We do not have accurate measurements for the 30s. That you can argue until you are blue in the face but its a fact. I worked with state of the art measuring equipment in the 1980s and it was inaccurate compared to the equipment we used in the 1990s but you want me to believe 1930s equipment was better? Got a bridge to sell to?
  12. Do growing glaciers disprove global warming?
    QM: look see at http://www.wgms.ch/index.html "Preliminary mass balance values for the year 2006 are now available from more than 80 glaciers worldwide. The continuous mass balance statistics below are calculated based on the 30 glaciers in 9 mountain ranges*** with long-term data series back to 1980. The statistics for the year 2005 are based on 29 glaciers from 9 regions, and the preliminary values for the year 2006 result from 27 glaciers in 8 regions. The related statistics and figures will be updated as soon as the missing data becomes available." It concerns me that only 30 datasets are used out of a total of 80...that looks very like cherrypicking. In any event glacier melt is a response to GW and acts as a buffer in the system. It has indirect effects on CO2 lockup by increasing groundwater and mineral transfers (land biomass increase); by moderating ocean temps/salinity and mineral availabilty so increasing oceanic biomass. The datasets cover the period 1960 - 2005 but a lot are very recent - 1980 onwards - from my understanding of the world chart, some 13 extra datasets have been included since 2001 ( I could be mis-interpreting the chart!)which, to my mind, would skew the resultant.
  13. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    I don't believe doing nothing is an option. While I doubt we will run out of fossil fuel for along time yet, the cost of extracting it is increasing while the demand for it is also increasing rapidly. So doing nothing and sticking your head in the sand is not really a bright idea. And why should anybody think that employing alternative forms of energy will cause the world's economies to crash? Surely doing nothing is going to cause that much more quickly?
  14. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman, No, I did not prove your point. Your point is that we "don't know" that it is warmer now than in the '30s. We do know. The amount of warming is bounded by uncertainty, and even with that uncertainty we know that it is warmer. Ocean temps, thermometers, sea level, etc. They all indicate that it is warmer now. And it is not the "long return" from an ice age. Those influences require thousands of years, and are not relevent to temps in the '30s compared to now.
  15. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    Squidley: the CO2 emission from Kilauea has been relatively steady at 8000 -8500 tonnes/day until 2005 when they effectively tripled to 26,000t/day. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2006/06_02_23.html The current estimate for manmade CO2 emissions is 75 million tonnes/day (27 billion tonnes/year)and forecasts suggest this may rise to 40 billion tonnes by 2030. Somewhat more than volcanic contributions.
  16. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    "Life on Earth now hangs on a fraying string"...presumably life as we would like it to be? Life has survived a whole lot worse than what is being predicted. In the context of Life, mankind is just a pimple on the butt of evolution - whether we survive as a species or not; whether we seriously alter the climate will not stop the process. Regarding feedback: the system is interactive and thus impossible to quantify the effects of feedback of individual components. Everytime one changes, it affects another. Higher levels of CO2 accelerate plant growth and transpiration rates, locking up CO2 and recycling water vapour faster. Higher temps. affect cloud formation and generate storms/hurricanes, and so on. The 'climate' system has demonstrated historically that between fairly wide limits it is stable and able to absorb marked differentials in components both qualitatively and quantitatively. Life is an integral part of the system and thus affects the process.
  17. Has solar cycle 24 begun?
    Warm winter 2007 -2008; couldn't possibly have anything to do with perihelion being Jan 3rd could it? That the difference in insolation between perihelion and aphelion is around 6 -7%?
  18. It's the sun
    Steve, you could also say "I forgot to mention in the above comment that the whole argument that the sun is to blame is based on data/graphs that may be fabricated". It's interesting that on one thread we have people arguing about which is to blame for the warming, the sun or CO2 while on another thread that global warming isn't happening at all. I wonder if some of the same posters are arguing both cases at once.
  19. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    The premise that it was warmer globally in the 30s is not sound. For one thing if the sceptics argue that measuring devices are not considered accurate today then they must have been much less accurate in the 30s in the USA. Instead of worrying about temperature measurements let's look at the evidence instead, such as the dramatic widespread melting of arctic ice and the speeding up of glaciers. This rapid melting did not happen in the 30s because the heating was restricted to minor parts of the planet, like the USA. Recent data confirms the rapid increase in melting.
  20. A new twist on mid-century cooling
    See here...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature "The earliest technique for measuring SST was dipping a thermometer into a bucket of water that was manually drawn from the sea surface. The first automated technique for determining SST was accomplished by measuring the temperature of water in the intake port of large ships. This measurement is not always consistent, however, as the depth of the water intake as well as exactly where the temperature is taken can vary from vessel to vessel. Probably the most exact and repeatable measurements come from fixed buoys where the depth of water temperature measurement is approximately 1 meter." Temperature measurements using the 'bucket' approach were "corrected" to account for the delay between taking the sample and the final observed temp. Ho Hum.
  21. Are we heading into a new Little Ice Age?
    I'm sorry, but I don't see that figures about solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity. 0.17 W/m2 - Wang 2005: "The increase in cycle-averaged TSI since the Maunder minimum is estimated to be ~1 W m-2". 0.23 W/m2 - Krivova 2007: "The predicted secular change since 1700 is about 1.3 Wm−2." Still under the CO2 forcing, but I don't get the 0.17 and 0.23, what am I missing?
    Response: It's the difference between Total Solar Irradiance and solar forcing. If the change in TSI is 1 Wm-2, to calculate the climate forcing from this change, divide by 4 (to account for the difference between the surface area of a circle versus the surface area of a sphere). Then remove another 30% which is reflected by clouds.
  22. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    squidly: It's a question of context, in this case time. The whole debate is about long term trends not short term. The point I was trying to make is concentrating on one factor stops us getting the 'picture' in proper perspective. For example, global methane emissions from all known sources is (guess)estimated at around 500+ Mtonnes/annum and its' greenhouse effect is equal to about 1/3 to 1/2 of all CO2 emissions. Worse, it breaks down into water and CO2! Now add a very recent discovery that green leaves ( on plants and in leaf litter) also produce methane but no empirical data is available. Factor in that methane emissions are rising faster than CO2 and in 10 years we may well forget about CO2 ............... Research on CO2 influence on plant growth shows a 1/3 increase in rate of growth if the other moderating factores (temperature, water, nitrogen) remain the same. If you maximise all these factors, growth rate increase can be as high as 85%. As humans, we try and look for a few major factors that we can pin 'the problem' on; climate is hideously complex process with a lot of unknowns and simply will not bend to simplistic analysis.
  23. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Mizimi Interesting paper, thanks.
  24. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    cce No argument here, you just proved my point. We don't know how much it has actually warmed. We do know that it has been warming erratically for the last 5 million years, each max high just a bit more than the previous max high but the max low quite a bit warmer than the previous max low. It's the long return from an ice age (not the last glacation but the entire 4th ice age). Just look at a 5 million year climate graph.
  25. There is no consensus
    "... very probably likely to be primarily ..." ... that sure convinces me!
  26. It's the sun
    I find this all so fascinating. I have always been under the impression that we have been experiencing "Global Warming". Recently I have found we are now only talking about "Northern Hemispherical Warming". I am sure by this time next year we will be speaking of "North American Warming". Here I thought I was skeptical, no more. Everything is becoming so clear to me now. This BLOG is great! Definitely the best discussions I have found thus far. So many intensely intelligent individuals. Seems to me though, one should concentrate on adaptation rather than manipulation. You really think you can change the climate? I rather think that the climate will change you! ... this stuff is great ...
  27. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    Mizimi, you state "... Minor Complexities like volcanic ...", but the fact of the matter is, Volcanic CO2 contributions just during the past 10 years far exceeds that of human contribution. Perhaps you should go dig up some volcanic research material on the matter. Heck, even the Science Channel showed me this (and backed up by several research papers found about on the internet).
  28. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    The problem that I have with the man-made CO2 theory is, human contribution has been so slight by comparison to natural contribution. For example, in less than 10 years, the Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii has contributed more CO2 than humans have their entire existence. Kilauea alone pumps more CO2 in 1 day, than the entire US produces in a full year. So, how can man-made CO2 have any affect on climate change? Its like expecting the ocean to rise by spitting in it.
    Response: The amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes is about 1% of human CO2 emissions. If it was otherwise, we would see a spike in atmospheric CO2 levels coinciding with large eruptions. Instead, we see an increase that correlates highly with human emissions. For this reason, CO2 levels are the highest they've been in 15 to 20 million years.
  29. Evaporating the water vapor argument
    How Much Water Vapor Are We Adding? From the report: Climatology and Trends of U.S. Surface Humidity and Temperature Climatological annual and seasonal dewpoint, specific humidity, and relative humidity maps for the United States are presented using hourly data from 188 first-order weather stations for the period 1961–90. With extended datasets for the period 1961–95, trends in these same variables and temperature are calculated for each of 170 stations and for eight regions of the country. The data show increases in specific humidity of several percent per decade, and increases in dewpoint of several tenths of a degree per decade, over most of the country in winter, spring, and summer. Locally, anthropogenic modification of the hydrological cycle may be more important. Within the conterminous United States, the U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that consumptive use of water in agricultural irrigation contributes 100 billion gallons of water per day to the atmosphere, compared with 2,800 billion gallons per day from evaporation and transpiration from surface water bodies, land surface, and vegetation (van der Leeden et al. 1990). In dry regions during the growing season, the ratio of consumptive use to natural evaporative sources may be greater, and it is possible that long-term increases in evaporation from irrigated fields may be large enough to influence the surface trends at some stations. Other confounding influences may affect the trends presented here. However, the spatial consistency of the trends leads us to speculate that they are not primarily due to local phenomena but represent regional, indeed national, increases in near-surface specific humidity. http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442%281999%29012%3C0811%3ACATOUS%3E2.0.CO%3B2 --------- The amount of water we are adding to the atmosphere is substantial. The AMS report above says we are adding 100 billion gallons per day through agricultural irrigation, but we are really adding a total of about 160 billion gallons per day, in the USA. (Watch my two videos, above to see an explanation) Humans are increasing, the daily amount of water added to the air, by about 5.7%, over natural sources, in the USA. 160/2,800 = 5.7% increase of daily moisture added to the air. I am using the USA, as an example, because of the data available, but I think other parts of the world, such as China and India may have even larger contributions for anthropogenic increases of water vapor, the largest greenhouse gas. Again: The effect of our forcing water into the atmosphere is similar to changing the surface water from 70% to say 75%. It will have and effect on the earths temperature. CO2 is not a factor in these examples and it’s not a major factor in global warming.
  30. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman, The rate of warming by the two major satellite analyses differ by about 20% since 1979. In fact, they bracket HadCRUT and GISTEMP -- RSS shows more, UAH shows less. It is simply not true that they are more accurate than the surface records. Maybe one is, but not both. And it's not UAH. Regardless of which you use, warming is more or less consistent: http://cce.890m.com/giss-vs-all.jpg It is hard to believe that the surface record became reliable at the instant the satellies came online. Obviously, the further back in time you go, the worse the coverage, but you have to show large systematic bias in one direction for the instrumental record to be so far off as to make us question whether the '30s/'40s were warmer than the present. The recent "mid century cooling" problem was discovered by comparing SST to meteorological records, which are indepedent of one another. There was no inconsistency found in the 30's, and the problems in the '40s was with the SST, not the land based measurements. You aren't going to find >0.4 degrees of hidden warmth in the '30s and '40s to somehow make those temperatures equivalent to modern temps.
  31. Has solar cycle 24 begun?
    16th August...still no sunspots..(www.spaceweather.com) Looking forward with interest to see what 2008/2009 GMT is.
  32. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    93~ On 'Vulcanism' (or the heat component derived from earth core processes) Science 30 March 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5820, pp. 1813 - 1817 DOI: 10.1126/science.1137867 Research Articles Seismostratigraphy and Thermal Structure of Earth's Core-Mantle Boundary Region R. D. van der Hilst,1* M. V. de Hoop,2 P. Wang,1 S.-H. Shim,1 P. Ma,3 L. Tenorio4 Abstract: "Accounting for a factor-of-two uncertainty in thermal conductivity, core heat flux is 80 to 160 milliwatts per square meter (mW m–2) into the coldest D'' region and 35 to 70 mW m–2 away from it. Combined with estimates from the central Pacific, this suggests a global average of 50 to 100 mW m–2 and a total heat loss of 7.5 to 15 terawatts." The estimated total energy consumption of mankind this year is 14 terawatts...the estimated energy released from the earth core is 7.5 -15 terawatts. This energy is expressed in several ways, only one of which is volcanic eruptions, ALL of which affect climate. Not an insubstantial factor in the process.
  33. CO2 lags temperature
    QM: Couldn't agree more. Climate records ( direct or proxy) indicate small changes until you get to some truly massive event...like an asteroid strike. This gives me comfort in the general stability of our climate; the issue then becomes one of degree. Any AGW effects have to be examined for the degree to which they may affect climate, not for the absolute change. Oceanic currents, atmospheric currents are simply means of distributing/modulating heat flow; the whole system is a thermal model Heat in - Heat out which is modulated by a variety of factors ( and I don't like the use of the word 'forcing' because it carries other overtones) which we do not (yet) fully understand. Incidentally, domesticated ruminants are estimated to produce 36Mtonnes of methane annually; the New Zealand government is introducing a 'emissions' tax on livestock farmers .........
  34. We're heading into an ice age
    The O18 concentration in bottom-dwelling foramanifera is used as a proxy for surface climatic conditions: eg a warmer climate produces more dead bodies drifting to the sea bed which allows the organisms there to multiply and 'trap' more O18. There are some difficulties with this, namely, you need prior data on the level of O18 or C13 at 'ground zero'. Also how do you compute the time lags involved? Slide the graph around until there seems some kind of match to glacier records? How do you accomodate variations in surface species numbers due to local climate? Are 57 core samples sufficient to give a general trend? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleothermometer
  35. Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
    John PS Can you say "cherry picking"? is in reference to Wikipedia, not your article.
  36. Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
    Actually, if you look at a chart showing the last 5 million years you can easily see the slow increase in temperature. The most notable part is that while the highs are marginal (small slope) the lows are drastic (large slope). This can not be seen on the 450 thousand year graph at all (like the one on wikipedia). Can you say "cherry picking"?
  37. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    QM: I understand the quandary we are facing; if AGW is a reality then unchecked it will have disastrous consequencies for us all. Equally,trying to control AGW effects ( unless you limit controls to the more advanced nations) will inevitably have just as serious consequencies for developing nations. So who decides who gets hurt? So I see both scenarios as compelling reasons to get the science right before taking any action. "When in doubt, do nowt", or as I think you said in another post..."doing nothing is an option" Industrialised societies as we know them will end if we do not develop viable alternatives to fossil AND nuclear fuels simply because we will run out of them sooner or later. That seems to me to be a much greater ( and certain) problem than whether we survive a few degrees rise in temperature. Yes life might be a bit more difficult and unpleasant, but survivable by just about everybody. A global industry collapse ( with war as a precursor)will probably not be survivable.
  38. Comparing IPCC projections to observations
    #1 & #2.. Mauna Loa 'advantage' was it's altitude, which was assumed to give it a sample of atmospheric CO2 uncontaminated by other emitters ( industry, forests); also the fact that there was a station there helped as did Mr Keeling's personal preferences. One small problem tho'...there's a volcano just over there that outgasses now and then....look at this printout you can see the CO2 spike...we'll just amend the figures to deal with that. No, we don't think there may be a more or less continuous outgassing that is hidden in the datastream. No comment.
  39. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    Cynicism is just exaggerated sceptisism; I prefer the Get Your Nose Off The Canvas attitude....otherwise all you can see is the detail you are looking at and not how it fits into the overall picture. And that is un-scientific and potentially dangerous. CO2 lags temperature increases mostly because a warming period releases the gas from oceans, increased CO2 levels further moderate the heat flow process ( to what extent nobody is sure), add a few (minor) complexities like forest fires and volcanic outgassing to the equation. Ice starts melting ( latent heat of fusion) and cooling the biosphere, evaporation does the same, then biomass kicks in and CO2 starts getting locked up again further moderating the process.It all cools down and eventually the cycle repeats.
  40. It's the sun
    I forgot to mention in the above comment that the whole argument that the sun is not to blame is based on data/graphs that may be fabricated. There are massive vested interests, on both sides of the global warming debate, so fabrication of data is to be expected. Bearing in mind that one set of data for cooling during the post-war boom (despite higher production of carbon dioxide than earlier in the 20th century when temperatures were rising) is incorrect and clearly fabricated, the same may be true of recent solar radiance data.
  41. It's the sun
    No-one has yet commented on the massive disparity in temperatures between the two graphs shown at the top of this page during the post-war boom (roughly the first three decades after the Second World War). In a debate I've been involved in on various newsgroups (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/912fb81971711597), a supporter of global warming called Fran mentioned "global dimming" reducing temperatures from 1943-74. However, I have discovered that there are two completely different graphs of average northern hemisphere temperatures on the internet! The graph shown in "The Great Global Warming Swindle", displayed at the top of this page, looks to be based on the same data as a March 2003 SPACE.COM article entitled "Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming" (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html). This page came top when I googled "total energy output from the sun TSI" (without quotes). The graph on it uses data from an article by Baliunas and Soon in the Astrophysical Journal. This seems to tally with Fran's dates. However, two Wikipedia pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record) look to have similar data to the "Land-Ocean Temperature Anomaly" line in the second graph on this page (except the Wikipedia pages show 5-year rather than 11-year averages). These show falling temperatures in the 1940s but not in the subsequent decades It seems utterly ridiculous for predictions to have been made about a new ice age in the 1970s (rather than earlier decades) if temperature had not been falling as the latter graphs suggest. One set of graphs must be based on fake data, and my current opinion that the latter ones are fake appears to be supported by the NASA GISS data from individual measuring statements linked to by Whata Fool on http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/912fb81971711597. I have heard (I can't remember where) that the southern hemisphere has not been warming in recent decades unlike the north. Does anybody have any data about southern hemisphere temperatures? If not, why not? My particular take on the climate/weather, irrespective of whether CO2 is really the main contributor to global warming, is that it is being controlled by conspirators on the side of big business in the big political struggles in the world (to some degree or other, and maybe less so now than in the past). A BBC documentary "The Science of Superstorms" largely about the USSR regime's measures to affect where radioactive rainfall from Chernobyl came down and Chinese measures to stop rainfall at the time of the Olympics opening ceremony indicate that some level of control is possible. As weather forecasting has improved, so has the ability to control it - and having high levels of warming in some parts of the world and low levels in others suits the divide-and-rule agenda of unethical forces in positions of power.
  42. Determining the long term solar trend
    "So neither composite indicate the sun has been the primary cause of the last 3 decades of global warming." A bit of pedantry....with the exception of internal heat, ALL of the heat recieved comes from the sun; therefore the sun IS the primary cause of GW. Science is about exactitude; CO2 & other factors simply moderate the heat flow process Heat in - Heat out. The CO2/GW lead/lag debate cannot be dealt with as a separate isolated issue; GTemp up, ice melt increases(cooling), evaporation increases (cooling), more active oceanic flow - better heat distribution, biomass increases locking up CO2 and so on. Because all the factors in the climate process are interelated (and clearly somewhat synergistic)it has to be modelled as a whole; selecting datasets (for whatever reason -cherry picking; better accuracy;longer sampling periods etc) is fine as long as you then re-run the entire model. If anything, this post simply reminds us how little real, definitive, accurate, comprehensive data is available and until we get THAT sorted out the AGW argument will not be taken seriously except as a political issue.
  43. Evaporating the water vapor argument
    Water vapor is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas and has been responsible for most of the climate change, for millions of years. Let’s look at progression of 5 examples of the Earth, starting with the warmest Earth, so you can see the effect on the planet. To keep things simple, we’ll set the composition of dry atmosphere, to the same as the present time, in all examples, so that we can see the effects of the water vapor in the air. Earth 1 – Water World We’ll start out with a hypothetical “Water World” type Earth, without any land. This will be the overall warmest Earth, with no ice caps at the polls. Why would it be warmer than the present day Earth? Water just rains out. Climate models are not required, just basic understanding and logic to find the answer. What’s different in “Water World”? All elevations are at sea level in “Water World”, so the height of atmosphere (greenhouse effect) is at a maximum level all over the world. The very humid, middle latitudes will be the warmest, with no relief, with the humidity. If it rains, the moisture in the air will be replaced very quickly. This part is similar to the very humid, present day, tropical ocean areas, but now covers 100% of the middle latitudes in “Water World”. Also, because of the insulating effect of the very moist atmosphere and unrestricted ocean currents, the middle latitudes (45N to 45S) will have a very constant, but warm, temperature with only a few degrees temperature swing between the daytime highs and the morning low temperature. The warm water from the middle latitudes will also mix with the polar oceans due to the unrestricted ocean currents, this will cause these regions to be much warmer than our present time polar regions, and there will not be ice caps at the poles. The air in the Polar Regions will also hold more moisture than our present time polar regions and will add to the greenhouse effect. Earth 2 - Cretaceous period type land mass (see map) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LateCretaceousGlobal.jpg Some low elevation continents are formed and cover 20% of the surface of the Earth. The land mass will disrupt the ocean currents and will allow the Polar Regions to cool. The middle latitudes will still be very humid (similar to Florida) because the most of the land mass will be at low elevations. Some of the larger continents will allow areas of lower humidity, which will allow some cooling at night. This planet Earth 2 will be cooler than Earth 1, but still very warm due to the greenhouse gas, water vapor. Earth 3 - Paleogene (Eocene) period type land mass (see map) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paleogene-EoceneGlobal.jpg The continents now cover about 25% of the Earth and mountain ranges are forming. Although ocean currents are a little more restricted than Earth 2, it’s the larger continental areas, with mountain ranges that will allow Earth 3, to be cooler than Earth 2. As the prevailing winds pass over the mountains, the moisture in the air precipitates out, allowing for large areas of lower humidity, over some of the continents. The large areas of low humidity allow for even more night time cooling. Planet Earth 3 will be cooler than Earth 2, but still very warm due to the greenhouse gas, water vapor, but the water vapor is loosing its grip on keeping the Earth’s temperature elevated. Earth 4 – Pre Industrial Revolution (see map) http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-maps/image/world-lat-long.jpg The continents cover about 30% of Earth 4 and very high mountain ranges have formed. Ocean currents are very restricted, with the connection of North and South America and Europe, Asia and Africa forming large land areas. The vast land areas of lower humidity allow the middle latitudes to cool. Night time cooling is becoming greater over larger areas of Earth 4. (Just think back to Earth 1) Some of the higher mountain ranges remain snow capped all year long. Earth 4 is much cooler than Earth 3. Earth 5 – The present day Earth Due to the extreme population growth, humans are having an effect on the climate. Millions of acres of arid land have been converted into farms and many fields are irrigated with up to 60” of water per year. The effect of irrigating millions of acres is similar to increasing the amount of the Earth that is covered with water. Most of the irrigation water is evaporated on a daily basis, which increases the greenhouse gas, water vapor and contributes to global warming.
  44. CO2 lags temperature
    In other words, to alter the climate drastically, the earth must be altered drastically.
  45. CO2 lags temperature
    Mizimi Astute observation. Much more credible than the "consensus" view as Methane actually is a GHG with more potential than CO2. But another factor is ocean and air currents that differ depending on location of the continents and locations of internal thermal forcing which I refer to as vulcanism (old habits die hard) that cause upwellings in the oceans constantly altering currents.
  46. We're heading into an ice age
    To clarify, Look at the 5 million year chart instead. The highs and lows of 450 K years are only oscillations of a gradual warming trend for 5 million years.
  47. We're heading into an ice age
    Why am I not surprised that the snapshot used by "Image from Global Warming Art" is different from everyone elses? It's called cherry picking.
  48. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Mizimi You make some very good points. Unfortunately if we are correct in our argument for natural causes there are no "fixes" and this whole carbon (CO2) issue will ruin the industrialized world as we know it. It is already having a very damaging effect on several countries.
  49. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen rebut Lockwood's solar paper
    Looks like the correlation is somewhat better than for CO2 forcing...so do we throw that out?
  50. We're heading into an ice age
    Maunder minimum...solar radiation ( and I deliberately use that term) drops between .17 and .23 W/m2; the suggestion is that these changes are insufficient to account for glaciation periods, or , if they are responsible, the system must be pretty thermally unstable. What was perihelion at this time? Orbital eccenticities have FAR greater effects on the amount of radiation recieved (between 6 -7% depending on source)than solar variations. What other factors were different then as opposed to now? You cannot isolate one component of a system and use it to determine an end result. You have to include all factors. My general conclusions from what I have read and what I have tried to model, is that the 'normal' state of the earth is "cold". That the warm phases are the anomalies. I accept this is MY opinion, but given the choice between a longer, warmer interglacial period or an earlier decline into one, I think I would opt for the warmth; life ( of all kinds) flourishes better in warm climates

Prev  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  2610  2611  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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