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  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  2610  2611  2612  2613  2614  2615  2616  Next

Comments 130401 to 130450:

  1. Latest satellite data on Greenland mass change
    I am not sure what this claim actually shows. I know the intent is to suggest evidence of global warming, but it really is such an isolated instance and not free from the impact of contaminating variables. Furthermore, it is such a limitd data set (time wise) that no one should make any conclusion about the global climate based on this information. Why would anyone bring this up as support, it seams like a grasp at straw.
  2. Models are unreliable
    pps Someone once tried to tell me the earth was a closed system too. You are not in that camp are you?
  3. Models are unreliable
    ps Your argument sounds like applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics to living organisms. Are you a creationist by any chance?
  4. Models are unreliable
    chris Your house is engineered, the planet is not. Equilibrium as a concept does not apply to climate because it does not exist in nature. There is NO natural balance, NO natural state of the Earth, NO Earth normal temperature or climate. There is only a desired equilibrium but it is man's desire, not natural.
  5. There is no consensus
    ps If you have a good head for math read Patricks comments. He does explain how climate functions and although he doesn't realize it, actually agrees with me.
  6. There is no consensus
    Risky Re: "A warmer world is not cost free (droughts, floods, storms, famine kill too). Extinction of the species from either warming or ice age, I would have to imagine, is unlikely, but many things can happen short of extinction. Humans are supremely adaptable (perhaps only outranked in that regard by rats), so my guess is that we would survive either scenario." I agree that a few survivors might make it through another glacial maximum if they live close to the equator but without any semblence of civilization remaining. On the other hand we can easily adapt to warming - no problem. Relocation will be much easier than you think because wide tracts of fertile land currently incapable of supporting us will be available. I and most of the other skeptics agree that cleaner environment is essential to our future, it's only CO2 that is the sticking point. We all feel that CO2 is not a problem but essential and increased CO2 will not be catastrophic. Some of the computer sims are hopelessly bad because they lack important factors. One major error is desertification. All the signs point to a warmer, WETTER, world, not drier. If you read those links I posted you will see that the answer lies in growing trees and stopping the massive cutting and burning of our forrests.
  7. There is no consensus
    Re; #110 - thanks for the links. Re: #109 I think I already mentioned that I consider many ACC 'skeptics' to be believers in at least the possibility of ACC, if not the fact. As for the choice you offer - letting the house burn down OR letting the basement flood from a broken sprinkler - this implies we only have an 'either/or' choice. If it were that simple, couldn't we buy insurance AND fix the sprinkler (and you thought my analogy was asinine)? The problem I have with your suggestion is this - you are saying that we can somehow use artifiacial means (of which we understand little) to 'fix' a natural cycle (which we understand even less). It sounds like randomly twiddling the dials on the nuclear reactor (another asinine comparison) because last time we did this, it didn't go into meltdown. Playing with the dials must be preventing a meltdown, so we must do more of it. Continuing with BAU because AGW/ACC might not/probably won't happen is risky. Accepting that this approach is risky, then doing it anyway to try to forestall a natural cycle has to be the definition of insanity. A warmer world is not cost free (droughts, floods, storms, famine kill too). Extinction of the species from either warming or ice age, I would have to imagine, is unlikely, but many things can happen short of extinction. Humans are supremely adaptable (perhaps only outranked in that regard by rats), so my guess is that we would survive either scenario. Civilisation is another matter. In a major tick upwards or downwards in global temperatures, at the very least, we could expect a major loss of material culture - something like slipping from the Roman Empire into the Dark Ages. Worse than this is also possible. Given that atmospheric carbon levels are a major cause of the problem, and given that we are currently accelerating growth in atmospheric CO2 levels, it would be a prudent time to step on the brakes while research into the climate continues. Who knows, you may be right. We may have dodged catastrophe by dumb luck. Touching the brakes now (to slow and maybe pause the warming effect) gives us a bit more time to work out how lucky we are and how lucky we can continue to count on being. Has anyone seen any reliable arithmetic on what deep but realistic cuts in emissions now would do for atmospheric carbon levels (and warming) over the next 100 years or more? Any idea of the kind of timeframe we would need to go into reverse and see a cooling trend (as opposed to cooling cycle)? I am guessing (once again) that the natural carbon sequestration processes are far slower than anthropogenic GHG emissions. Quietman - I will read your links, but I don't doubt your potted paleohistory above. I just doubt it's relevance given historic and projected GHG emissions growth. Deep cuts in emissions now will not cut atmospheric CO2 levels in the near term, only stabilise them. If the warming effect has helped us, it will still be there for a good while.
  8. Are we heading into a new Little Ice Age?
    Mizimi YES!
  9. There is no consensus
    Neandertal References: ScienceDaily (Sep. 13, 2007) New Evidence On The Role Of Climate In Neanderthal Extinction Adapted from materials provided by University of Leeds ScienceDaily (Dec. 30, 2008) Competition, Not Climate Change, Led To Neanderthal Extinction, Study Shows Journal reference: Banks WE, d'Errico F, Peterson AT, Kageyama M, Sima A, et al. Neanderthal Extinction by Competitive Exclusion PLoS ONE, 2008; 3(12): e3972 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003972 AGW References: ScienceDaily (Dec. 19, 2008) New World Post-pandemic Reforestation Helped Start Little Ice Age, Say Scientists Adapted from materials provided by Stanford University ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008) Did Early Global Warming Divert A New Glacial Age? Adapted from materials provided by University of Wisconsin-Madison
  10. There is no consensus
    You misunderstand my position (and most skeptics) entirely. AGW is real. It has a small impact on the planet but not enough to prevent the next glacation. As far as risk goes, you should know better. If you have a choice of a risk of basement floodiing from a broken sprinkler system or your house burning down, which risk do you choose? We have a choice with AGW as well. We can thank AGW for what little extra warmth we have on this planet. Yes, maybe you are uncomfortable in the heat but I can tell you from experience at -60F to +140F that humans can take the heat but we die with the cold. Lets take a look at paleohistory. We evolve from prosimians into true primates in the Eocene and Oligocene. Conditions of the Eocene were high levels of CO2 and high temps all over the planet. And, we evolved in southern Asia, Jungles, Hot, Humid, and spread from there into Africa where there were less predator species (Beard, "Hunt for the Dawn Monkey). The Ice age (No.4) hits us in the Neogene, we continue to evolve along the equator in northern Africa into homonids. By the the the glacial maximum hits we have split from H. erectus into H. sapiens and H. neandertalensis and we are both in deep shit. We both get close to population levels that will quickly end in extinction but things warm back up. We were lucky, our cousins did not fare as well and their population continued to decline while ours recovered. This is history. What do you think would happen if we had a glacial maximum now? Extinction is near certain. So why would we want to actually stop the only thing that could actually reduce the impact of another glacation? Are you crazy or just have a racial death wish?
  11. It's the sun
    WA Same here, I started out accepting AGW because a prominent scientist said it was real. I did not bother to look into it until Al Gore came out with his movie and an alarm went off "why is this ex-VP pushing AGW"? Now I see that is is all politics (lies) but I still don't see the motive. But I have learned a lot I did not know about climate so it was worth investigating.
  12. Comparing IPCC projections to observations
    #32..is there a site giving access to raw data for Mauna Loa rather than the averaged tables?
  13. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    So we don't warm the atmosphere directly? The 14 terawatts of heat released by us annually has no effect on the global temp? It doesn't raise the temp at all and thus increase Tmin? The 6.7x 10E15 watts emitted annualy by the human population just by being alive doesn't affect Tmin either? Or the 3x 10E15 watts emitted by cows? All that heat is dissipated into the atmosphere and provides energy for WV to increase. Bear in mind too, that industrial WV emissions INCLUDE the energy needed to vaporise the water...no heat is required from the atmosphere, unlike 'natural' evaporation. One of the papers you referred to in another post indicated an increase in WV of 0.4gm/kg dry air over the oceans since 1988...far too much for just CO2 induced warming.
  14. There is no consensus
    Re #97 from Quietman. Thanks for expanding on your answer. I'll let NewYorkJ's response at #101 stand as a response. You haven't stated what you believe to be an acceptable level of risk - since you seem to believe there is definitely, absolutely, no possibility of AGW via carbon emissions or any other means. This strikes me as sounding more like an assumption than a considered opinion based on known facts. Odd, given the views expressed ('Or you can just assume the alarmist position ... and ignore the arguments entirely. To deny the facts is to show ignorance, that is not what science is about, that attitude belongs firmly in religion and politics'). Or possibly, you consider (like many other 'skeptics') AGW to be a possibility, but not as likely as the IPCC consensus. That would beg the questions, how likely do you consider dangerous AGW to be, and what maximum level of likelihood would warrant a 'business as usual' response? Since you raise the issue of facts, I wonder if there is a consensus between 'skeptics' and the rest of us as to what the facts are. 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (leaving aside positive and negative feedback effects). 2. Both positive and negative feedbacks exist in the climate, and are not fully (or even mostly) understood, leading to the possibility of suprises (pleasant or otherwise). 3. CO2 is released by the burning of fossil fuels. 4. Measured atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing, and are expected to continue to do so under BAU. 5. Fossil fuel use (and thus, CO2 emissions) has increased exponentially since industrialisation. It may take 50 or 100 years to run out of oil, and sufficient coal is left in the ground for a much longer period. If we continue with BAU, atmospheric CO2 levels will get much, much higher. This will occur in a period of decades - an unprecedented rate of change. The climate system as a whole is poorly understood - we are only beginning to build understanding. It is possible the IPCC and the various meteorological and other scientific organisations from around the world that contributed to the consensus view have got it so horribly (wonderfully?) wrong that we all have absolutely nothing to worry about - but how likely is that? So what do you reckon - how likely is AGW, and how much risk is too much?
  15. There is no consensus
    I strongly suggest that you actually read the skeptical papers that are being derided by Hansen and his cronies.
  16. There is no consensus
    Re: "Yeah, all those scientists follow Al Gore. How silly." You are crediting the IPCC with something it does not have (scientists). It in fact edits and limits the subjects of any and all papers submitted by scientists and is the reason they are leaving the IPCC.
  17. There is no consensus
    Re: "American Geophysical Union: "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming." THERE IS NO BALANCE, THAT IS EQUILIBRIUM AND TOTAL BS!
  18. There is no consensus
    You don't seem to see what is actually happening. If you take the time to study what is going on inside the earth you would also understand why the IPCC depictions are false. The hotspots relate directly to the earths tectonics. CO2 is not warming the oceans, thats why the results don't match the predictions. Parts of the ocean are warming while others are cooling. The warming parts correspond to undersea vulcanism or what the kids call plate tectonics. That's the driver behind the PDO, AMO, etc. It's the ocean that drives climate, not the other way around. It's the Earth that drives the oceans and it's the sun that drives the earth and the planets, in particular Jupiter that drives the barycenter and alters the way the sun reacts with the Earth. Do the research. Skeptics do!
  19. There is no consensus
    Re: "American Physical Society: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." I await proof. I wan't to see at least one prediction that is correct. The only accurate predictions have come from the skeptical scientists (deniers) like the late Rhodes Fairbridge. Sorry, but my view of anyone who has not left the IPCC by this point is someone that can not think for themselves. Sheep going along for the ride with what they view as "the winning team". Lots of BS and outright lies fudging numbers and skewing results to get funding.
  20. There is no consensus
    Re: "Basic Strawman. No one denies that there is cyclical climate change." You obviously have not been reading the comments at this website. This has come up several times, so I am glad you consider it a strawman. I suggest that you read chris' comments.
  21. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Patrick I do see what you are saying but is it in fact catastrophic or just minor warming? Click Here for a recent article at Live Science : Earth's Atmosphere "Breathes" More Rapidly Than Thought By Andrea Thompson, Senior Writer, 2008-12-16 "Earth’s atmosphere was known to "breathe" in a cycle lasting nearly a month. Now scientists say the planet takes a quick breath every few days."
  22. We're heading into an ice age
    Mizimi I think Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge answered that question in his study of sea level cycles. It's referred to as the "Fairbridge curve" and I think wikipedia posted an explanation of how it works. I have not looked too deeply into it as I am more interested in his later "Solar Jerk" hypothesis.
  23. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    chris Re: (to WA) "It's about the real world WA. It's not about model studies" This is clearly "the pot calling the kettle black". AGW and all it's evidence is FROM MODELS1 There is NO REAL WORLD evidence for CATASTROPHIC AGW. And don't hand me that "equilibrium" lie again. Anyone who has studied paleoclimates and understands what CO2 induced AGW actually is and can do knows better. If you ever plan to convince anyone with half a brain that AGW is CATASTROPHIC then you had better find something better than CO2 or simply explain why the world went on for millions of years during the upper Mesozoic with the highest possible levels of CO2 and NOTHING CATASTROPHIC ever came of it.
  24. Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
    chris What you fail to grasp is that these papers are not the word of god. They are arguments presented based on the authors hypothesis and must be agreed with by a publisher (peer review). That does not make the papers any more correct or better than the opposition view. You can either accept or reject the hypothesis. If you accept the hypothesis you use it in your own work and cite it. If that hupothesis turns out false, it also will likely falsify your hypothesis. Many papers that are peer reviewed still go unpublished. The current vonsensus is that Einstien would not be published today with the current system, but it still would not mean that he was wrong. Reference: Will there Ever be another Einstein? By Joseph B. Verrengia, Associated Press
  25. There is no consensus
    Quietman, "1. Hypothetical, based on poorly written fortran code." I certainly hope this isn't the extent of your understanding of climate science. "2. Historically false, If the CO2 was the powerful GHG it is claimed to be there would be no life on this planet." Non-sequitur. "The alarmists base their science on the concept of equilibrium and deny that the earth goes through cycles" Basic Strawman. No one denies that there is cyclical climate change. American Meteorlogical Society: "Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[22] " "prophesized by algore and his followers." Yeah, all those scientists follow Al Gore. How silly. American Physical Society: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." World Meterological Organization: In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice". American Geophysical Union: "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate. " "This describes the AGW alarmist to a T." The above comments make the following comment: "in this case by infantile name calling." quite ironic.
  26. There is no consensus
    Re: “They argue not as scientists but as lawyers. When they argue, they pick one piece of the fabric of evidence and blow it up all out of proportion…Their purpose is to confuse.” - Pieter Tans This describes the AGW alarmist to a T.
  27. There is no consensus
    NewYorkJ They are called "deniers" because they are skeptics, plain and simple. This is what happens to science when fanatics reach a level of majority, we return to the dark age when dissent is punishable, in this case by infantile name calling.
  28. There is no consensus
    correction to 97: Neandertal ancestors s/b Neandertal cousins because the debate on admixture indicates that they were not ancestral to H. sapiens.
  29. There is no consensus
    Risky at 15:09 PM on 1 January, 2009 Re: post #94 - 'Assinine comparison': how so? Because your house CAN burn down, it is possible. This is very different from AGW since AGW is 1. Hypothetical, based on poorly written fortran code. 2. Historically false, If the CO2 was the powerful GHG it is claimed to be there would be no life on this planet. Upper Mesozoic and early Cenezoic had a constant extremely high level of CO2. Life flourished, our ancestors appear at the PETM, ie. it is the climate we evolved in. On the flip side, we nearly went extinct along with our Neandertal ancestors in H4 (glacial maximum) ***. It is COLD not hot that causes extinctions. So while warming will cause a few adjustments it would not be the catastrophe prophesized by algore and his followers. The alarmists base their science on the concept of equilibrium and deny that the earth goes through cycles and yet they call skeptical scientists "deniers". Skeptics realize that we are undergoing climate change, it is not AGW, it is not GW, it IS climate change, plain and simple. The amount of AGW added to this change is meaningless. All I have asked since day 1 is to see proof of this catastrophic GW. None has been provided, only that there is CC, no GW other than what is expected by natural cycles such as the PDO, Sun spot cycles and plate tectonics. *** "Neanderthal Extinction by Competitive Exclusion" William E. Banks1*, Francesco d’Errico1,2, A. Townsend Peterson3, Masa Kageyama4, Adriana Sima4, Maria-Fernanda Sa´nchez-Gon i5 There is a link to the above paper at the bottom of the article: Competition, Not Climate Change, Led To Neanderthal Extinction, Study Shows ScienceDaily (Dec. 30, 2008) For alternate reasons for climate change see (under arguments heading at the top of this page) The PDO and Volcano and sensitivity articles. Or you can just assume the alarmist position (fingers firmly in ears and eyes shut) and ignore the arguments entirely. To deny the facts is to show ignorance, that is not what science is about, that attitude belongs firmly in religion and politics.
  30. It's not bad
    #14....Most of the examples of increased CO2 giving increased plant growth have come from environments where the CO2 level is artificially held at around 1000ppm. In the real world the levels have risen from around 260ppm (1000AD) through 290ppm (1900AD) to 380ppm (2005), in other words the increase over the period we have started taking interest in what's going on is at best 100ppm. Roughly, doubling the level gives a 50% increase in growth, so adding a third (real world) isn't going to show up much at the small scale level. Globally, however, the increase may be significant, although probably unquantifiable
  31. Models are unreliable
    Between 1970 & 2000, CO2 levels rose from 324ppm to 368ppm with a decadal increase of around 4~4.5%. (1970~324, 1980~337, 1990~353, 2000~368) The GISS data shows a decadal increase in GMT of 0.17C over the same period, ie. GMT rose 0.51C during those 30 years.(15% of that 3C doubling) But the CO2 level rose 14.8% in the same period (48ppm) So what happened to the logarithmic progression? Also, in 1800 the GMT was between -0.5 to -0.8C below GMT in 2000: The CO2 level in 1800 was 280ppm and in 2000 was 368...an increase of 67% that yielded a rise in GMT of less than 1C.
  32. There is no consensus
    Re: post #94 - 'Assinine comparison': how so? It may be an oversimplification to describe anthropogenic climate change as a house fire and cuts to emissions as insurance, but with odds like this, would you go on with business as usual, or might you be inclined to make changes at reasonable cost, ahead of absolute certainty? Re: post #94: add geopolitical stability to the list of spin-off benefits. No need for a war for oil.
  33. Latest satellite data on Greenland mass change
    WA Philippe was kind enough to give me these links in the Arctic Ice loss thread: http://nsidc.org/ http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ They show a good map of the polar region and the anomalies. Also Philippes recent comments there are of interest.
  34. There is no consensus
    #93 They are called "deniers" when they resort to the type of tactics described in Dr. Holdren's op-ed, the clearly dishonest APS spin described above, repeatedly making multiple dubious claims as catalogued nicely on this website (while arrogantly and falsely asserting it "disproves" AGW and promoting their claims to any willing media outlet), calling global warming a "hoax", or calling the overwhelming majority of climate scientists "alarmists" because they don't like the implications of the science. Holdren makes the distinction between "skeptic" and "denier". Every scientist is a skeptic so that doesn't say much. "Denier" might be to harsh. I'd settle for "contrarian". A comment from another scientist on this issue: “They argue not as scientists but as lawyers. When they argue, they pick one piece of the fabric of evidence and blow it up all out of proportion…Their purpose is to confuse.” - Pieter Tans #94 You're right. It's conservatively more like 90%-95%. Personally, I thought it was time to act when IPCC2 presented the "more likely than not" conclusion regarding "most of the observed warming" before moving on to "likely" and "very likely". Of course, mitigating actions carry their own risk. If we decided to cut emissions 95% in 5 years, it would very likely cause severe economic damage. However, every objective economic study on mitigation proposals made so far suggest relatively affordable net economic costs in comparison with the risks this century (even the relatively conservative estimates) if we don't act. A few studies result in net gains - and most studies don't consider the economic benefits of decreased reliance on foreign fossil fuels and some of the avoided massive economic costs of climate change. Thus, it's ironic that those preaching gloom and doom on the economy call many scientists "alarmists".
  35. Philippe Chantreau at 07:58 AM on 1 January 2009
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Let me clarify one thing: in my definition, a scientist is someone who is an expert in a field (usually that implies an advanced degree in that field or a closely related one), does research (i.e. publishes papers in peer-reviewed science journals) and whose work is of significant interest to others doing research in that field (i.e. cited, used in other publications). If that's you, then you're a scientist. If not, then you're not one by that definition, and I like that definition, that's the one I use. You said that you were doing applied science. That's vague. A pilot does applied physics and engineering, that does not make him a physicist or aeronautical engineer. The noconsensus graph is not referenced, I have no idea where it comes from. Is area really more important than extent and volume (this latter being certainly the most important)? The Antarctic mass balance graph has no legend and it really needs one; still, it's unclear at first glance whether there is a net gain or loss, I see sizeable areas in the graph with the rectangles showing considerable negative gain (loss?). At my level, I find NSIDC and Cryosphere Today much more useful: http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ This graph shows a statistically significant decline in global sea ice: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg This does not show much of a TREND in Antarctic sea ice anomaly: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg Unlike the TREND shown here for Arctic sea ice: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg Quote from NSIDC, from the Arctic and Antarctic standardized anomalies and trends Jan 1979 Dec 2007 graph: "The Antarctic ice extent increases were smaller in magnitude than the Arctic decreases, and some regions of the Antarctic experienced strong declining trends in sea ice extent." The noise in the Antarctic is larger because of a much stronger seasonal variation. "
  36. There is no consensus
    Re: "If there was only a 20% chance of your house burning down, would you go without insurance?" Assinine comparison.
  37. There is no consensus
    Holdren, like Hansen, is a known alarmist. These are the people that call skeptics deniers. In science you propose a hypothesis and test that hypothesis in a manner that other scientists can reproduce. You DO NOT call the other scientists that disagree with you "deniers" because they happen to disagree, especially when they provide evidence to disprove your hypothesis.
  38. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:26 PM on 31 December 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe Chantreau - sorry my popularizing (You so, probably think that I’m not "scientist"?) publications are in a ”beautiful” (very difficult too), polish language - on-line, for example only one: http://192.168.0.11/download/technologia/efekt_szklarni.pdf. I propose You this page about “ice”: http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/global-sea-ice-area-variation-bootstrap-algorithm1.jpg?w=667&h=455 (- do not have decreasing sea ice at the last 30 years?) and http://www.unep.org/geo/geo_ice/images/full/6a_antarcticamassbal.png - for a complete image about “The global ice story”. …and may dear “Interlocutors” (hi, hi, hi…) Happy New Years everybody!!!
  39. There is no consensus
    #88: Exactly right. I don't have a problem with a few skeptics stating their opinion. I do have a problem, however, with gross distortions and dishonest rhetoric. In this case, a single APS member and editor of one of their many non-peer-reviewed newsletters decided to post his opinion and some material. It gets widely reported among the denialsphere as "The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change". There is a clear and concerted effort to blow every fabric of data well out of proportion, whether it's of scientific nature or in this case, activities of an APS member. This is the reason why many climatologists don't have a lot of respect for the arguments from many of those who call themselves climate "skeptics". Dr. John Holdren (recently selected as Obama's science advisor), describes it best. He had a good op-ed piece earlier this year with an even better follow-up. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/22/12217/584
  40. Climate change on Mars
    Problably wrongly, but I had the impression that this website was sort of impartial in assesment. But not mentioning in this thread the real reason why some people started to associate the two events, which is: THE SHRINKAGE OF HE MARTIAN NORTH POLE, really takes me aback. Does any one knows how that is going? -- for years, since mid 90 I've read that Mars pole was diminishing: Does anybody knows how that is now? Is it following the sun and started do grow again or not?!
  41. There is no consensus
    Re: Post #77 from Austerlitz - if you pin your hopes on 'skeptics' like David Evans, maybe you should see this article (by David Evans) posted on the Lavoisier Group website (Australian 'skeptics' org with links to the coal industry, among others). http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evansd2007-12.php See the 5th from last paragraph, starting 'I emphasise that we are making a bet...'. Evans estimates that the likelihood that CO2 emissions are the dominant cause of global warming is only 20%, not 90% as per the IPCC estimate. Note the wording - 'dominant' cause. I understand Richard Lindzen is now also similarly lukewarm on the odds. Maybe others could confirm. If there was only a 20% chance of your house burning down, would you go without insurance? With skeptics like that, who needs believers? P.S. I am not a scientist (published or otherwise), but a risk management professional. I am curious as to what the risk appetite of those participating in the global warming debate is - just how much risk of dangerous climate change is acceptable?
  42. Philippe Chantreau at 06:06 AM on 27 December 2008
    Christmas cartoon on melting North Pole
    Happy Holidays (a little late, sorry) and thanks for keeping up a great site John :-)
  43. Philippe Chantreau at 06:05 AM on 27 December 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    From what I read so far, there is some unusual weather in the Arctic that had 2 effects: compacting the ice together (thereby reducing the total extent) and keeping the air much warmer than normal. Neither seemed to have been expected by the people studying the SI. Good luck with the shoveling, hope the winter kills off those bark beetles. We had over 15 inches down in the PDX area, and they're just not used to it here! Of course now it's turned to slush and the roads are nasty. Happy Holidays!
  44. The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
    Olympus Mons, pointing out the facts isn't being political is it? It's the propagating of well-recognised falsehoods that's "political". So HS asserts that the IPCC collected data from Hong Kong to "prove" sea level is rising. I pointed out that the IPCC don't collect data, they "collate" scientific data and summarize this in reports, and that in any case it's well understood how sea level data is collected and analyzed, and I gave some sources that can be accessed to understand this. HS seems to think that pointing out the facts constitutes "being on my high horse", and confesses that he got this piece of misinformation from a newspaper interview. Who's being "political" there OM? The one who points out the facts? or the two that assert stuff in a newspaper interview that isn't true, and propagate this without making an effort to establish the facts? As for your "skeptics" and "believers", are you implying that a "skeptic" is someone that tells/propagates untruths and a "believer" is someone that makes an effort to establish scientific veracity? I would have thought in this instance that HS is a "believer" (accepting untruths because it fits with his agenda/worldview or whatever) and I'm being a "skeptic" (making an effort to establish the reality behind what is very clearly a misrepresentation). shame indeed! ;-)
  45. Models are unreliable
    surely not! Are you really suggesting that "equilibrium is a weird and non-existant concept?" There isn't a quality more fundamental to the natural world than "equilibrium" Quietman. Let me give you a simple example. You've been away on a trip during the winter. You come back to your chilly house left without any heat on. You turn on the heating and set the thermostat to 18oC. What happens? Does the house temperature instantaneously become 18oC? Not really. And when the temperature eventually reaches 18 oC what's going on? I think you'll find that the temperature in your house has settled at an equilibrium temperature of 18 oC as a result of a balance between warming from your radiators and heat loss to the surrounds. When you switched on your heating the house temperature was far from the equilibrium temperature you defined with your thermostat, and as it became closer and closer to 18 oC it became closer to equilibrium. Your heater transported the temperature of your house from one equilibrium temperature (in which the temperature was in or near equilibrium with the surrounds) to another equilibrium temperature (in which the rate of heat input and loss is in equilibrium).
  46. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe Thanks. That is a useful site, better view of the polar caps. The anomally is still exactly where I expected to see it again, I just wanted to confirm it. I have not read all 365 posts. I was busy in the summer, which is why I have not been posting as often also. Unfortunately this is a bad winter and I have been doing a lot of snow removal, salting and sanding since October, so not much time now either.
  47. Christmas cartoon on melting North Pole
    John: My daughter and I loved the cartoon. Merry Christmas to you and all your readers. We wish you all the best in the new year and look forward to more of the same quality posts we've come to expect ;-) Regards, John
  48. Philippe Chantreau at 20:59 PM on 25 December 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman it is hard for me to believe that, after a 360+ posts discussion of Arctic sea ice, you're not familiar with the National Snow and Ice data Center. I linked it several times earlier when WA was appealing to Watts blog and suggesting that the up trend in Antarctic SI was significant whereas the down trend in Arctic was not. A look at these will inform you on that: http://nsidc.org/ http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
  49. It's not bad
    Lets look at this from a logical perspective. Warmer means more like the world that we evolved in during the PETM (when prosimians first appear) in Asia. Colder means more like the world that came close to driving us to extinction (glacial maximum) in Africa. We are from a tropical paradise, no polar ice caps and green pole to pole. Which do we wan't for our offspring? Warm and abundant or cold and starvation?
  50. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe Interesting, albeit not totally unexpected. NSIDC? Not familiar, can you post a link? Patrick You lost me again as well. Maybe leave out the calculations and proof and go right to the summary?

Prev  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  2610  2611  2612  2613  2614  2615  2616  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2026 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us