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  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  2610  2611  2612  2613  2614  2615  2616  2617  2618  2619  2620  Next

Comments 130601 to 130650:

  1. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    There are two questions really: (i) do cosmic rays influence clouds formation? (ii) is this effect, if real, significant with respect to the Earth's surface temperature and climates? Robert posted a list of papers that address (i) especially. However I'd say that there are some problems: The Shaviv Veizer analysis of a possible link between the CRF and Earth's temperature on the 100's of millions of years timescale (the GSA Today 2003 paper in Robert's list) rested on a paleo-CRF flux analysis and paleotemperature analysis. However Veizer has reinterpreted his temperature data (see abstract below ***) and the putative correlation that Shaviv described in the GSA article is now lost. In other words there is no evidence for a very-long-scale link between the CRF and Earth's temperature (and in fact the Earth's temperature right throughout the last around 500 million years correlates with the atmospheric CO2 level as Veizer indicates in his recent reinterpretation of paleotemperature data) Many of the papers in Robert's list are essentially neutral with respect to evidence for a CRF-cloud link. Thus Svensmarks Proc. Royal. Soc paper on micro-aerosol formation as a result of ionizing radiation in the lab is not an indication that CRF nucleates clouds in the real world...and so on... However there does seem to be some evidence (some of papers in Robert's list again) that the CRF can influence cloud formation (e.g. the Forbush events correlating transient changes in CRF with transient local changes in clouds). How about (ii) (significance with respect to the Earth's surface temperature)? This seems rather difficult to justify for several reasons. First, there isn't a correlation of CRF with the Earth's surface temperature on any timescale as far as I'm aware (see point about the Shaviv/Veizer analysis above). Second there has been no persistent trend in the CRF during the very marked warming of the last 30-odd years. Svensmark in his website report (http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view) explicitly demonstrates that the solar contribution (CRF et al!)during the very marked warming of the last 30-odd years is zero (a slight cooling contribution since 1958 if anything). That's pretty uncontroversial. The third general problem relates to the demonstration of the transient changes in local cloud cover in the so-called Forbush events that a couple of papers in Robert's list refer to. How can these processes give rise to a persistent long lived effects? This could presumably only occur with long lived persistent changes in the CRF. Short term local events (like those described as Forbush events if I understand these correctly) won't have much influence. That's partly the thrust of the Sloan/Wolfendale analysis. When the latter authors assess the relationship between Forbush events and cloud data averaged over weeks/months there isn't any correlation at all. Now one could argue that one should analyse only the correlations betwen transient changes in CRF and any transient local changes in clouds. But then the CRF/climate relationship becomes essentially unsupportable, because if there isn't any influence on a weekly/monthly averaged basis, how can there be significant persistent effects on temperature/climate? One explanation for the lack of correlation that might be significant for CRF-cloud-temperature/climate relationship is that the local nucleation of clouds mediated by CRF might relate to super-saturated regions of the atmosphere, which would anyway condense out into clouds by other (non-CRF) atmospheric nucleating species that are known to exist... Overall I would say that the evidence supports the possibility of some CRF influence on cloud formation but this remains to be substantiated, and that the evidence supports the conclusion that these effects are sufficiently small that they haven't provided any evidence in the real world for a CRF-cloud-temperature/climate link. Here's the recent Veizer reinterpretation of paleotemperature data: ***Came RE, Eiler JM, Veizer J et al (2007) Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era Nature 449, 198-201. Abstract: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations seem to have been several times modern levels during much of the Palaeozoic era (543-248 million years ago), but decreased during the Carboniferous period to concentrations similar to that of today(1-3). Given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it has been proposed that surface temperatures were significantly higher during the earlier portions of the Palaeozoic era(1). A reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperatures based on the delta O-18 of carbonate fossils indicates, however, that the magnitude of temperature variability throughout this period was small(4), suggesting that global climate may be independent of variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Here we present estimates of sea surface temperatures that were obtained from fossil brachiopod and mollusc shells using the 'carbonate clumped isotope' method(5)-an approach that, unlike the delta O-18 method, does not require independent estimates of the isotopic composition of the Palaeozoic ocean. Our results indicate that tropical sea surface temperatures were significantly higher than today during the Early Silurian period (443-423 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been relatively high, and were broadly similar to today during the Late Carboniferous period (314-300 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been similar to the present-day value. Our results are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures(1,6).
  2. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    In rereading my comment I see that I misworded it. The entire first paragraph is the first source of heat and what increases it. The Second source of heat is the earth itself released by vulcanism or created by large forest fires. In both cases the soot while airborne will cool but once settled on the ice will warm as far as solar effects go. Both produce direct heat however and the second paragraph explains how internal heat controls weather.
  3. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    Here are a few studies that are in favor of the GCR-climate/cloud formation link (sorry the order is kind of a mess and you have probably addressed a few of them): http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0409123 http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/77543w3q4mq86417/ http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/prlresup2.pdf http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/... http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-4004... http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/3163g817166673g7/fulltext.pdf https://utd.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/4/2273/2004/acp-4-2273-2004.html http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JA000248.shtml http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/tin_atmtrans.pdf These two studies came out at roughly the same time as the S&W paper: http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.2765.pdf http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.2766.pdf
  4. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Undersea volcanos are indeed active but I don't think that is a big issue. The skeptical argument on volcanos has some merit but not in the way that they are explaining it. First, keep in mind that there are 2 and only 2 natural sources of heat on this planet. The first and more important is the sun. Block the sun and CO2 can have zero effect (it is a feedback). So you do have greenhouse conditions. Second is albedo, soot from volcanos and man-made sources collect over the poles, moreso over the north because that is where industry is largest. This lowers the albedo by darkening the ice. Less active volcanos in the northern hemisphere means that much less soot as well as other greenhouse gas emmitted from eruptions. Note that the south pole is not warming as much, nor south america or africa. The power of increased vulcanism is heat transfer to the ocean that causes upwelling currents and change the direction of air currents in doing so. The best known of these is El Nino/La Nina. See Johns "La Nina watch: March update" on this site.
  5. La Nina watch: March update
    Also, on the northern part of the March map you mentioned, Mackey had predicted that when enough ice melted covering ocean surfaces, the additional moisture picked up off the water would cause very heavy snowfall in Asia due to the path of the air currents over the pole. He was obviously correct. The march warming is most likely due to aerosol pollutants and particulates that collect over the pole from all over the northern hemisphere. It is being investigated right now.
  6. La Nina watch: March update
    That is the area of welling up that I mentioned, where El Nino originates. The heated area is full of very active volcanos and the subduction zone is just off shore. The maps show the increase in activity and signal that La Nina is ending soon. This is currently the most active area in "the ring of fire". There are similar but weaker events all around the ring and they have been more active since the late 1970s (strong El Ninos, not as strong La Ninas, but this one is fairly strong).
  7. It's the sun
    John No offense, but this is an issue that true environmentalists need to take a strong stand on.
  8. It's the sun
    I believe in taking care of the environment, buying only efficient products and recycling. But these alarmists and violent greens that burn other peoples Hummers really get me. Greenpeace is the worst of all, even one of its founders will have nothing more to do with them. They make me ashamed to say I am an environmentalist because it makes me part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Can't anyone see where rash actions lead? The blame for this is squarely on the UN itself for pushing Algorism and punishing skepticism and the green alarmists pointing fingers at oil companies instead of thinking things out rationally. Come on people, wake up, get off the bandwagon and start using constructive criticism.
  9. It's the sun
    "Environmentalist Groups Say Tech Firms Get Great Publicity from Their Green PR Efforts, But They Wonder How Deep the Commitment Really Is" But eho are the real Hypocrites? I am now seeing things that I have been afraid of for 40 years.
  10. Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
    John, exactly what's skeptical about this? "So while Al Gore was in error attributing the Mann/Jones graph to Dr Thompson, the main conclusion that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were less than modern times is correct. This is an important point and seems to be overlooked in the eagerness to debunk Gore. " You're taking this hook line and sinker with absolutely no skeptical inquiry at all. A careful review of the evidence convinces me that the opposite is as at least as likely to be true, namely that it could have been as warm or warmer during the MWP as it is now. The IPCC summary of computer simulations you link above only go back to 1850 and blurs out problems with individual models by replacing the spaghetti curve with a grayed out region. (Errors in the simulations are highly correlated from year to year, the figure makes it seem they are not, which is false and misleading.) Furthermore, there are no reconstructions of temperatures that *don't include tree ring chronologies* that conclude that the MWP was cooler than it is now. And there is every reason to be suspicious of tree rings as proxies for temperature, given the multivariate relationship between temperature, precipitation, and CO2 fertilization on tree ring growth. Even if you ignored CO2 fertilization and precipitation as factors, there is an optimal temperature range for any plant: Presumably in their natural climate (the temperature zones for which they are optimized), you will find them near their optimal rate, otherwise you'd find the plants in a warmer climate than they are actually found. Ecology 101. Lower or *raise* the temperature, and you will see a decline in growth rate. One would certainly not expect anything approaching a linear relationship between the two. (Isotopic measurements of δ18O do not suffer from any of these problems, because they are measuring a ratio rather than an absolute quantity.) I happen to agree that CO2 is playing a role in our current warming trend, but don't agree with Al Gore that it is "appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is." That's just coded words for lying. And I am not nearly as infatuated with Mann's work as you appear to be. Even the plots the NAS make the answer to whether the MWP appear much less certain that you are portraying it to be: See Figure 11-1 on page 112: Most of the multi-proxy reconstructions show the modern temperature to be about 0.1-0.2 C above that of the Medieval Optimum, which is probably a smaller difference than the absolute uncertainly in the reconstructed temperature for that period. BTW, I don't think it's appropriate to hot link to other people's blogs without getting permission first. I would hope you have done so, or would make a local copy of Steve's figure with a hyperlink to his original image.
  11. Models are unreliable
    I'm repeating here what I've said in another place on your blog: The IPCC summary of computer simulations you link above only go back to 1850 and blurs out problems with individual models by replacing the spaghetti curve with a grayed out region. (Errors in the simulations are highly correlated from year to year, the figure makes it seem they are not, which is false and misleading.) Also did you notice the huge 0.3°C anomaly around 1940-1950 that the models, even with the fuzzing provided by IPCC, are unable to explain? Where did that warming come from? I would conclude from that, that we aren't at the place yet, even for a 150-year period with a lot of fudge factors thrown in, where we can accurately describe past climate, let alone accurately predict future climate. Secondly did you notice that there was very little anthropogenic forcing before 1970, according to the models? Have you ever considered how disingenuous it is, given this fact, to compare glaciers from e.g. 100 years ago to current, when the models say that almost all warming prior to 1970 was natural?
  12. It's the sun
    ScaredAmoeba Call for delay to biofuels policy This is why I said that drastic measures without thinking things through could kill us all.
  13. It's the sun
    ScaredAmoeba Definition of Argument UN food chief urges crisis action Still don't think greens kill out of ignorance?
  14. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    I have to guess that this would come under "other" in Cloud_formation_processes. I have seen articles and blogs all claiming that the cosmic ray hypothesis is false. Is there actually any agreement?
  15. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    I really don't see that Sloan's response addresses Shaviv's point at all. Presuming Shaviv is right (from his blog) "Another option is to calculate the actual latitudinal dependence of the atmospheric ionization variations. This was done by Usoskin et al. (2004), who took the top-of-the-atmosphere variations in the CRF, and using a *code* to calculate the shower products, calculated the actual latitudinal ionization rate variations. They found that the relative change in the LCC is the same as the relative change in the ion density (which itself is proportional to the square root of the ionization rate). *Both vary by several percent from equator to pole over the solar cycle.* This can be seen in fig. 2. In other words, the latitudinal dependence of the cloud cover variations is totally consistent with the CRF/cloud cover mechanism. *For comparison, the solar cycle variation in the neutron monitor data is almost 20% at the poles, and 5% at the equator.* " (asterisks mine) Since Sloan doesn't dispute this that I can see, he is using the wrong numbers (his proportion is off) to evaluate Shaviv's claims. Cheers, :)
    Response: Figure 3 compares the fractional change between neutron counts (solid dots and solid line) & ionisation (open squares, joined by the dashed line). The ionisation modulation is computed for solar cycle 22 for the total ionization from figure 5 of the Usoskin paper. It's the fractional modulation for cycle 22 multiplied by 2 since their fig 6 is a plot of n (which is proportional to the square root of q hence dq/q=2 dn/n, see equ 5 of their paper).

    This Usoskin paper where Sloan gets his ionisation data is "Cosmic ray-induced ionization in the atmosphere: spatial and temporal changes" published in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terretrial Physics vol 66 (2004) page 1796, presumably the work Usoskin 2004 is based on. I haven't managed to get hold of this paper yet but haven't seen any criticism of the handling of this data from Shaviv or anywhere.

    The quibbling over neutrons versus ionisation is missing the major point that cosmic ray theory predicts latitude dependence in cloud cover modulation. The crucial result from Sloan and Wolfendale's paper is that cloud cover modulation shows little latitude dependence.
  16. Antarctica is gaining ice
    John I noticed the ozone portion because it rang a bell fro what I had read previously in Mackeys paper.
  17. CO2 lags temperature
    In johns skeptic of the week article it says "Moreover, the Earth has experienced no discernible temperature increase since 1998, nearly nine years ago. Remember, too, that the atmosphere is approaching CO2 saturation--after which more CO2 will have no added climate forcing power." This I don't understand. Is this at all credible?
  18. Wondering Aloud at 04:48 AM on 23 April 2008
    La Nina watch: March update
    Somewhat unrelated, but since I linked to it from here... I went to Atomz reference listed. the Map for March shows a Huge temperature spike across Northern and Central Asia. this doesn't fit at all well with all the news reports of huge snow events in China etc. Is the resolution on the map really bad or is the GISS temperature data wrong? I see the hot spot there quietman what are you saying about it?
  19. Wondering Aloud at 01:17 AM on 23 April 2008
    Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    Shaviv claims that neutrons are the wrong thing to measure and Sloan basically answered "that's all we have", Did I read that right? If Shaviv is right and there is little magnetic field effect above 15 GeV, than neutrons are the wrong thing to measure. I don't know what they claimed about their study but it wouldn't be a representative test for the affect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.
    Response: Sloan's main point is that his analysis comes to the same result whether he uses neutron count or cosmic ray induced ionisation (CRII) rates. Equation 3 equates the cosmic ray component of cloud cover change to a constant K (kappa) multiplied by dN/N - the fractional change in neutron count N. So long as the CRII modulation has the same shape as neutron modulation, equation 3 is still valid.

    When Sloan and Wolfendale compared the neutron modulation to Usoskin's CRII data, they were surprised to find that not only was the shape compatible, the absolute values of the fractional change were also. This was why I asked Terry Sloan if he could email me a plot of the comparison of the fractional change in neutron count to CRII - so I could see it for myself.

    The bottom line is that both CRII and neutron counts increase at high latitudes so you would expect cloud cover amplitude to also increase. That cloud cover amplitude shows little dependence on latitude indicates cosmic rays are not a major factor in the modulation of cloud cover - if correlation between the 11 year signal in cloud cover and the solar cycle is real, most of it is due to other aspects of solar activity.
  20. The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
    It seems that there is another new twist where the Antarctic Deep Sea Gets Colder. "The data gap can only be closed with the aid of autonomous observing systems, moored at the seafloor or drifting freely, that provide oceanic data for several years."
  21. Antarctica is gaining ice
    "Computer models have predicted that energetic particles hitting the top of the atmosphere in polar regions may change temperatures by stimulating the production of nitrous oxides (NOx)." "NOx destroys ozone in catalytic reaction cycles; and when you change ozone in the stratosphere, that... can then feed down to surface temperatures." From an article by BBC News "More doubt on cosmic climate link By Richard Black, Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Vienna" under the subhead Local change
    Response: I did see that article earlier today. The section on Antarctica is interesting although the phenomena they're describing seems to be regional and shows no long term trends - it's a localised, short term effect. However, what did get my attention was the section on cosmic rays as I've actually been preparing a post on that very topic - cloud cover during Forbush events. This new study covers the same material using different data so I contacted the author this morning hoping to get more info. More on this soon, I hope.
  22. There is no consensus
    Frankbi, I believe the number 19 originally came from Andy Revkin's Dotearth blog. Andy Revkin later said that he had gotten emails from other scientists saying that there were several dozen more in attendence. Granted, its not 19,000, but its not 19 either. Beyond that, the 19,000 scientists are not all in climate related field, but apparently the Scientific American did some "crude extrapolating" and found roughly 200 climate researchers in the bunch. Again, not 19,000, but still a respectable number. The Oregon Petition isn't worth much anyhow.
  23. There is no consensus
    frankbi I was referring to all the peer-reviewed papers, and the blogs that link to them. Legitimate or not, there is an awful lot of dissent. The conference you mention was more like a rally from what I have read about it. I really don't consider that dissent, although a few of it's speakers did post their papers on-line. I have read many papers on-line that are skeptical but not actually in opposition to the AGW hypothesis. Do you consider these to be dissenters?
  24. It's the sun
    John Me too.
  25. The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
    Here is the link directly to the CO2 Sources sample map
  26. The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
    In a recent article the new "Vulcan" system maps CO2 Sources (and sinks as well). Take a good look at the sample map in the article!
  27. It's the sun
    Quietman Definition of Argument 1'A connected series of statements intended to establish a position; a process of reasoning or disputation..,' NSOED 1993
    Response: I'm having a deja vu of a Monty Python sketch :-)
  28. It's the sun
    ScaredAmoeba And I do not intend to make an argument, my intent is to learn more about climate change by questioning the points that I do not understand. The articles and papers that I have read all seem to be conflicting and I want to know why. The most logical statements I have seen all agree that we need to plan for a changing climate. Cleaner resources are a given, that is common sense. But putting the effort into controlling CO2 does not seem sensible given that we can have so little effect by following that route.
  29. Climate change on Mars
    Philippe So what you are saying is that the same forces that cause the increased speed of the solar wind do not carry along with it the increased heat that is expelled in the microflare?
  30. It's the sun
    ScaredAmoeba It would be silly to try to do something about the sun now would it not? Perhaps since we actually have no control over climate change we should put our effort into ways that we can live with it?
  31. Philippe Chantreau at 01:12 AM on 21 April 2008
    Climate change on Mars
    Quietman: planetary magnetic fields shield planets from particles (solar winds), not from solar irradiance.
  32. There is no consensus
    The so-called "large amount of dissent" is just a small group of people making a lot of noise again and again. Remember the claim that there were 19,000 scientists disputing global warming? During the New York denialist conference ("2008 International Conference on Climate Change"), it turned out there were only _19_ scientists. Looks like the number 19,000 is off by a factor of 1,000. As an added bogus, the logo for the denialist conference was a loudspeaker. -- bi, http://frankbi.wordpress.com/
  33. It's the sun
    Quietman Flawed logic! IF what you say were true and it's a BIG IF, then it becomes even MORE important to reduce CO2 emissions to even LOWER levels than if CO2 was the primary cause of warming, because it's fairly impossible to do anything about the sun. I'm surprised that you weren't smart enough to spot that! Of course in the topsy-turvy world of AGW denial things that make sense don’t and things that don’t make sense, do. The next time you meet Alice in Wonderland, say hi! The tipping points remain waiting and at some stage they will be triggered. It matters not one jot to the clathrates or the permafrost where the heat is derived from. The ocean too is warming and that will mean outgassing. BTW Your link was corrupted and did not work. [hhttp protocol] I looked at the site you recommended and it's not science, it's not even peer reviewed but it's garbage and of no relevance. Not a single peer reviewed reference. But I noticed the Exxon funded Hoover Institute! Don't you just love the smell of that oil money! You will have to try harder, much harder. Try some real objective peer-reviewed science - you know the stuff that doesn't smell of oil or coal. Your argument gets even more unbelievable with every post.
  34. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    Quietman You are repeating the deceitful alarmist allegations made repeatedly by skeptics From Scientists add to heat over global warming by S. Fred Singer Washington Times, May 5, 1998 “But this exaggerated concern about global warming contrasts sharply with an earlier NAS/NRC report, "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action." There, in 1975, the NAS "experts" exhibited the same hysterical fears—-this time, however, asserting a "finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years." The 1975 NAS panel claimed to have good reason for their fears: Global temperatures had been in steady decline since the 1940s. They considered the preceding period of warming, between 1860 and 1940, as "unusual," following as it did the "Little Ice Age," which had lasted from 1430 to 1850.” http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/sciaddheat.html You will note that the terms ‘exaggerated’, ‘hysterical fears’ and ‘fears’ are used. There are a number of other changes too that render the use of quotes highly questionable. 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE: A program for action Strangely, From the foreword (by V E Suomi, Chair of the US Committee for GARP): "..,we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..,". From the introduction "Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know". Not much evidence of hysteria! It would seem that the allegations of exaggeration and hysteria were complete fabrications introduced by Singer. The measured and cautious language of the National Academy of Sciences has been entirely born out.
  35. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    PaulM, You bemoan people attempting to [quote]‘re-write recent history’. However, reporting the facts does not amount to ‘rewriting history’! The people actually responsible for the rewriting of history are not AGW fanatics, but people politically or ideologically aligned to industry and typically funded directly or indirectly by the fossil fuel funded denial industry. Peterson et al. 2008 have merely attempted to establish the facts and set the record straight. The fact that you may have identified two additional relevant papers and claimed there are ‘many more’, which may or may not support your pet theory, does not invalidate their research. It seems probable that any additional papers fitting the various search criteria will be distributed in much the same way as the papers already listed, unless there is a very good reason why they should not be included.
  36. Climate change on Mars
    Victor Actually as I understand it, Mars should be less sensitive because it lacks the magnetic field that protects the earth. The sun distorts the magnetic field of the earth, altering what radiation can pass through but since mars lacks this field the sun has no martian field to distort so its effect is much the same all the time. I am sure Philippe will correct me if I got it wrong. :)
  37. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    frankbi Read the media articles, they are almost always alarmist. Those that have comment sections often disappear after someone disproves the article. I have seen this on CBS, ABC and LiveScience quite a few times. Then there is the BBC.
  38. CO2 lags temperature
    Dan Pangburn Very astute observation. Another look at those graphs will also show that temperatures fell dramatically when CO2 was at it's peak.
  39. CO2 lags temperature
    ScaredAmoeba Re: "The economic argument that carbon taxes will damage the US economy is bogus." This is an unknown. It could go either way depending on exactly who is taxed and how much as well as who is hired and how many. If we are heavily taxed to pay for green products made in India we loose. If we are lightly taxed for production within the US by non-illegals we win. Can you assure us that the latter will be the case rather than the former?
  40. Al Gore got it wrong
    Carrick Recent articles published within the past year have indicated that the ice sheets that are in fact melting in both Greenland and Antarctica is "at least in part due to vulcanism" (they discovered active volcanos under the ice sheets, first one, then another ...).
  41. It's the sun
    ScaredAmoeba There is more than one solar hypothesis. Most of which are much more recent than the greenhouse hypothesis, of which there are also more than one. The simple fact is that the effect on temperature based solely on CO2 was only 50% of what the models predicted: Ohio State University Fact Sheet
  42. There is no consensus
    All of you do realize of course that there is a very basic premise involved: If there was a consensus, there would be very little dissent. Given the extremely large amount of dissent, we must assume one of two things: 1) there is no consensus or 2) the consensus is not what the IPCC claims it to be.
  43. CO2 lags temperature
    ScaredAmoeba 1. I said "what IF. (food for thought). There is a CO2 feedback effect and a contribution by AGW regardless. 2. Not one single graph that I have seen matched the rise in CO2 to the rise in temperature without some serious manipulation. Show me a graph of rising surface temperaturs that is based solely on rural weather stations and a chart of CO2 with a matching slope. You won't be able to.
  44. It's cosmic rays
    Here are a few new studies in favor of the climate-GCR link: http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.2765.pdf http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.2766.pdf GCRs are certainly a fascinating aspect of climate.
  45. There is no consensus
    Philippe wrote: "Even in periods of end interglacial times, when temps would be expected to slowly cooling down, as you mentioned?" Is it a "period of end interglacial time"? Well it depends on what you think causes the glacial periods--if the mechanism isn't there, then it isn't going to happen. If you believe the Milankovitch cycles are what initiates the glacial/interglacial, then we are still a ways from another glacial period. So it is not inconceivable that the planet would experience a warming at this time. Then he wrote: "Even on that kind of time scale, a blink of an eye really? OK, but can you substantiate with references?" If you want to take issue with the idea that the planet has had warming similar to the recent warming on both the time scale and in magnitude, be my guest. It would be a losing battle. As for references, all one has to do is a little searching--this interglacial, the last glacial, the last interglacial, etc. It won't be too hard to find warming of this magnitude in this time scale.
  46. Philippe Chantreau at 06:50 AM on 19 April 2008
    There is no consensus
    "The recent warming is hardly unprecedented." Even in periods of end interglacial times, when temps would be expected to slowly cooling down, as you mentioned? Even on that kind of time scale, a blink of an eye really? OK, but can you substantiate with references?
  47. There is no consensus
    My comparison using November and late frost was meant to imply that this interglacial has gone on several thousand years too long, with respect to previous interglacials. You say: "About climate, a warming like the one seen lately, while temps should be stable in our kind of time scale, is an element of instability." If the recent warming is an element of instability, then you have just contradicted your previous assertion that we have had 600kyr of very stable climate, because events similar to the recent warming have occurred a multitude of times in the last half a million years. The recent warming is hardly unprecedented.
  48. Philippe Chantreau at 15:34 PM on 18 April 2008
    There is no consensus
    The weather comparison is not useless or irrelevant. Events like freezing in june or 4 months without rain are elements of instability, if they turn into a trend. Just like being in late november and still waiting for a frost to come, if it happens more and more regularly (as it has). About climate, a warming like the one seen lately, while temps should be stable in our kind of time scale, is an element of instability. A massive injection in the atmosphere of a gas ike CO2 (whose physical properties are known) is also an element of instability.
  49. Did global warming cause Hurricane Katrina?
    The mere fact that he devotes a portion of his slideshow/movie to hurricanes would imply that he wants his audience to believe that GW and an increase in hurricane frequency/intensity go hand-in-hand. He gets no free pass for any aspect of that.
  50. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    This uncertainties yields also for negative feedbacks. Why are climatologist only talking about positive feedbacks? Every complex dynamic system, as climate is, has both positive and negative feedbacks. If the earth climate had only positive feedbacks live wasn't impossible.
    Response: A fair point - there are also negative feedbacks in the climate system. Eg - clouds have both positive feedback (trapping heat) and negative (reflecting sunlight). The question is what is the net feedback once you've added up all positive and negative feedbacks. This is looked at in Empirical evidence for positive feedback.

Prev  2605  2606  2607  2608  2609  2610  2611  2612  2613  2614  2615  2616  2617  2618  2619  2620  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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