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  2618  2619  2620  2621  2622  2623  2624  2625  2626  2627  2628  2629  2630  2631  2632  2633  Next

Comments 131251 to 131300:

  1. Models are unreliable
    QM: The earth-moon barycentre is around 1700km BENEATH our crust..so the tidal effect of the moon/sun would 'stir up' the lower mantle...presumably a very low frequency effect....and increase surface volcanic activity??
  2. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe On the cracking ice shelf. Are you aware of the major recent earthquake? Antarctica is not a single plate. That shelf rests on a smaller plate and the plate recently shifted along the fault with the larger plate, about the same time as the china quake.
  3. It's the sun
    Pep Thanks, that works. Mizimi They have determined that some volcanos also eject high amounts of SO2 on earth. It was mentioned in one of the articles that I linked on the volcanos thread here.
  4. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PPS Now more than ever Darwin needs to be defended.
  5. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PS Peer review is not required for the private sector, results are all that count. Peer review is required for academics for good reason but it has been and is being abused.
  6. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe I guess that you had to be there. Watch some old news clips about Viet Nam and how we were greeted as we arrived home. First stop for many of us was california. I lived there for several years, near LA, so I speak from experience. When I got back east the reverse was true. The attitude then, as now, was anything to help.
  7. We're heading into an ice age
    On sea levels: In Australia a bed of semi-fossilised molluscs has been found above current sea level and dated at between 4500 to 6000 years old. This suggests current MSL has fallen over the last 6000yrs. since Australia is not very active tectonically. Wait til the creationists find that one! I can't remember the exact page but more detail is at John-Daly web site.
  8. Models are unreliable
    Sandy Winder: Gustav was weather, not climate. Gustav was the end product of the climate process. Weather can be predicted over VERY short periods with a reasonable level of accuracy; at present, climate cannot. This is a good chunk of what the argument is all about. The uncertainty with Gustav was not that it would hit, but exactly where and at what level ( eventually I think downgraded to Cat2) so it would have been foolish to ignore it. A side benefit of the dispute is that we are learning a lot more about climate,history,the biosphere etc.
  9. It's the sun
    On Venus: When the Galileo satellite passed by, it collected a lot of interesting data. Including the fact that at IR levels, the atmosphere appears black...ie strongly absorbing IR. This is attributed to the SO2 clouds. There is further thought that the 'greenhouse' effect on Venus is caused by high level SO2 clouds rather than lower level CO2, and that most of the solar energy absorbed is via SO2. Any water vapour present would have been dissociated by UV and 'blown away' by the solar wind due to the lack of a magnetic field, thus stripping the planat of water. Currently there is a project to carry out a detailed 2 year investigation of Venus' climate and compare its' evolution with our own. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/may2008/presentations/5Titov.pdf
  10. It's the sun
    www.er.doe.gov/OBER/CPDAC/January_14_2008_DraftReport3_1.pdf
  11. Philippe Chantreau at 15:25 PM on 5 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    What the heck are you talking about WA? The Northwest and Northeast passages are open at the same time. Arctic sea ice extent experienced the fastest decline ever observed for a single August this year. The statement that Arcic sea ice is up 13% is about the most misleading and dishonest BS you could possibly come up with. 13% above what? The 1979-2000 average? What data are you using? I assume that you are trying to say that it is 13% more than last year at the same date, notwithstanding the fact that last year had a pefect storm of weather conditions leading to the greatest melt ever observed (27% below average). That 13% is probably no longer correct as of now anyway. It looks more likely now than at any other time this year that the 07 minimum could be exceeded, even though the exceptional weather conditions that caused last year's melt did not repeat. Meanwhile the Antarctic sea ice has not experienced any statistically significant change, but ice shelves are falling like flies, the latest is the Wilkins. Interestingly, the Wilkins ice shelf has seen its worst collapse in the Austral winter. I understand one who is skeptical, but don't go around throwing BS, it's almost as annoying as conspiracy theory rants. http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/denial/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080710115142.htm Quietman, your characerization of scientific peer-review is grotesque. Einstein's work was peer-reviewed, even his very daring first relativity paper in 1905. Some doubted the validity, because they did not understand the maths. Those who did embraced it. Darwin does not need you to defend anything, nature is his advocate and nature does not care about human opinion at all. By the way, I asked around about that California thing, haven't got anything yet but people looking at me with round eyes. It's pretty sad that one can reach your age and lack wisdom so much as to call a place despicable, as if everything and everyone there was beyond hope. Loose the rancor, it'll do nothing but clog your arteries.
  12. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi: Did you even read the article at the link I posted? Prof. Tom Segalstad is a well respected scientist, and one who has left the IPCC because he simply doesn't believe that their "science" is correct. Unlike yourself, I'm not one to dismiss the view of a respected scientist simply because it is reported by a source whose politics I don't agree with. No matter where you get your news, the undeniable fact remains that more and more IPCC scientists are abandoning the sinking ship. With respect to the term "alarmist", there simply is no better word to describe the behavior of many AGW proponents. You advise me to "read the science". Well, I suggest you widen your choice of scientific reading matter and take your own advice. The writing is on the wall. Good luck...
  13. Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
    PS Ignore Franks comments, he seems to attack everyone who does not fully endorse AGW. A definate Troll.
  14. Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
    Will Nitschke Well stated. The fundamentalists in my country still deny plate tectonics as well as Darwin's hypothesis. It does not alter the fact that Darwin was correct in the assumptions he made by observation (his errors are essentially due to time scales, he thought that the earth was much younger than it is). EvoDevo has borne out his hypothesis and also borne out the estimated time splits with a small margin of error. Check out Dr. Aaron Filler's web site The Upright Ape or "A new Origin of Species". Aside from a few publication errors, an excellent book as well.
  15. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    John and John and Josh Nice job.
  16. Greenland is gaining ice
    There is no argument of overall ice loss in Greenland. The glacial growth is not keeping up with glacial loss. The argument is the cause. Without the additional heat loss from the earth (vulcanism) through both tectonics and volcanism it might not be a net loss. In other words the reason behind Greenland's and the Arctics ice melt is in question. See the volcano thread.
  17. It's the sun
    Pep I cant open that site. Is there a typo maybe?
  18. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi And you are correct that I do have a bias, I am adamantly anti-alarmist, anti-activist, anti-fundamentalist, anti-terrorist and anti-communist and definately a conservationist and environmentalist. Above all I believe in honesty and being a native New Yorker tend to be frank. I am a stout defender of Charles Darwin's hypothesis and the Theory of Evolution. If that is upsetting to some I really don't care. I state my views honestly and do not like being called a liar. Now we can talk.
  19. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi Re: "Mainly, read technical papers and stay away from right wing blogs." The same is true of left wing blogs. I do read the papers, I just do not attempt to interpret them in any way. I take them for exactly what they say. Peer review today has become political and basically useless. Both the deniers and alarmists use only the like minded to do the review so why even bother. I have read many non-peer reviewed papers that have proven to be true, why should today be any better than yesterday. Was Charles Darwin's work peer reviewed? Its a way for some to shut others out, right or wrong. Dr. Fairbridge wrote many papers that were not peer reviewed. The Fairbridge Curve has been determined factual despite a consensus against him (it was named in derision). Dr. Spencer did a good article on CO2 sensitivity. I don't give a rats ass if it was peer reviewed or not. Spencer's reputation is a good one despite mistakes, it only proves that he's human. As for which blogs are right or left wing I don't know. If the blog is political in any manner I avoid it.
  20. It's the sun
    About overestimating in climate models after all we created them, there are errors and room for debate. http://www.er.doe.gov/OBER/CPDC/January_14_2008_DraftReport3_1.pdf
  21. Wondering Aloud at 06:35 AM on 5 September 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    "Lee Grable at 19:05 PM on 2 September 2008 My user name is my real name Quietman, as is every other person on this website who speaks the truth." Some of us are protecting real scientists working in the field from pc witch hunts. When you head an organization to which many researchers belong it is dangerous to be honest and outspoken on this issue. The IPCC is a political organization it is most certainly not the "600" leading scientists in the field, nor is it holy writ or even accepted by the contributors. Leaving all of that aside the original point of this thread "arctic see ice melt..."; since sea ice is up 13% this year in the arctic and remains at or near the highest recorded in the Antarctic, should we assume cooling has settled in? What next endangered polar bears?
  22. Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
    Use raw data without corrections and see what they say.
  23. Do 500 scientists refute anthropogenic global warming?
    Well I don't know how many (nor do I actually care) but I have talked to quite a few and read the papers of quite a few more now, that refute the IPCC stance. They do not refute the issue however, just CO2 as the cause.
  24. Do growing glaciers disprove global warming?
    Interesting comments and links, thank you both.
  25. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    Mizimi The single largest issue on carbon capture (and habitat) that I read in the UK papers like the Telegraph or the Times is the deforrestation issue. It is not ssen as easily in the US as it is in the UK and that is a real problem here.
  26. It's the sun
    PS I am glad that the absurdity was not lost on you.
  27. It's the sun
    sandy I suggest that you read Spencer's work on sensitivity. It is linked here somewhere, possibly in the "sensitivity" thread. The fact is that CO2 and all other GHGs are feedbacks to solar energy. Change the solar input and the feedback changes with it. So when you see an increase in temp from GHG it is caused by changes in solar output. The case for venus is a bit more complicated but as that isn't the subject I kept it on a simplified level, using it the same way that the alarmists have (they claim we will look like venus if we don't take action, so I used their absurd notion).
  28. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    PS Sorry about the spelling, I am disabled and my eyesight varies throughout the day. The B/W contrast blurs the letters so I don't see the errors untils they are on the orange field.
  29. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    koyaanisqatsi If you look through this website you will see that I do not deny AGW but accept it as a valid hypothesis. My argument has been and continues to be the validity of the alarmist calims specifically for CO2 induced AGW. I can not see the climate sensitivity as high and do see other factors that are more likely causes. I certainly do not deny warming but I am greatly skeptical due to personal observations in my travels and the combined observations of other travellers that it is indeed global, hence the argument as to the accuracy and validity of the measurements as quoted. My "side" if you want to call it that, is Anti-alarmist, although I consider it anti-terrorist or anti-fundamentalist. John Cook is pro AGW but not an alarmist and for the most part I agree with his articles and comments. There is a difference between "taking sides" and being open minded.
  30. Antarctica is gaining ice
    The misinformation on this site is astonishing. Antarctic ice is increasing. In addition to the cryosphere link provided Anthony, This is confirmed by NSIDC, http://nsidc.org/data/smmr_ssmi_ancillary/regions/total_antarctic.html by NCDC, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/apr/global.html#seaice and by numerous scientific papers, including Cavalieri and Parkinson, J. Geophys. Res. 113, C07004 (2008), Comiso and Nishio, J. Geophys. Res. 113, CO2S07 (2008). You have managed to find one paper that finds a decrease - but that only covers a 3 year period! Obviously you cannot get a significant trend from 3 years data.
    Response: Note: the rebuttal above has been updated since this comment was posted, incorporating later references and clarifying that sea ice and land ice are two separate phenomena. Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The reasons for sea ice increasing in a warming Southern Ocean are complex and described in detail above.
  31. It's the sun
    /// QM:In other words the earth is not very sensitive to CO2 as a GHG. If it was we would have looked like Venus during the Mesozoic. So the simple answer is that the IPCC has seriously overestimated the sensitivity to CO2 while doing the opposite for TSI. /// No we would not have looked like Venus during the Mesozoic because Venus and the earth are different in many ways. For one thing Venus is nearer the sun. It has no magnetic field to protect the atmosphere and it has no plate tectonics or satellite. But carbon dioxide has the same properties on Venus as it does on earth. I would though like to see some evidence that the IPCC has overestimated sensitivity to CO2.
  32. Models are unreliable
    The models did a pretty good job stating where hurricane Gustav would end up. Should the people of New Orleans have ignored them as well - because they couldn't be 100% certain of their accuracy?
  33. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    HealthySkeptic: NewsBusters is exactly the type of source you do not read for GW information. Their claim “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias” is the dead giveaway. GW and AGW are not ideological debates; they are scientific debates. Read the science.
  34. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman. You do have a side and I think you have a bias. The term global warming alarmist is inherently judgmental and, if I may say so, negative. The phrase global warming denier or skeptic is more neutral. Surely you can see this. But even the term "skeptic" is often misused when discussing GW or AGW. A skeptic is "a person inclined to question or doubt" an accepted opinion. But most people who might call themselves skeptics simply do not believe in GW or AGW. I've tried to honestly debate some of these "skeptics" and they don't merely question or doubt GW; they simply do not and will not believe, and they can't quite explain why. And this is more than just a matter of semantics. It goes to the heart of what you believe or don't believe and whether you are being honest with yourself about your beliefs and disbeliefs. As you have guessed, I'm a GW/AGW believer. I'm not sold on the details yet. There is still much to learn. Real believers and real skeptics could work this through honestly. But with all the name-calling and accusations (esp. on the Internet), there seems to be all too little real debate. For example, your referring to someones post: "That is your opinion, and theirs. The best have already left the IPCC because they were true scientists who refused to have their work altered. This line of argument is both childish and foolish. ..." is not helpful. When did you become the sole arbiter of what line of argument is "childish and foolish"? I think you need to take your own advice about doing your homework. Mainly, read technical papers and stay away from right wing blogs.
  35. Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
    John, In response to #5, Steve L, you said>> "... the skeptics suddenly have lost their skepticism for climate models -or at least for these results." What makes you say that, wishful thinking perhaps? Until computer models can actually predict something that can be confirmed (rather than spit out questionable "correlations" in 20:20 hindsight), I think most skeptics will remain just that.
  36. It's Urban Heat Island effect
    uuuuuh...is it me or are the colours all wrong? Canada, Greenland, Siberia all hotter than the Sahara desert?
  37. It's not bad
    What about global warming reduces heating fuel consumption? Philippe: We should hold very lightly info that doesn't have empirical data tacked onto it....eg: Co2 fertilisation ( or lack of it) Jasper Ridge have been conducting controlled experiments on plants for the past 3 yrs and their data shows 1/3rd increase in biomass if CO2 alone is increased, and up to 85% increase if water/minerals/ temp are optimised WITHOUT extra CO2.
  38. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    Some crude sums......... 85 - 90% of the 33C elevation of GMT is due to W.vapour. Thus the GG's are responsible for 10-15% (3.3 - 5C) MM CO2 emissions are ~27E9 tons so allowing for MM CH4 emissions (3.0E9tons CO2 equivalent), total MM GG's are around 30.0E9tons (2005) Total atmospheric CO2 = 3.0E12 tons (2005) Thus MM GG contribute 1% of 3.3-5C (.033-.05C) To double total atmospheric CO2 content from 3.0E12 to 6.0E12 solely from MM CO2 @ current increase of 30.E9/a requires 200years. (385ppm to 770ppm assuming all CO2 remains in atmosphere - wrong but never mind). Assume direct lineal warming effect (wrong but never mind)GG's would then contribute to a further GMT rise of 3.3-5C over 200 years. This is 1.65-2.5 C /century. or .17 - .25C/decade. GISS data for land/Oceans: 1980-1990 show a rise of .15C 1990-2000 show a rise of .15C 2000-2007 show a rise of .10C GISS data for met. stations: 1980-1990 show a rise of .15C 1990-2000 show a rise of .19C 2000-2007 show a rise of .12C So it looks like we can expect GMT to rise from around 14 to 15.5 by 2107 Numbers are fun.
  39. It's the sun
    Great posts, we think alike. The real climate fear from actual science is swift change, which the world past shows how volatile it truly is. CO2 views as an industry and population agenda. Ultimately humans have a natural tendency to tackle problems viewed solvable, especially when the problem involves their back end. The "other climate” mentioned have been known for quite a while but CO2 was narrowed which is ludicrous. The world itself will never be narrow.
  40. Did global warming cause Hurricane Katrina?
    John, Your article correctly states that there is no observable link between GW and hurricane frequency. However, your inference that the ink between sea temperatures and hurricane intensity can be attributed to GW is seriously flawed, as explained in this article by William H. Gray, professor emeritus in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University;- Hurricanes and Hot Air
  41. Do growing glaciers disprove global warming?
    Well that didn't work, did it. :( You'll have to look in the original linked document for the graph I'm afraid...
  42. Do growing glaciers disprove global warming?
    I came across this article on the net recently;- Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide which includes the following graph of glacier shrinkage ;- This data goes back a lot longer than the data in John's article above and tends to refute his conclusions. Any comments?
  43. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    I'm not sure the IPCC has any other choice but to lie at times. Well, not lie exactly, more correctly they are forced to be more and more inventive with their AGW hypothesis. A typical example can be found here;- Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge No wonder more and more scientists are defecting from the sinking ship.
  44. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    Mizimi, "...maybe we have been around longer than anyone thinks????" :) We'll have to call that one the "Fred Flintstone Theory" ;)
  45. It's the sun
    Pep For some reason the link I posted for you is dead. I probably made another typo so here is the text, just copy and paste: http://www.livescience.com/space/080901-mm-night-shining.html
  46. It's the sun
    Pep I actually do not disagree with AGW, it is a valid hypothesis. What or more specifically who I disagree with, are alarmists who twist the works of skeptics and totally neutral scientists either into a denial or falsely supporting AGW, and activists who seem to worship their word as gospel. Dr. Hansen is without any doubt an alarmist from his "or we are all toast" statement, rendering his judgement clouded in my view. And since he is the primary author at Real Climate, it in turn is alarmist, so I don't go there anymore. My issue with CO2 is purely one of sensitivity. I see other causes that are stronger than CO2 induced AGW simply because AGW is weaker than originally thought and the emphasis on CO2 in particular is distracting the science and preventing finding the actual problem. I don't know if it is a blind faith, cognitive disonnance, an agenda or something else. I was taught to question everything that did not seem logical and that had stood me well in an engineering environment (I am now retired) so I do not understand their irrational behavior. If you are interested in what I think is happening see the volcanos thread, which I feel is related to this thread via Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge's (non-peer reviewed) solar hypothesis.
  47. It's the sun
    Pep I found the original story (I still can't remember where I put the lik originally). Strange Clouds Spotted at the Edge of Space By Jeremy Hsu, Staff Writer, posted: 01 September 2008 08:50 am ET, 30 Comments A brief opening quote: “The noctilucent or “night-shining” clouds are at an altitude of 47 to 53 miles (76 to 85 km), where meteors and bright aurora lights are not uncommon and the atmosphere gives way to the blackness of space.” and from the body of the article: “Another likely source of water vapor is methane oxidation” It's an interesting read. :)
  48. It's the sun
    Good one, so when do they arrive back home? I’ll watch this thread for the link, and thank you.
  49. CO2 lags temperature
    Austerlitz The relationship as stated and accepted by the IPCC may indeed be false, I agree. But there is a feedback that has a minor effect and can be viewed as symptomatic. Spencer gives a good explanation for this, the sensitivity to CO2 is lower than the sensitivity of other drivers/forcings and easily overcome which is indicated in the current cooling trend. The idea that CO2 caused AGW therefore is rather meaningless since it is not strong enough to have driven climate change from 1975 through 2007. Recent articles on ocean oscillations and plate tectonics/vulcanism indicate that "The solar jerk" is at work.
  50. It's the sun
    Pep We had been discussing CH4 and tropospheric clouds in a recent article on how they form with Mizimi. Unfortunately I don't remember where I put the link to the article but I don't think it was flying cows. I believe it may have been about methane hydrates but now I can't remember. :)

Prev  2618  2619  2620  2621  2622  2623  2624  2625  2626  2627  2628  2629  2630  2631  2632  2633  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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