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  2621  2622  2623  2624  2625  2626  2627  2628  2629  2630  2631  2632  2633  2634  2635  2636  Next

Comments 131401 to 131450:

  1. HealthySkeptic at 14:43 PM on 28 August 2008
    Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    Well said, Mizimi! In addition to the emotional aspect, being the very egotistical creatures that we are, we humans are also very good at over-estimating our impact on nature.
  2. HealthySkeptic at 14:23 PM on 28 August 2008
    Global cooling: the new kid on the block
    John, I liked your comment, "The flaw in this interpretation is in drawing conclusions about long term climate change over a relatively short period". In the history of the Earth, 100 years is a "relatively short period", so the same could be said about drawing conclusions about observations over that time frame. There's only one absolutely certainty about climate... and that is that it WILL change.
  3. HealthySkeptic at 14:10 PM on 28 August 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Philippe, In #38 you said "Black carbon is nonetheless anthropogenic." Not completely... there are significant natural sources.
  4. HealthySkeptic at 13:31 PM on 28 August 2008
    Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    What about water vapour as a negative feedback, due to the reflecton of solar radiation away from the Earth by clouds? Surely if water vapour levels in the atmosphere increase then there is a greater tendency for clouds to form, reflecting more radiation away from the earth.
  5. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    I apologise in advance ........... " they strain out gnats and swallow camels..." THE current estimated GMT (actual) is 14C. The anomaly 1970 -2008 is around +0.55C which as a linear trend is +0.18/decade. If that trend continues in a linear fashion, then by 2108 the GMT will be 15.8C assuming all other things remain equal. Not impressed.
  6. Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    The schematic is misleading. Firstly, it is not representative of the actual processes going but only shows a snapshot in time. Secondly, there is no CO2 balance in biomass input/output: CO2 is constantly being locked up/ released at varying rates so there is no dynamic equilibrium. In (geologically)ancient times CO2 concentrations were as high as 6000ppm...for a long time high enough to preclude oxygen breathers evolving...until sufficent CO2 was locked up by plant life ( the oceans would have been more or less saturated) and O2 levels raised by algae and cyanobacteria. There is no balance! Check out the Oxygen Cycle.
  7. It's the sun
    ///The as yet unanswered question is: what causes these ice ages to start and stop? Until we can answer this question with high accuracy we know nothing about what climate is or how it works./// I think it is bit unfair to say that scientists know nothign about climate. They know quite a lot about it. The fact they do not everything does not mean they know nothing. Scientists don't know everything about the human body yet but doctors still perform operations.
  8. It's the sun
    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2002-12/1039267568.As.r.html In fact, the Sun is actually getting hotter. As 4 hydrogen atoms turns into 1 helium atom, the total number of particles in the Sun's core decreases. In order for the pressure within the Sun to stay constant, and continue to support itself against gravity, the temperature of the Sun must increase. This increase in temperature results in the Sun becoming brighter as well. In turn, this makes the Earth warmer because the intensity of sunlight is increasing. It is expected that within 1 billion years or so (well before the Sun runs out of hydrogen fuel) the temperature on Earth will increase to the point that a runaway greenhouse will take place. The result is that the Earth will end up looking much like Venus today.
  9. There's no empirical evidence
    "Rising CO2 levels are based not on one station but over 300 stations in 66 countries (World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases). " My count from the WDC site is 298 stations of which only 159 actually measure CO2. The others measure different gasses. Being imprecise simply gives the sceptics another rabbit trail to run down. Current models have a VERY GREAT problem with clouds; even with modern satellite imagery it is beyond our current capability to assess with any reasonable degree of accuracy cloud distribution and density and thus the effect on insolation.
  10. It's methane
    It would be better if the graph went back somewhat more than 20yrs. Preindustrial concentrations are estimated around 700ppb, just 40% of modern concentrations. Much of the rise has to do with population increase and dietary habits. Population increases in the east have demanded increased rice production and the consequent increase in methane emission. Western diets are highly biased to meat consumption resulting in huge growth in ruminant numbers since 1960, another large methane source. Also, I am not too sure if the overall effect of methane is included in models? Methane breaks down into water and CO2 and I would expect the total GG effect of methane to include the secondary effect of these. I recently read that global methane emissions is on the rise...will have to find that paper again........
  11. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Running out of fossil (and Nuclear) fuel is a certainty. BUT before we ever reach that point - however far away that may be - an energy 'war' will start,( arguably has already started)and it will escalate as the energy required to extract these fuels approaches the energy derived from them. Concerns about the effect of a slight rise in temperature over the next century and the consequences thereof are irrelevent in this context: our civilisation will survive the predicted global warming scenario, it will not survive if we do not develop alternative energy sources that are independant of fossil fuels. "Doing nothing" refers to direct action to reduce CO2 emissions; I would argue it is better to do nothing in that context and spend the money 'saved' on exploring and developing alternate energy sources. (Which has the long term effect of reducing CO2 from FF's )
  12. We're heading into an ice age
    "The difference in solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007)" Wang 2005: "The increase in cycle-averaged TSI since the Maunder minimum is estimated to be ~1 W/m2" (instead of 0.17 W/m2?) Krivova 2007: "[The model predicts] an increase in the solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum of 1.3^+0.2_-0.4 W/m2" (instead of 0.23 W/m2?)
  13. It's the sun
    Look here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "The existence of the impact crater, Chicxulub, was first proposed in 1980. In the 1990s, satellite data and ground studies allowed it to gain prominence among most scientists as the long sought-after "smoking gun" responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs and more than 70 percent of Earth's living species 65 million years ago." Whilst the impact would have released a colossal amount of heat energy, this would have only affected a fairly local area, so originally it was thought the dust produced caused sufficient dimming of sunlight to provoke a mass extinction event. Currently however, it is thought that insufficient dust would have been created by this impact to mask the sun long enough and attention has shifted to the possibility of massive SO2 release from local calcium sulphate deposits. SO2 effect would have lasted much longer than so there would have been considerable diminution in plant and animal activity. Bearing in mind the climate was a lot hotter then, the combined effect of dust(immediate) and SO2(longer lasting) would have initiated a rapid cooling which in turn could have been to start a climate 'wobble' which resulted in the cycle of ice ages and intermediate warmer periods. As far as I can tell, no definitive research has been carried out on this possibility.
  14. Philippe Chantreau at 03:15 AM on 27 August 2008
    Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Good question TruthSeeker. However, the "if" GW is occurring, I find rather funny. The melt is in itself indication that is is occurring and fast. To get somewhat back on topic, it's worth looking at the latest NSIDC graph, showing extent getting every day closer to last year's staggering low. The overall slope for August is interesting compared to last year. So is the fact that no inflexion has started yet. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
  15. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    CCE, Your reply made sence, thanks. This topic of discussion focuses mostly on Sea Ice. If global warming is occuring, can sea ice really identify if the cause is natural or man made?
  16. It's not bad
    Mostly pure speculation; extrapolation without including negative feedbacks is useless and as WA. says, harmful to the argument. ? expanding desert areas? Look at the existing deserts and tell me how they formed and grew BEFORE any AGW effects. Oh, and right now Egypt has drilled over 100 wells into the Sahara bedrock and (so far) found sufficient fresh water for the next 500 years. Thank you satellite radar imaging which showed the underlying ancient river courses and lakes. The same technology shows similar ancient water deposits in Darfur ( the war there is directly attributable to scarcity of water) and the government there has been offered the expertise to explore it...which could end that conflict and turn the country into an oasis. My Point? All the doom and gloom projections NEVER NEVER can account for paradigm shifts caused by technology. ( NY was predicted to end up knee deep in horse **** in the 1800's because of exponential increases in the use of horses....it never happened, instead, the automobile did). My point?
  17. Greenland was green in the past
    "If it was a propaganda tool they would not have named iceland as such." Possibly because the places were named by different people, 100 years apart?
  18. Greenland was green in the past
    WA If it was a propaganda tool they would not have named iceland as such. We still can't locate vineland due to the cooling since the discovery.
  19. Greenland was green in the past
    It has been proven that Greenland was in fact greener than today. The Glaciers had receded (not disappeared) enough for the lowland areas to be fertile and climate temperate. The argument for the age of the glaciers is a little absurd since we know that it was not a hot house, just somewhat warmer than it is now, enough to be comparable with Iceland or Finland of today, ie. habitable by the vikings.
  20. It's the sun
    sandy winder Suns output increasing? Where did you hear that? The Sun is the major component in climate. Even if the IPCC figures for CO2 acting as a GHG are correct it could not work without the sun (GHGs are modifiers of solar radiation, not a heat source). In the distant past CO2 levels were in the thousands of ppm rather than low hundreds as they are today. But first it was hot, and then CO2 increased, then we had lush growth, a planetary jungle, and lots of animals to take advantage of it. That was 90% of the earths' history. The other 10% (roughly) consists of 4 ice ages. We are currently in the 4th ice age. It has slowly been warming (positive slope with wide oscillations) for 5 million years. The current period is considered to be an interglacial period. This, however can only be confirmed by another glacation (interglacial means between glacations). We could just as easily be in the post glacial period at the end of an ice age and that would mean it will continue to warm. The as yet unanswered question is: what causes these ice ages to start and stop? Until we can answer this question with high accuracy we know nothing about what climate is or how it works.
  21. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Lee PS As far as this thread goes I am in agreement with John that Kay's paper does explain the melt as natural but the thinning of the ice from prior years made it worse. I only disagree that it was CO2 that was the cause. My reasons are explained in part in the above comments and in other threads, such as "It's Volcanos".
  22. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Lee Grable Actually I am not willing to concede the point of accuracy, it's just not very important to this discussion. We have already beaten this one to death on another thread. If you look at Johns "view all arguments" you will see this is a large site and John has asked everyone to keep the subject matter relevant to the thread. I am trying to comply to his wishes. As far as the solar graphs, see "Its the sun", we have not quite beaten that one to death yet. The last thread on temp measurements was "A new twist on mid-century cooling" and I think it's still active as well.
  23. CO2 lags temperature
    QM: I hear what you say and (as I have said in other places on this site) it simply re-inforces my view that the basic physical model still has some bits missing or not fully understood. We do not even have a reliable physical model for the fluid dynamics of the earth core, so how can you compute tectonic effects into the climate model that would have any real meaning? As an aside: The moon causes tidal waves in all earth's material phases, and that effect is constantly modulated by the sun all the other planetary bodies. I would not care to try and model that either!
  24. CO2 measurements are suspect
    Checking out the site: http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/wdcgg.html simply re-inforces in my mind that the data we have collected does not reflect the real situation. Firstly, there are 298 stations listed which collect information on various atmospheric gases. Only 159 collect data on CO2. The rest sample other gases. There is a range of sampling methods from fixed low level to mobile high altitude.... The distribution of sampling stations is unrepresentative of the global state; there is virtually no coverage of: Afica/Australia/ India/ Middle east /Russia /Asia/ China/Nth Canada/ S.America/Greenland. Sampling is concentrated in the highly industrialised countries so who is going to be surprised that CO2 levels there appear to be increasing? The data cannot represent the global condition.
  25. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    Terry Sloan is careful to make clear that they have never said that there is no connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation. He just believes it's not the whole story when explaining cloud formation. Even Sloan believes the strong negative correlation with historical temperature reconstruction's vs radionuclides and radiocarbon in ice cores is interesting and requires further investigation. Personally I can't escape the logic that these beryllium-10 and radiocarbon ice deposits (formed from GCR interactions in our atmosphere), indicate that GCR's either directly, or indirectly have some effect, or show an unknown effect on our climate. That GCR's come from outside our planet, dictates logically to me that climate is strongly influenced by external factors. When I look at the massive sudden drops, and sudden increases in temperature from the GISP2 Greenland Ice Core data at the start, and the end of the Younger Dryas (only approx 12,000 years ago), I am left speechless... these huge changes in temperature take place in mere decades, the extreme being a 5 deg change in just three years! I certainly need something better to explain these sudden cooling events, and more importantly, the sudden warming events, than Co2. On a side issue, periods in our past showing these large Be-10 levels, formed from CR's, are increasingly being pointed to as a possible explanation for massive globalised Gene duplication events appearing at the same time, and postulated to be one of (if not the main) driver of evolution.
  26. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman,Kurt in post 114 brought it up. But my point still stands. This is part of the pattern that I've seen from the skeptic side over the last few years,that the small amount of data you use to support your arguements is accurate,and to be relied on, but when more data is added that debunks your arguement, all of a sudden the data isn't accurate. It happens over and over again. And when push comes to shove, you skeptics,( and I'm not talking about you personally) resort to flat out lying and falsifying information to advance your arguement. An example of what I'm talking about is what led me to this website in the first place. I Was over at the petition project website, reading their "peer reviewed" report debunking the MMGW consensus,in the report, they showed a graph comparing solar activity with global temps over the last century. Of course, the graph showed a direct corelation between the two. And I thought, if this is true it would raise serious doubts about whether greenhouse gasses were the cause of the warming we've seen. So I google searched, and found this website. In the "it's the sun" thread, there was an identical graph showing that solar activity has basically flattened out since the 70's, while global temps rose to the levels were seeing now. The other differance between the two graphs is that the PP graph offered no references to the data represented on the graph, while the graph here clearly showed where the data came from. That's another pattern I've noticed.Now if I have to choose who to believe, I'm going to lean toward those who use referenced data over those who don't.
  27. It's the sun
    What I can't understand (if the sun is so important) is that for many millions of years when the dinosaurs were alive (and even before them) the planet was warmer than it is now, yet we are also told that the sun's output is gradually increasing over the eons. So how come the earth is not much warmer today, if the sun is the doiminant factor? The only answer seems to be that in the distant past the level of CO2 in our atmosphere was much higher.
  28. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Lee Grable Actually I did not bring it up, comment 115 did. This thread is about last summer's polar melt.
  29. Evaporating the water vapor argument
    BestTimesNow: It seems to me you have taken data for the USA and then used that as a base for the global condition...? I don't disagree with your viewpoint on water...as a major ( possibly THE major) moderator in the climate system...but it has to be viewed as a complete subsystem which would include solid, liquid, gaseous phases as well as atmospheric condensate (clouds). Human activity may well be adding substantially to part of this cycle but this simply shifts the heat-balance.. ( which is what climate is all about)....higher vapour levels eventually ends up as higher precipitation. In any event, whatever factors we choose to 'blame', there remains this: There is a limit to just how much heat can be retained in the system because there is a limit to how much is coming in. Increased CO2 or water vapour cannot 'add' anything that is not already there, they can only moderate the rate at which heat is lost. Heat in = Heat out, No?
  30. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Accelerated polar melt is a precursor to Gulf Stream slowdown as the planets puts into place a simple cause and effect failsafe cooling with time as a constraint mechanism. As it strives too maintain its global ambient temperature An organism that dwells in hostile space environments needs survival contingences, it’s responding to a perceived threat, man made or not. It’s ironic that at a time we begin to understand the limits of the known universe, we fail to appreciate the limits of the very planet we depend on for the continued survival of all dependent species We must not discount the planets ability at radical simpatico adaptation; however we should not second guess a far more superior system which has survived for eons in hostile space environments. The part we play may be minuscule in comparison, but misguided in the extreme. We’ve rushed at the wheel for control, only to find there is no driver; there never was, the planet sets the course and it always will. A global sustainable future for our species is like asking a chain smoker to self prescribe a remedy that doesn't involve kicking the habit. This is why we procrastinate on global climate change This why we renege on global warming mitigation We are hooked on fossil fuel Usage That chronological innovative fossil fuel use has driven us to where we are The majority of Large-scale oil dependent economies have a foot placed firmly on a pedal that over time has become frozen into an accelerated position. And this is why I fear for our future and that of the planet. Because the first step towards recovery, is to seek professional help We have none to help us, but ourselves. It will take a groundswell of global affirmative action and Unparalleled agreement by dynamically opposed governments in the Short-term, for the long-term mitigation of radical global climate change.
  31. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    If the issue is irrelevant, why bring it up?
  32. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Lee Grable The entire issue is somewhat irrelevant. U.S. records show that 1934 eas the hottest year and that the 30s were all warmer than normal. At that time many parts of the world did not even measure temps so the argument for global temp is moot. The level of accuracy compared to today was terrible and it's still not all that great. But we can't ignore that fact that the polar ice has melted to an unusual degree and glaciers are generally in recession so we need to face the fact that parts of the earth are warming. What is needed now is to determine the actual cause and if it is curable. I don't think CO2 is the cause but humans may still be partly at fault through other pollutants such as fertilizers. But we can not say that we know for sure what the cause is and should not stop looking. I still feel that there is much more forcing from the earth itself than some are willing to credit.
  33. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    So let me get this straight,if the data shows that temps in the 30s were hotter than now, the data is accurate, but if on further review the data shows that the 30s weren't hotter than now,the data isn't accurate? Heads I win, tails you lose.
  34. Models are unreliable
    Poptech Re: comment 29 Please correct me if I am wrong but was not Fortran 66 (1966) not machine dependent as well as structure dependent? I am not familiar with Fortran 95 as I stopped using Fortran 77 around 1983 and switched to Pascal so my code would be transportable.
  35. CO2 lags temperature
    Actually I should have said that the results were immediate but we did not see any symptoms for a few years. Many of the recent finds are only known to be recent but not all have a date associated.
  36. CO2 lags temperature
    Mizimi The AGW argument here is based on the fact that TSI stopped following the temp curve in 75 or 76. And they are right on that account, it did. So we know solar forcing has the capability but what happened in 1975-76? The single major event was a full (once in a lifetime) solar alignment. It won't happen again for a very long time. The results were not immediate but started within a few years of the event. The earth became active, plate movement increased speed, new volcanos appeared and old ones became active, large earthquakes, tsunamis and stronger ocean oscillations which are caused/controlled by vulcanism/tectonic activity. In Dr. Fairbridge's hypothesis on gravity affecting the sun we can surmise that the effect would be strong enough to affect the earth as well, stirring things up, so to speak. This explains why only the northern pole is a problem and not the southern pole. It also explains the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly and why we had glacial melts. If you take into account all the anomalies since 1975 you start to see the pattern.
  37. It's the sun
    sandy winder John has asked us to keep the threads relevant to the subject matter. So we argue for or against CO2 on all but for the sun only here. The problem, of course, is that there is no single simple explanation and thats why the models don't work right. Most of the argument here concerns TSI and Camp & Tung show that is a strong forcing comparable for that of CO2 (using IPCC sensitivity). However if the IPCC/NASA figures are too high (which another NASA scientist says they are) then the suns forcing is stronger. But that is still not the whole picture. The earth itself is very active right now. It's hard to go to a science news site without seeing a new discovery about current vulcanism/tectonics. Dr. Fairbridge's hypothesis explains this indirectly. It's all about the entire solar system and the interactions between sun and planets due to something we still do not understand fully: gravity.
  38. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    sandy winder Re: "Recent data confirms the rapid increase in melting." Yes it does indeed but the temps have lowered, proving that the melting is internal and nothing to do with GHG.
  39. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    cce Regardless of how accurate the measurements were the warming did occur. That is not and never has been my argument. My argument is that it is not CO2 induced AGW. The exact amount is irrelevant.
  40. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    to s/b too
  41. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    cce Re: "And it is not the "long return" from an ice age. Those influences require thousands of years, and are not relevent to temps in the '30s compared to now." Apples and Oranges. Not thousands but millions (yes the earth is older than 6000 years) regardless of your bible. We do not have accurate measurements for the 30s. That you can argue until you are blue in the face but its a fact. I worked with state of the art measuring equipment in the 1980s and it was inaccurate compared to the equipment we used in the 1990s but you want me to believe 1930s equipment was better? Got a bridge to sell to?
  42. Do growing glaciers disprove global warming?
    QM: look see at http://www.wgms.ch/index.html "Preliminary mass balance values for the year 2006 are now available from more than 80 glaciers worldwide. The continuous mass balance statistics below are calculated based on the 30 glaciers in 9 mountain ranges*** with long-term data series back to 1980. The statistics for the year 2005 are based on 29 glaciers from 9 regions, and the preliminary values for the year 2006 result from 27 glaciers in 8 regions. The related statistics and figures will be updated as soon as the missing data becomes available." It concerns me that only 30 datasets are used out of a total of 80...that looks very like cherrypicking. In any event glacier melt is a response to GW and acts as a buffer in the system. It has indirect effects on CO2 lockup by increasing groundwater and mineral transfers (land biomass increase); by moderating ocean temps/salinity and mineral availabilty so increasing oceanic biomass. The datasets cover the period 1960 - 2005 but a lot are very recent - 1980 onwards - from my understanding of the world chart, some 13 extra datasets have been included since 2001 ( I could be mis-interpreting the chart!)which, to my mind, would skew the resultant.
  43. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    I don't believe doing nothing is an option. While I doubt we will run out of fossil fuel for along time yet, the cost of extracting it is increasing while the demand for it is also increasing rapidly. So doing nothing and sticking your head in the sand is not really a bright idea. And why should anybody think that employing alternative forms of energy will cause the world's economies to crash? Surely doing nothing is going to cause that much more quickly?
  44. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman, No, I did not prove your point. Your point is that we "don't know" that it is warmer now than in the '30s. We do know. The amount of warming is bounded by uncertainty, and even with that uncertainty we know that it is warmer. Ocean temps, thermometers, sea level, etc. They all indicate that it is warmer now. And it is not the "long return" from an ice age. Those influences require thousands of years, and are not relevent to temps in the '30s compared to now.
  45. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    Squidley: the CO2 emission from Kilauea has been relatively steady at 8000 -8500 tonnes/day until 2005 when they effectively tripled to 26,000t/day. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2006/06_02_23.html The current estimate for manmade CO2 emissions is 75 million tonnes/day (27 billion tonnes/year)and forecasts suggest this may rise to 40 billion tonnes by 2030. Somewhat more than volcanic contributions.
  46. Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
    "Life on Earth now hangs on a fraying string"...presumably life as we would like it to be? Life has survived a whole lot worse than what is being predicted. In the context of Life, mankind is just a pimple on the butt of evolution - whether we survive as a species or not; whether we seriously alter the climate will not stop the process. Regarding feedback: the system is interactive and thus impossible to quantify the effects of feedback of individual components. Everytime one changes, it affects another. Higher levels of CO2 accelerate plant growth and transpiration rates, locking up CO2 and recycling water vapour faster. Higher temps. affect cloud formation and generate storms/hurricanes, and so on. The 'climate' system has demonstrated historically that between fairly wide limits it is stable and able to absorb marked differentials in components both qualitatively and quantitatively. Life is an integral part of the system and thus affects the process.
  47. Has solar cycle 24 begun?
    Warm winter 2007 -2008; couldn't possibly have anything to do with perihelion being Jan 3rd could it? That the difference in insolation between perihelion and aphelion is around 6 -7%?
  48. It's the sun
    Steve, you could also say "I forgot to mention in the above comment that the whole argument that the sun is to blame is based on data/graphs that may be fabricated". It's interesting that on one thread we have people arguing about which is to blame for the warming, the sun or CO2 while on another thread that global warming isn't happening at all. I wonder if some of the same posters are arguing both cases at once.
  49. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    The premise that it was warmer globally in the 30s is not sound. For one thing if the sceptics argue that measuring devices are not considered accurate today then they must have been much less accurate in the 30s in the USA. Instead of worrying about temperature measurements let's look at the evidence instead, such as the dramatic widespread melting of arctic ice and the speeding up of glaciers. This rapid melting did not happen in the 30s because the heating was restricted to minor parts of the planet, like the USA. Recent data confirms the rapid increase in melting.
  50. A new twist on mid-century cooling
    See here...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature "The earliest technique for measuring SST was dipping a thermometer into a bucket of water that was manually drawn from the sea surface. The first automated technique for determining SST was accomplished by measuring the temperature of water in the intake port of large ships. This measurement is not always consistent, however, as the depth of the water intake as well as exactly where the temperature is taken can vary from vessel to vessel. Probably the most exact and repeatable measurements come from fixed buoys where the depth of water temperature measurement is approximately 1 meter." Temperature measurements using the 'bucket' approach were "corrected" to account for the delay between taking the sample and the final observed temp. Ho Hum.

Prev  2621  2622  2623  2624  2625  2626  2627  2628  2629  2630  2631  2632  2633  2634  2635  2636  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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