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

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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.

Recent Comments

Comments 131501 to 131550:

Quietman at 07:58 AM on 1 August 2008

There is no consensus
PS Publishing peer reviewed papers does not a scientist make.

Quietman at 07:57 AM on 1 August 2008

There is no consensus
paledriver You are talking about two peoples seperated by a common language. American connotation varies state to state and even city to city and you nit pick over the connotation of a word used on the opposite side of the world. A little strange I would say. He used the slang meaning of a rocket scientist in a way that an American would not but how is this term normally used in Australia? Maybe John can tell us.

dkap at 04:19 AM on 1 August 2008

April update on global cooling 2008
Well that is a two way street. If Al Gore can use every lightning strike, hurricane, or spring flood as evidence of impending global disaster from climate change, it seems only logical that global warming skeptics can use a month of global cold weather to bolster their position.

paledriver at 07:39 AM on 31 July 2008

There is no consensus
here's those credentials for you, auster.... "Who is 'Rocket Scientist' David Evans? 22 Jul 08 UPDATED: David Evans has sent along his definition of a rocket scientist. See below for details. This title grabbed our attention: Top Rocket Scientist: No evidence C02 causes global warming. And it should. It is a pretty bold statement and the implications would be pretty big news. So we decided to compile a backgrounder on 'The Top Rocket Scientist." Here's the research database entry on David Evans: No peer-reviewed articles on climate change According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change. Evans has published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Instutute, a right-wing free-market think tank. Evans also published a "background briefing" (pdf) document for the Australian chapter of the Lavoisier Group, a global warming "skeptic" organization with close ties to the mining industry. "I am not a climate modeler" From 1999 to 2006 Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office designing a carbon accounting system that is used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol. While Evans says (pdf) that "[he] know[s] a heck of a lot about modeling and computers," he states clearly that he is "not a climate modeler." Background David Evans lives in Australia and gained media attention after an article he wrote titled, No Smoking Hot Spot was published in The Australian in June, 2008.The article claims that climate change is not caused by C02 emissions because there is no evidence of "a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics." Evan's claim has been thoroughly debunked by Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales. According to his bio, Evans claims to be a 'Rocket Scientist' and one article claims that he is a 'Top Rocket Scientist.' While Evans background does show that he has a PhD in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever employed as a rocket scientist. Evans answered our inquiry about his claim to being a rocket scientist with the following explanation: In US academic and industry parlance, "rocket scientist" means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term "rocket scientist" means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions. I did a PhD in electrical engineering at Stanford in the 1980s. Electrical engineering is your basic high tech degree, because most high technology spawned from electrical information technology. I specialized in signal processing, maths, and statistics. The definition provided by Evans would appear to be at odds with the conventional use of the term 'rocket scientist' which according to various sources is "One specializing in the science or study of rockets and their design." For example, here's an entry on Answers.com about Hermann Oberth a famous Rocket Scientist who published a book about rocket travel into outer space in 1932 and is considered one of 3 founding fathers of modern rocketry and astronautics. Evans also claims to be "building a word processor for Windows." DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft Corp. and they have confirmed that he does not work for Microsoft Corporation." http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans

paledriver at 07:36 AM on 31 July 2008

There is no consensus
An outright lie about the American Physical Society "The newest denialist talking point Physicists reaffirm that human-induced GHGs affect the atmosphere Posted by Andrew Dessler (Guest Contributor) at 1:23 PM on 18 Jul 2008 Read more about: climate | climate science | climate change skepticism | greenhouse-gas emissions | scientific research Tools: print | email | + digg | + del.icio.us | + reddit | + stumbleupon It goes something like this: The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. Of course that's not true. Today a statement appeared on the APS website saying: APS Position Remains Unchanged The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed. For a list of societies that have endorsed the mainstream position on climate change, see this post." http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/18/74618/8261

Quietman at 04:53 AM on 31 July 2008

There's no empirical evidence
The following is actually pertinant to all these threads but this one seems the closest. "[ Global Warming: Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found? by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. updated 7:00 a.m. CDT, June 30, 2008 (The following is a simplified version of a paper entitled "Chaotic Radiative Forcing, Feedback Stripes, and the Overestimation of Climate Sensitivity" I submitted on June 25, 2008 for publication in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.) ABSTRACT: This article addresses new satellite and modeling evidence that previous satellite diagnoses of high climate sensitivity--which directly translate into predictions of dangerous levels of global warming--contain a large spurious bias. It is shown that those exaggerated estimates were the result of faulty assumptions regarding clouds when analyzing variations in average global temperature and average reflected sunlight off of the Earth. Specifically, it has been assumed (explicitly or implicitly) that, for global averages on time scales of three months or more, temperature variations cause clouds to change, but that cloud variations do not cause temperature to change. But when properly filtered, the satellite data reveal evidence of cloud variations indeed causing temperature changes, and that this source of natural climate variability biases the estimate of climate sensitivity in the direction of a very sensitive climate system. The new interpretation suggests a very low sensitivity. If the new sensitivity estimate is accurate, it would suggest only 0.5 deg. C of manmade warming by the year 2100. The new sensitivity estimate also suggests that warming over the last century can not be explained by human greenhouse gas emissions alone, but instead might require a mostly natural explanation. ]" Changing the sensitivity number does change ecery argument all at once.

Leland at 00:16 AM on 31 July 2008

Models are unreliable
Oh - and in my research on this subject I found the chart you had above 'Average Mean Global Temperature Change' had been updated over on ClimateAudit: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3354#more-3354 Can I trust the updated charts posted there? They seem to show actual temperature date significantly diverging from Hansen C (ie: lower). Again - I'm not the expert so I'm here asking questions of those who are :-). Thanks.

Leland at 00:10 AM on 31 July 2008

Models are unreliable
Just saw this article referenced on another climate blog: http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671 It studies the accuracy of climate models. Basically compares the model's predictions vs what happened. The conclusion was that climate models don't predict forward very well. I don't have the background to judge whether this article is credible but it did go through a peer reveiw process.

Wasp at 01:36 AM on 30 July 2008

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
TruthSeeker: You can read some more about Antarctic and GW here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold

Vivek Thakur at 20:05 PM on 29 July 2008

Evaporating the water vapor argument
John If CC is acceptable then we can simplify still further and employ the "Boltzmann Atmosphere". As per this effect because of the drop in pressure at higher elevations the mole percent of various gases would drop exponentially depending on their molecular weights and the temperature. An actual calculation shows that at higher elevations the water vapour content is far higher compared to the carbon dioxide levels starting from identical surface levels ! Hence any CO2 generated at the surface should stay practically near this same surface ! This would amplify the effect of water vapour higher in the atmosphere but would reduce the forcing of CO2 on the water vapour since CO2 amounts would be negligible at higher elevations Very crude I know but somewhat interesting ! Incidentally Clausius and Boltzmann were in the same era more or less !

Quietman at 05:05 AM on 26 July 2008

There is no consensus
Austerlitz Thanks for the link. I have posted it at the LiveScience website in an argument that I'm having with one of the NASA guys who isn't a climatologist. Not being a scientist it's hard to be taken seriously so I appreciate the link.

Austerlitz at 12:01 PM on 25 July 2008

There is no consensus
Quietman, Here is another scientist who writes some compelling arguments against the theory: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html I have not checked his credentials; however, I find his arguments convincing. Of course, the Inquisition will dismiss him, as the consensus has already spoken.

cce at 13:48 PM on 24 July 2008

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Somewhat belated: Antarctic sea ice: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf From the Abstract: "The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity, and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004." In other words, a less dense surface layer reduces heat convection from below, which outweighs the increased warming from above. I little known fact: satellite observations began in 1972/1973 for the Arctic/Antarctic. But they aren't as sophisticated as subsequent measurements, and there is a gap in from 1976 to 1978 which is filled with more conventional observational data. However, the recent increase in SH sea ice doesn't match what it was in the early '70s, and there is proxy data showing a large loss starting mid century, but that is disputed. SH Sea Ice: http://cce.890m.com/changes/images/sh-extent.jpg The global trend is clearly down: http://cce.890m.com/changes/images/global-extent.jpg Also, kurt, the '30s were not warmer than current temperatures. In the US, they were similar to today, but global temperatures in the '30s were nowhere close to what they are presently.

Wasp at 23:10 PM on 23 July 2008

We're heading into an ice age
should've been: "... is basically as high as it gets ..."

Wasp at 23:09 PM on 23 July 2008

We're heading into an ice age
Quietman: That's simply not true. The glacial cycles of the last 450'000 years have consisted of long periods of slow cooling, followed by rapid warming. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png - please note that present day is to the left). This rapid warming is believed to be started by small changes in solar forcing (see Milankovitch cycles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) which is enough to start positive feedback spirals: warmer -> more greenhouse gases -> even warmer... Since we've recently come out of an glacial period, temperature is basically is as it gets and should be slowly decreasing (on a long timescale) until we reach the next glacial period. But instead, anthropogenic releases of greenhouse gases have started the process of warming. The amount of released GHG so far is enough to keep the planet warming for a long time (but of course, with possible micro trends of cooling) and we've soon reached a level where positive feedback spirals kick in, meaning that temperature will continue to rise even if we would stop our own releases of GHG.

Quietman at 01:45 AM on 23 July 2008

There is no consensus
Austerlitz The blog that you gave the URL for was interesting but I found the actual APS newsletter even more interesting.

Austerlitz at 06:28 AM on 18 July 2008

There is no consensus
As a Ph.D. scientist, I can attest to the fact there is no consensus among scientists on global warming. So much so, that the American Physical Society has opened debate on the matter. http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm But facts like these seldom get in the way of religious fanatics, and anthropogenic global warming is a religion.

Quietman at 07:23 AM on 17 July 2008

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Buried Volcano Discovered in Antarctica By Dave Mosher, LiveScience Staff Writer 20 January 2008: “This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet," Vaughan said. "The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades, and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration."

Quietman at 13:06 PM on 15 July 2008

Glaciers are growing
John This is a strange claim: Global warming causing California glacier to grow (Wednesday, July 9, 2008) "the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean"

Quietman at 05:49 AM on 15 July 2008

The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
This article from Live Science may explain a little: Seas Striped With Newfound Currents By Brendan Borrell, 14 July 2008

frankbi at 05:34 AM on 11 July 2008

Cartoon about global warming alarmism
LAI: My dear Sir, Worstall's logic and Hazlitt's logic certainly can't both be "sound" at the same time, because they happen to contradict each other. Worstall thinks more jobs is bad, Hazlitt thinks more jobs is good. I think you may need to revise your idea of what constitutes "sound" "logic".

kurt at 04:54 AM on 10 July 2008

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Granted, I have not read all of the comments at this posting, but I have read many of them, and I keep seeing ones that say the world is experiencing unusual warming. Professor Syun-Ichi Akasfu, who studies sea ice and weather, makes a compelling case using peer-reviewed articles that any warming we have seen in recent times is in line with warming that we would expect to see as we recover from the Little Ice Age. Would someone who is prophesier of catastrophic global warming please comment on the case he makes. A paper that he wrote on the subject is "Is the Earth still recovering from the 'Little Ice Age'? : A possible cause of global warming." As for me I don't believe in the catastrophic claims at all. I believe it's all fear-mongering, led by people and groups with political and financial ends in mind or by those who jump on bandwagons without sufficient evidence or who simply scare easily. The fact that the recent temperature measurements of the oceans show them to be cooling slightly in recent years, not heating up, is just one of many reasons that I don't believe this is true, along with the fact that the warmest decade of the last century was the 1930s and the fact that before temperatures stopped rising in about 2003, the world had just hit its 3,000-year average temperature. I also find it a bit amusing that at an earlier posting at this site, the authors go to lots of trouble to show that increased ice creation in the Antarctic is a regional anomaly, while at this posting they want us to believe that ice melting in the Arctic is not a regional anomaly. Again, someone please read the professor paper and comment on the whole argument and all of his proof; don't just try to key on some little nuance so that you can ignore the big picture. Thank you and have a great and hopefully warm day! Here in Wisconsin, we are finally experiencing some summer-like temperatures.

Response: The various points you make are covered at the following pages:

Obviously increasing Antarctic sea ice is a regional anomaly because the Southern Ocean is warming faster than the rest of the oceans of the world. As for Arctic sea ice, the article on this page makes the point that the recent dramatic drop in sea ice was also a regional anomaly - superimposed on the long term trend of falling sea ice. There's your big picture.

Dan Pangburn at 00:56 AM on 9 July 2008

It hasn't warmed since 1998
Compared to the average 1998 through 2007: The average for the first 5 months of 2008 is 0.16°C colder according to Hadley's HADcrut3, and 0.10°C colder according to NOAA while the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues its rise. Climate history shows that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has not had any significant influence on average global temperature. See graphs of NOAA and other credible data (all with source websites given) at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html at four different time scales up to 150,000 ybp.

Quietman at 11:49 AM on 8 July 2008

It's the sun
tlewellen Many of us posting comments are just laymen as well. But because John allows us to put links to reference material it is a great place to learn a lot more about climate change. But like any blog, don't believe everything you read. Like John says at the top of the home page - skepticism is healthy.

Quietman at 08:51 AM on 8 July 2008

There is no consensus
paledriver I was rereading your post #65. Would you consider the description below qualified in climatology? "He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa."

Quietman at 05:07 AM on 8 July 2008

There is no consensus
paledriver I'm not a scientist either, but as a research engineer I made much use of the scientific process. It does not matter how many believe a particular hypothesis is true, only the one that turns out to be right, regardless of how many backers it had. Working in the private sector, I had a lot of trouble getting some of my papers past managers who did not have a clue as to what I was talking about and believed otherwise, but once in the design staff's hands they understood and acted immediately (I have a lot of experience side-stepping managers). Let me give you a very good and reletively recent example: The late Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge studied the oceans for many years and determined that the sealevel rose and fell in cycles. It was named the Fairbridge cycle in DERISION because the consensus said he was wrong. It is now recognized to be correct and the consensus wrong. The hypothesis published in a science magazine in 1966 is the one explained by Dr. Riscard Mackey in his eulogy for Dr. Fairbridge. Again he went against the consensus but I think that he was correct. It was the only climate prediction made (last summer) that turned out to be correct thus far (it predicted low sunspot activity and cooling starting in 2008) and the IPCC, it seems, is finally paying some attention.

paledriver at 02:33 AM on 8 July 2008

There is no consensus
Quietman, you argument about consensus doesn't relate. In science, truth wins out over time. And over time, as more and more data comes in, the consensus on this matter grows. As I've said, I'm just a layman but I know that much at least.

Quietman at 16:33 PM on 7 July 2008

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Sorry the subject of comment 9 is the south Atlantic, although it also affects the south pacific.

Quietman at 13:12 PM on 7 July 2008

There is no consensus
paledriver p.s. I put that link in 62 to see if anyone could tell me if it was the same as discussed previously.

Quietman at 13:09 PM on 7 July 2008

There is no consensus
paledriver I went back and read it again. It seems to be from the same organization but it also seems to be a different petition, they mention one in 2001 with 19k+ signers, and then they talk about 31k signers with 9k+ PHDs. It does not really mean anything one way or the other as I don't accept consensus as proof of anything, if I did I would be Hindu or Buddist (I'm sure one of those two have a consensus).

Quietman at 13:00 PM on 7 July 2008

There is no consensus
paledriver I have been following along but I did not realize that it was the same one because of the number and date. So this petition is still circulating?

paledriver at 01:43 AM on 7 July 2008

There is no consensus
Qietman, if you go to the link provided by #62 you'll find it's the same old Petition Project by OISM. If you go to my posts 4,8,12,14 and 28 (to begin with) you'll get a start on that petition and the "inhofe 400".

Quietman at 10:06 AM on 6 July 2008

There is no consensus
Will Nitschke There have been several updates to the link that you posted. Below is the latest one only. U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" UPDATE: More and more scientists continue to declare their dissent of the ‘consensus.’ (LINK) Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression (NYC Climate Conference Report - Part One of Reports) March 6, 2008 "Many prominent scientists participating and attending were very impressed by the New York City climate conference. Hurricane researcher and Meteorologist Stanley B. Goldenberg of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in Miami praised the Heartland Instituted sponsored conference. “The fact is that this conference is evidence that there are numerous respected, established and in many cases world-renowned scientists who have done careful research in various areas of ‘climate change’ that sharply differ with the [UN] IPCC results,” Goldenberg told the New York Times."

Quietman at 09:53 AM on 6 July 2008

There is no consensus
paledriver I was under the impression that this was a newer petition. Are you saying that this is the same one as the 20k scientists earlier in this thread?

tlewellen at 07:55 AM on 6 July 2008

Global warming stopped in ~~1998~~, ~~1995~~, ~~2002~~, ~~2007~~, ~~2010~~, ????
Quietman If I were to chose a collarobator to make a discovery, I might choose you. Open minds tend to prevail in science. What I see that is difficult about understanding the climate is that there appear to be 10 variables, all dependant on the others. In basic Physics, theories are easy to test because there were only a few variables, all easily measured and constrained. No such situation exists with climate and weather. The complexities are more like String theory or Chaos theory. And, Quiteman, you are correct about the sites. Most sites are more Political Science, that science. Tom

tlewellen at 07:41 AM on 6 July 2008

It's the sun
Quietman, BriMan,TruthSeeker, et al As just a curious layman, it is good to see that the banter and debate on this site is broad and deep. This kind of debate in the press and Congress would do our nation some good. GW, I assume, will be like much of science through history. It is seldom complete, even when we think it is. Whether it was the Catholic Church's belief that the earth was the center of the Universe, or a long held believe that there were only four elements, or even that for some time most believed that there were 24 chromosomes. Good scientists hold to the facts in front of them. Great scientists keep looking when the science does not match the facts. Reading your inciteful remarks, I can conclude we are still very short of good data and great science. There is still so much to debate.

paledriver at 23:59 PM on 5 July 2008

There is no consensus
in response to number 62. this was when they claimes 17,000.....".. took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers -- a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.". this from when it was first released......"The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.". and more...."Of 100 names googled, only about 2 percent turn out to be scientists with any training relevant to climatology, usually physics. A small number -- about 15 percent -- were other kinds of scientists or physicians, but with no relevant training. Several in this overall pool of scientists were quite elderly. The remainder were either people with no scientific credentials whatsoever (40 percent), or names that did not appear in the search -- highly improbable nowadays if indeed such people existed." so the petition is clearly a fabrication.

Quietman at 10:16 AM on 4 July 2008

It's the sun
Bri-Man To bring you up to speed (at least on this site) the 70's are referenced because in the mid to late 70's the solar forcing stopped following the temperature line. Their argument, which is that of the IPCC, is that CO2 induced AGW explains the increases from 1975 on. Those of us skeptical of this argument have several positions, mine is vulcanism and plate tectonics which have been more active since the full alignment in 1976. The most recently active thread is "Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?" and the discussion is somewhat heated.

Bri-Man at 03:34 AM on 4 July 2008

It's the sun
Stop listening to the media and paid celebrities. They have no sort of degree in science and are just reading from a script. This has all stemed from "Yellow Science." It used to be that we listened to the scientists from both sides of the argument. Now we don't even listen to them at all, we listen to the media, politicians and paid celebrities, none which have any clue of what they are talking about. It's a shame that the scientists on the other side of the fence don't get the same main stream media attention that Al Gore does. But the reason for this is very simple and clear....MONEY. Over 50 Billion dollars has been spent world wide for Global Warming research. These scientists don't even have to come up with anything significant to get paid, they just have to sign there name with a little PhD right next to it. Big corporations have also made a killing selling "Green" products. Governments world wide will never let these scientists get world wide attention either because they can't admit they have been DUPPED into believeing that the sky was falling and that they just spent billions of your tax dollars on it. Keep an open mind, look at """"ALL"""" of the science and then draw your conclusions.

Bri-Man at 03:20 AM on 4 July 2008

It's the sun
Why does this site keep referencing the 70's? The planet if over 4 billion years old and has been chaning ever since. You are sitting here talking about the last few hundred years like they have been of any kind of significance in the last 4 billion. It's just a spec, not even that really. More drastic changes have happened (climate wise) in Earths history then the industrial revolution. Does anybody else think that this is a form of "Vanity?" Short of nuclear fallout, I don't think that we could put a dent in this planets way of working. I do think however that pollution is bad for us humans, and we should look at that more then global destruction.

Bri-Man at 03:15 AM on 4 July 2008

It's the sun
Remeber what Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

TruthSeeker at 03:40 AM on 3 July 2008

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
What about this statement from BRET STEPHENS piece in WSJ published on July 1st? "The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years." Is this true, if so how does that support global warming? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486841811817591.html?mod=fpa_mostpop

TruthSeeker at 01:02 AM on 3 July 2008

TruthSeeker at 00:47 AM on 3 July 2008

TruthSeeker at 00:46 AM on 3 July 2008

barry schwarz at 14:52 PM on 1 July 2008

It hasn't warmed since 1998
Hadley's own analysis for the trend 1998 - 2007 concludes; "A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade." http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

Quietman at 02:07 AM on 1 July 2008

We're heading into an ice age
Actually we can't head into an ice age at this point in time because we are already in one. Technically this is an interglacial period within the current ice age, ie. this is not "Earth Normal" climate, which is much hotter. Interglacial means "between glacations" and is about as unstable a climate as possible on this planet. That is assuming that it is an interglacial rather than the ice age ending (far worse for us). It also assumes that another glacation will occur. Looking at graphs of prior interglacials and glacations there is a particular constant: it warms slowly for thousands of years then cools rapidly (it looks very similar to a sawtooth inventory graph). Another fact is that CO2 has been very high when it suddenly became very cold (it did nothing to stop the glacations). So be afraid, be very afraid.

shawnhet at 01:27 AM on 1 July 2008

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Phillippe, my apologies, I think I was looking at 2000 not 2001 or 2002, your graph makes it pretty clear that the sea ice seems to be heading for another low year(though I am not sure that the spring melt is all that atypical). chris, "O.K., but nobody says that CO2 can explain the state of the cryosphere in toto! Two points: (A) As well as CO2, there are the other man-made greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxides, CFC's, tropospheric ozone), there are man-made aerosols, there are variations in solar outputs, volcanic eruptions.... (B) One then has to consider how various wind and ocean currents distribute thermal energy around the world. The net thermal imbalance (that gives us global-scale warming or cooling) is a summation of all of (A): " But that is essentially my point, if regional climates can be influenced by something besides the net thermal imbalance, then answering (a), as you did above is premature at best unless all you are saying is that the slight temperature increase of the last couple decades has had an impact of the sea ice(something that probably no one disagrees with). You seemed to suggest that one can explain the recent trend solely in terms of CO2. I'll accept your numbers for the SH ice extent from the beginning of satellite measurement (I don't have the inclination to try to read the graphs that closely), but just eyeballing the numbers since 2000 does give an overall increase in the SH summer ice extent as around +1 million, which puts the most recent trend in the same ballpark magnitude (though of opposite sign) as trend in summer sea ice in the NH(even higher if you start it earlier). Given a cyclically changing climate(like the one we have) one can prove pretty much any point one wants to by selectively choosing one's starting point. My point is that the recent(ie the last 10 yrs) changes in *global* sea ice can't be explained by CO2. Cheers, :)

barry schwarz at 18:50 PM on 30 June 2008

barry schwarz at 14:13 PM on 30 June 2008

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments