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  2625  2626  2627  2628  2629  2630  2631  2632  2633  2634  2635  2636  2637  2638  2639  2640  Next

Comments 131601 to 131650:

  1. Has solar cycle 24 begun?
    16th August...still no sunspots..(www.spaceweather.com) Looking forward with interest to see what 2008/2009 GMT is.
  2. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    93~ On 'Vulcanism' (or the heat component derived from earth core processes) Science 30 March 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5820, pp. 1813 - 1817 DOI: 10.1126/science.1137867 Research Articles Seismostratigraphy and Thermal Structure of Earth's Core-Mantle Boundary Region R. D. van der Hilst,1* M. V. de Hoop,2 P. Wang,1 S.-H. Shim,1 P. Ma,3 L. Tenorio4 Abstract: "Accounting for a factor-of-two uncertainty in thermal conductivity, core heat flux is 80 to 160 milliwatts per square meter (mW m–2) into the coldest D'' region and 35 to 70 mW m–2 away from it. Combined with estimates from the central Pacific, this suggests a global average of 50 to 100 mW m–2 and a total heat loss of 7.5 to 15 terawatts." The estimated total energy consumption of mankind this year is 14 terawatts...the estimated energy released from the earth core is 7.5 -15 terawatts. This energy is expressed in several ways, only one of which is volcanic eruptions, ALL of which affect climate. Not an insubstantial factor in the process.
  3. CO2 lags temperature
    QM: Couldn't agree more. Climate records ( direct or proxy) indicate small changes until you get to some truly massive event...like an asteroid strike. This gives me comfort in the general stability of our climate; the issue then becomes one of degree. Any AGW effects have to be examined for the degree to which they may affect climate, not for the absolute change. Oceanic currents, atmospheric currents are simply means of distributing/modulating heat flow; the whole system is a thermal model Heat in - Heat out which is modulated by a variety of factors ( and I don't like the use of the word 'forcing' because it carries other overtones) which we do not (yet) fully understand. Incidentally, domesticated ruminants are estimated to produce 36Mtonnes of methane annually; the New Zealand government is introducing a 'emissions' tax on livestock farmers .........
  4. We're heading into an ice age
    The O18 concentration in bottom-dwelling foramanifera is used as a proxy for surface climatic conditions: eg a warmer climate produces more dead bodies drifting to the sea bed which allows the organisms there to multiply and 'trap' more O18. There are some difficulties with this, namely, you need prior data on the level of O18 or C13 at 'ground zero'. Also how do you compute the time lags involved? Slide the graph around until there seems some kind of match to glacier records? How do you accomodate variations in surface species numbers due to local climate? Are 57 core samples sufficient to give a general trend? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleothermometer
  5. Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
    John PS Can you say "cherry picking"? is in reference to Wikipedia, not your article.
  6. Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
    Actually, if you look at a chart showing the last 5 million years you can easily see the slow increase in temperature. The most notable part is that while the highs are marginal (small slope) the lows are drastic (large slope). This can not be seen on the 450 thousand year graph at all (like the one on wikipedia). Can you say "cherry picking"?
  7. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    QM: I understand the quandary we are facing; if AGW is a reality then unchecked it will have disastrous consequencies for us all. Equally,trying to control AGW effects ( unless you limit controls to the more advanced nations) will inevitably have just as serious consequencies for developing nations. So who decides who gets hurt? So I see both scenarios as compelling reasons to get the science right before taking any action. "When in doubt, do nowt", or as I think you said in another post..."doing nothing is an option" Industrialised societies as we know them will end if we do not develop viable alternatives to fossil AND nuclear fuels simply because we will run out of them sooner or later. That seems to me to be a much greater ( and certain) problem than whether we survive a few degrees rise in temperature. Yes life might be a bit more difficult and unpleasant, but survivable by just about everybody. A global industry collapse ( with war as a precursor)will probably not be survivable.
  8. Comparing IPCC projections to observations
    #1 & #2.. Mauna Loa 'advantage' was it's altitude, which was assumed to give it a sample of atmospheric CO2 uncontaminated by other emitters ( industry, forests); also the fact that there was a station there helped as did Mr Keeling's personal preferences. One small problem tho'...there's a volcano just over there that outgasses now and then....look at this printout you can see the CO2 spike...we'll just amend the figures to deal with that. No, we don't think there may be a more or less continuous outgassing that is hidden in the datastream. No comment.
  9. What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
    Cynicism is just exaggerated sceptisism; I prefer the Get Your Nose Off The Canvas attitude....otherwise all you can see is the detail you are looking at and not how it fits into the overall picture. And that is un-scientific and potentially dangerous. CO2 lags temperature increases mostly because a warming period releases the gas from oceans, increased CO2 levels further moderate the heat flow process ( to what extent nobody is sure), add a few (minor) complexities like forest fires and volcanic outgassing to the equation. Ice starts melting ( latent heat of fusion) and cooling the biosphere, evaporation does the same, then biomass kicks in and CO2 starts getting locked up again further moderating the process.It all cools down and eventually the cycle repeats.
  10. It's the sun
    I forgot to mention in the above comment that the whole argument that the sun is not to blame is based on data/graphs that may be fabricated. There are massive vested interests, on both sides of the global warming debate, so fabrication of data is to be expected. Bearing in mind that one set of data for cooling during the post-war boom (despite higher production of carbon dioxide than earlier in the 20th century when temperatures were rising) is incorrect and clearly fabricated, the same may be true of recent solar radiance data.
  11. It's the sun
    No-one has yet commented on the massive disparity in temperatures between the two graphs shown at the top of this page during the post-war boom (roughly the first three decades after the Second World War). In a debate I've been involved in on various newsgroups (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/912fb81971711597), a supporter of global warming called Fran mentioned "global dimming" reducing temperatures from 1943-74. However, I have discovered that there are two completely different graphs of average northern hemisphere temperatures on the internet! The graph shown in "The Great Global Warming Swindle", displayed at the top of this page, looks to be based on the same data as a March 2003 SPACE.COM article entitled "Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming" (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html). This page came top when I googled "total energy output from the sun TSI" (without quotes). The graph on it uses data from an article by Baliunas and Soon in the Astrophysical Journal. This seems to tally with Fran's dates. However, two Wikipedia pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record) look to have similar data to the "Land-Ocean Temperature Anomaly" line in the second graph on this page (except the Wikipedia pages show 5-year rather than 11-year averages). These show falling temperatures in the 1940s but not in the subsequent decades It seems utterly ridiculous for predictions to have been made about a new ice age in the 1970s (rather than earlier decades) if temperature had not been falling as the latter graphs suggest. One set of graphs must be based on fake data, and my current opinion that the latter ones are fake appears to be supported by the NASA GISS data from individual measuring statements linked to by Whata Fool on http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/912fb81971711597. I have heard (I can't remember where) that the southern hemisphere has not been warming in recent decades unlike the north. Does anybody have any data about southern hemisphere temperatures? If not, why not? My particular take on the climate/weather, irrespective of whether CO2 is really the main contributor to global warming, is that it is being controlled by conspirators on the side of big business in the big political struggles in the world (to some degree or other, and maybe less so now than in the past). A BBC documentary "The Science of Superstorms" largely about the USSR regime's measures to affect where radioactive rainfall from Chernobyl came down and Chinese measures to stop rainfall at the time of the Olympics opening ceremony indicate that some level of control is possible. As weather forecasting has improved, so has the ability to control it - and having high levels of warming in some parts of the world and low levels in others suits the divide-and-rule agenda of unethical forces in positions of power.
  12. Determining the long term solar trend
    "So neither composite indicate the sun has been the primary cause of the last 3 decades of global warming." A bit of pedantry....with the exception of internal heat, ALL of the heat recieved comes from the sun; therefore the sun IS the primary cause of GW. Science is about exactitude; CO2 & other factors simply moderate the heat flow process Heat in - Heat out. The CO2/GW lead/lag debate cannot be dealt with as a separate isolated issue; GTemp up, ice melt increases(cooling), evaporation increases (cooling), more active oceanic flow - better heat distribution, biomass increases locking up CO2 and so on. Because all the factors in the climate process are interelated (and clearly somewhat synergistic)it has to be modelled as a whole; selecting datasets (for whatever reason -cherry picking; better accuracy;longer sampling periods etc) is fine as long as you then re-run the entire model. If anything, this post simply reminds us how little real, definitive, accurate, comprehensive data is available and until we get THAT sorted out the AGW argument will not be taken seriously except as a political issue.
  13. Evaporating the water vapor argument
    Water vapor is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas and has been responsible for most of the climate change, for millions of years. Let’s look at progression of 5 examples of the Earth, starting with the warmest Earth, so you can see the effect on the planet. To keep things simple, we’ll set the composition of dry atmosphere, to the same as the present time, in all examples, so that we can see the effects of the water vapor in the air. Earth 1 – Water World We’ll start out with a hypothetical “Water World” type Earth, without any land. This will be the overall warmest Earth, with no ice caps at the polls. Why would it be warmer than the present day Earth? Water just rains out. Climate models are not required, just basic understanding and logic to find the answer. What’s different in “Water World”? All elevations are at sea level in “Water World”, so the height of atmosphere (greenhouse effect) is at a maximum level all over the world. The very humid, middle latitudes will be the warmest, with no relief, with the humidity. If it rains, the moisture in the air will be replaced very quickly. This part is similar to the very humid, present day, tropical ocean areas, but now covers 100% of the middle latitudes in “Water World”. Also, because of the insulating effect of the very moist atmosphere and unrestricted ocean currents, the middle latitudes (45N to 45S) will have a very constant, but warm, temperature with only a few degrees temperature swing between the daytime highs and the morning low temperature. The warm water from the middle latitudes will also mix with the polar oceans due to the unrestricted ocean currents, this will cause these regions to be much warmer than our present time polar regions, and there will not be ice caps at the poles. The air in the Polar Regions will also hold more moisture than our present time polar regions and will add to the greenhouse effect. Earth 2 - Cretaceous period type land mass (see map) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LateCretaceousGlobal.jpg Some low elevation continents are formed and cover 20% of the surface of the Earth. The land mass will disrupt the ocean currents and will allow the Polar Regions to cool. The middle latitudes will still be very humid (similar to Florida) because the most of the land mass will be at low elevations. Some of the larger continents will allow areas of lower humidity, which will allow some cooling at night. This planet Earth 2 will be cooler than Earth 1, but still very warm due to the greenhouse gas, water vapor. Earth 3 - Paleogene (Eocene) period type land mass (see map) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paleogene-EoceneGlobal.jpg The continents now cover about 25% of the Earth and mountain ranges are forming. Although ocean currents are a little more restricted than Earth 2, it’s the larger continental areas, with mountain ranges that will allow Earth 3, to be cooler than Earth 2. As the prevailing winds pass over the mountains, the moisture in the air precipitates out, allowing for large areas of lower humidity, over some of the continents. The large areas of low humidity allow for even more night time cooling. Planet Earth 3 will be cooler than Earth 2, but still very warm due to the greenhouse gas, water vapor, but the water vapor is loosing its grip on keeping the Earth’s temperature elevated. Earth 4 – Pre Industrial Revolution (see map) http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-maps/image/world-lat-long.jpg The continents cover about 30% of Earth 4 and very high mountain ranges have formed. Ocean currents are very restricted, with the connection of North and South America and Europe, Asia and Africa forming large land areas. The vast land areas of lower humidity allow the middle latitudes to cool. Night time cooling is becoming greater over larger areas of Earth 4. (Just think back to Earth 1) Some of the higher mountain ranges remain snow capped all year long. Earth 4 is much cooler than Earth 3. Earth 5 – The present day Earth Due to the extreme population growth, humans are having an effect on the climate. Millions of acres of arid land have been converted into farms and many fields are irrigated with up to 60” of water per year. The effect of irrigating millions of acres is similar to increasing the amount of the Earth that is covered with water. Most of the irrigation water is evaporated on a daily basis, which increases the greenhouse gas, water vapor and contributes to global warming.
  14. CO2 lags temperature
    In other words, to alter the climate drastically, the earth must be altered drastically.
  15. CO2 lags temperature
    Mizimi Astute observation. Much more credible than the "consensus" view as Methane actually is a GHG with more potential than CO2. But another factor is ocean and air currents that differ depending on location of the continents and locations of internal thermal forcing which I refer to as vulcanism (old habits die hard) that cause upwellings in the oceans constantly altering currents.
  16. We're heading into an ice age
    To clarify, Look at the 5 million year chart instead. The highs and lows of 450 K years are only oscillations of a gradual warming trend for 5 million years.
  17. We're heading into an ice age
    Why am I not surprised that the snapshot used by "Image from Global Warming Art" is different from everyone elses? It's called cherry picking.
  18. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    Mizimi You make some very good points. Unfortunately if we are correct in our argument for natural causes there are no "fixes" and this whole carbon (CO2) issue will ruin the industrialized world as we know it. It is already having a very damaging effect on several countries.
  19. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen rebut Lockwood's solar paper
    Looks like the correlation is somewhat better than for CO2 forcing...so do we throw that out?
  20. We're heading into an ice age
    Maunder minimum...solar radiation ( and I deliberately use that term) drops between .17 and .23 W/m2; the suggestion is that these changes are insufficient to account for glaciation periods, or , if they are responsible, the system must be pretty thermally unstable. What was perihelion at this time? Orbital eccenticities have FAR greater effects on the amount of radiation recieved (between 6 -7% depending on source)than solar variations. What other factors were different then as opposed to now? You cannot isolate one component of a system and use it to determine an end result. You have to include all factors. My general conclusions from what I have read and what I have tried to model, is that the 'normal' state of the earth is "cold". That the warm phases are the anomalies. I accept this is MY opinion, but given the choice between a longer, warmer interglacial period or an earlier decline into one, I think I would opt for the warmth; life ( of all kinds) flourishes better in warm climates
  21. Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
    Have a look at these two sites: http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/08/03/on-the-relationship-between-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo-and-the-global-average-mean-temperature/ http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/ This analysis shows oceans are clearly the main drivers of climate through their actions in storing and distributing heat. We should not be surprised to see a close correlation between GMT and oceanic oscillations; in fact, given that oceans store around 85% of TSI and therefore (ultimately) transport that energy (directly and indirectly)around the globe we should be more surprised if there weren't. Of course PDO and AMO and the rest affect GMT because they are the prime mechanism that absorbs and disperses heat in the model. What is less clear is the time lag between oceanic warming and the release of that heat. I don't think that PDO et al is an issue, what is an issue is does increasing the CO2 component effect the overall system balance, in waht way and to what extent?
  22. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Three relevant articles: This one may have helped cooling last winter to some extent: "Kamchatka Volcano Blows Its Top", ScienceDaily (July 5, 2007) "The eruption of one volcano will have far-reaching affects. Although Klyuchevskoy is located in Kamchatka, its ash crossed the Bering Sea and reached Unimak Island in the Aleutians within one day." This one explains why not all eruptions cool: "Chile's Chaiten Volcano One Of Scores Of Active Volcanoes In Region", ScienceDaily (May 7, 2008) "In to order to significantly affect the climate, a volcano has to put out a lot of sulfur dioxide aerosols into the stratosphere for an extended period, which then reflects sunlight away from the Earth," he said. "Our data from Chaiten showed the last eruption was high in silica and low in sulfur." This most recent one may be on the same tectonic plate as Kamchatka (a different article that can be found on the same web page): "Explosive Eruption Of Okmok Volcano In Alaska", ScienceDaily (July 21, 2008) "Okmok Volcano in Alaska continues to produce explosions and ash plumes through a newly created vent and poses hazards to air travel in the area. ... There are about a dozen cones within the modern caldera that formed in the last 2000 years, and the most recent eruptive activity occurred in 1945, 1958 and 1997." Just 3 (somewhat large) examples of current vulcanism and why it may or may not be involved in cooling. My point being that not all vulcanism is created equal so a generic statement about volcanos is not relevant.
  23. CO2 lags temperature
    What about life? As temperature rises, so does metabolism..end result more plants/animals ( as long as other conditions allow) More plants, especially soft (non-woody) tissued, release more CO2. Plant decomposition accelerates adding methane to the atmosphere. temp goes up a bit more. CO2 rises a bit more, plants flourish. More ruminants = more methane, more CO2. Cycle continues until you start locking up CO2 in woody plants. I'm not saying this is THE cause, but it is a factor to be considered and allows CO2 to lag T and then decline as forests develop (800 - 1000 years grows an awful lot of woody material)until (possibly!) CO2 levels begin to fall. Also we should stop talking about variations in insolation being irrelevent. They aren't. The direct physical effect may be small...but the consequencies of that small effect may well be pretty big.
  24. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????
    "But for those lacking the foresight to care about the world they hand over to future generations, this is something that will affect us now and over the next decade." Are we debating science or philosophy? Facts or wishful thinking? "What is happening and how it may affect the earth" and "Do we want this to happen" are two different issues depending on whether you are human or not. As soon as you ask a question like that you move from 'hard' sciences to Behavioural sciences to How I Feel About Life And All That. Not science. There are probably thousands of lifeforms out there only too happy to see CO2 levels going up with the temperature. Others that don't. Where did we get the right to decide what the future of this planet and it's associated lifeforms should be? From just being the 'dominant' species? We talk about the kind of planet we want to hand down to our descendants but nobody has put up a specification as to what that might be. And if you did, there will be a load of people disagreeing with you. Change will happen, with or without us burning off fossil fuels. The real question is Will there be a catastrophic event as a result of our activities and How do make sure we survive it? Just as we have had to find ways round the problems our ancestors gave us, so will our descendants have to do the same. If we can make it easier for them, fine. But our basic imperative is to make sure man as a species survives. Isn't that what evolution is all about?
  25. Temp record is unreliable
    Sorry, forgot to post the sites....Look at: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast21jul_1m.htm http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/ghcn_T_stn.html Note the closing comments...... "The improved temperature record will guide efforts to refine computer models of the world's climate so that the behavior of the models more closely resembles the observed behavior of the atmosphere. Current models suffer from several shortcomings. For example, clouds are not well represented by the models. The resolution of current models is too coarse for features as small as clouds, Spencer said. Yet clouds clearly play a crucial role in climate due to their influence on humidity, precipitation and albedo (the percentage of solar energy reflected back into space as light). "The role of clouds is still regarded as one of the biggest uncertainties in global warming predictions," Spencer said. The ability of plants to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the role of soils have only recently been added to the models, and scientists aren't confident yet of how the models portray these factors, Spencer said. "While we know that vegetation takes up some of the carbon dioxide we generate from burning of fossil fuels, how that sink of carbon will change in the future is still pretty uncertain," Spencer said. Climate models are also limited by the computing power available. "The global models would be much better if computers were much faster," Spencer said. "Instead, a lot of approximations are made to make the models simple enough to do climate simulations over the whole globe. "Unfortunately," Spencer continued, "we know that many of the processes that are crudely represented are quite non-linear, and so have the potential to respond in unexpected ways."
  26. There is no consensus
    Consensus: lit. to think alike or to be in general agreement with others. If most people think the same thing then it has got to be true hasn't it? Even when what they think is based on an incomplete understanding of the thing they are discussing? But hey, everybody is entitled to an opinion surely? And doesn't that include scientists on both sides? As stated by someone else..consensus is NOT science. Opinion is NOT science. Science is about hard, repeatably demonstrable, irrefutable, facts.
  27. Models are unreliable
    1. probability and possibility are two different things. You may show statistically that something is probable and therefore, sooner or later will happen. This is only true mathematically and not necessarily works in the real world. Any computer model that includes assumptions, 'tweaked' data, or excludes any factors relevent to the model will give a rubbish result. 2. Remember the Chaos Effect. Small things through iterative action can have BIG consequencies, so the apparently small and irrelevent must be accounted for. Worse yet, we don't even know if we know ALL the factors influencing the climate....so any model will be suspect.
  28. Did global warming cause Hurricane Katrina?
    A basic explanation of hurricane formation can be found here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Hurricanes/ and the basic requirement for a hurricane to form is that the sea temperature must rise to around 27C. Since GW produces elevated sea temperatures, it increases the probability that they will occur. It does not, however mean they will be more intense - it may well be that we would experience greater numbers at lower intensities; that's a guess...like a lot of weather processes, we simply do not yet know enough to make meaningful predictions.
  29. Temp record is unreliable
    On the subject of stations, I note that the number of stations used for data collection has dropped dramatically from 1990 'til present day. Coverage in (what was) the USSR and China has virtually disappeared. Coincident with the fall in stations the GMTemp has apparently risen.(???any connection here???) Look at a map of the current station locations and then tell me they are providing data that can be seriously used to construct a global model. Yes satellites provide additional cover but only during their overpass which is limited. Yes, their instrumentation is more accurate than land-based stations, but there are too few of them, so their 'correcting' effect on the overall dataset is diluted. The earth has around 510 million sqkm in surface; 150 land and 360 water. The vast majority of stations are land based and with around 4000 in use that works out to a station roughly every 38,000 sqkm. To try and model from that low level of distribution would be rejected by most reasonable people. The fact that most of these stations are actually concentrated in a much smaller area leaving HUGE areas un-monitored simply makes the data collected even more worthless for constructing any realistic model.
  30. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    cce I agree that in areas where temperatures were actually measured in the U.S. and it's advanced allies that what you say is true. I disagree that this is true for most points outside of the U.S. and it's allies. And since this climate change is considered "climate shift" by many scientists rather than global warming, I feel that it is a point of critical contention. In the part of the world I live in GW does not exist and in fact the reverse has been the rule for many years. It only seems to exist in the nearby large cities and at the north polar cap. So when you say that the entire world is warming it certainly can not be confirmed by most people living in totally unaffected areas that nobady seems to take into account. Measurements taken from orbit appear to be much more accurate than those taken from the ground or at sea level. This data does not exist from the 1930s and therefore the incidence of error is higher than claimed.
  31. Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
    "Will global warming cause a mass extinction event?" was the title and the simple answer is possibly, dependent on the degree of GW. The underlying question ( it seems to me) is does it really matter? And if it does in what context? From an evolutionary viewpoint, no it doesn't, because evolution is a process with only two source drivers, survive and replicate. Everything else is dependent on these. The process has no ethics, no morals, no compassion, empathy or any other attitude we as humans bring to bear on the issues. And as humans we are often alarmingly double-minded. We worry about the state of one species ( say polar bears) whilst cheerfully killing others in their millions ( mosquitos). Anybody worried about an extinction event that would wipe out mozzies? No, I don't think so. Any species that dies out creates an opportunity for another to move into that niche and I think we seriously underestimate the ability of lifeforms to adapt to rapid climate changes. In any event, as I think Quietman said, we are part of the system and driven by the same 'forces' as every other lifeform...survive and replicate. In doing this we may well cause other species to die out, but that is the system. The dinosaurs ( and maybe a lot of other species)probably died out through their inability to cope with a dramatically altered climate resulting from a major impact event. And so we are here now. This is one answer from an evolutionary viewpoint. When we worry about species extinction, changing habitat et al, we need to ask why, and make sure the answer is not coming from a emotional viewpoint. (Polar bears are nicer than mozzies)
  32. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    Quietman, The coverage and precision is more than adequate to establish with statistical certainty that the '30s was colder than recent temperatures. GISTEMP, for example, calculates that the last decade was 0.4 to 0.5 degrees warmer which is significant given that the uncertainty is between 0.1 and 0.2 degree. "We just don't know anything" is a discredit to the work of a lot of people. Even if you don't accept that, there is certainly more evidence that it is warmer today, yet we have people going around talking about "the fact that the warmest decade of the last century was the '30s" which isn't even true for the US.
  33. Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
    cce Without the current system in place in the 1930s, and the poor measurement of most of the globes temperatures, exactly how do you know 1934 was actually not globally hot. Where were the reading points? Did they measure ambient temp from every point using the same or comparable instruments? This is one of the most imprecise sciences there is and eveyone acts as if its absolute fact. Unbelieveable!
  34. Climate sensitivity is low
    GMB Apparently you have some good backup out there. The last 3 papers I read on prior warming maximums all said that CO2 lagged temps by quite a bit. Dr. R. Spencer of NASA is explaining to congress that the sensitivity is much less than what the IPCC says it is.
  35. Temp record is unreliable
    According to WikiP. there are around 4000 stations around the world that are used for collecting data. Some are well maintained and calibrated. Some are not. From a fair number of stations the data does not arrive for incorporation at the right time, or sometimes not at all. So the data set is 'adjusted'. On a scale of 1 - 10 how would we rate the accuracy of this data source? And how reliable does this make any model we try to construct? Most of the stations are land-based and the sea based ones limited to particular sea routes; this means we have less data about sea temps then land temps...despite the sea being somewhat bigger. What skew does that put on any resultants?
  36. Evaporating the water vapor argument
    August 7th....still no sunspots (Spaceweather.com) Query: If the apparent lag between global T and sunspot activity is 10 yrs then the current cooling (IF it continues) should be visible in the sunspot record of around 10yrs ago....or is 10yrs a bit too close to the average sunspot cycle? The water vapour effect should be split in two...water vapour uncondensed and water vapour wholely or partially condensed (cloud) as cloud cover can both increase warming or decrease TSI dependent on the cloud thickness.
  37. It's the sun
    Interesting posts. Tlewellen has a very good point about science being seldom complete. Currently we do not fully understand ( or in fact know)all the factors that drive the earth's climate, so any modelling we do has to be held VERY lightly. Including AGW. To ascribe GW to a single source is simplistic: it ignores synergistic interactions which I suspect have a far greater effect than our current models can handle. Solar irradiation recieved by us is not constant and fluctuates around 6% due to orbital irregularities. Only recently has anyone started to think about the effects of other planetary masses on our orbit and the consequencies. It also seems from my (admittedly limited) research that too little attention and weight is given to the actions of water vapour and cloud formation/cover. I have even found one study that chose to ignore cloud effect because it was to chaotic and difficult to obtain hard data! I also worry about the actual relevence of data which has been 'altered' to account for anomalies....and then used as 'hard' information to produce a trend. Like Quietman says, scepticism is healthy!
  38. Models are unreliable
    To put the Global Warming issue in context, consider: 1. That average global temperature has decreased since 1998. The anomalies from NOAA data are: 1998 0.5763 1999 0.3947 2000 0.3629 2001 0.4934 2002 0.5573 2003 0.5565 2004 0.5336 2005 0.6044 2006 0.5428 2007 0.5458 Jan to June 2008 average 0.44 2. That GCMs (Global Climate Models) do not yet adequately account for the absorbed infrared radiation energy that is transported up by atmospheric convection currents. 3. That GCMs are not yet capable of dealing objectively with clouds so they are accounted for with subjective parameterization. 4. That currently used GCMs invoke water vapor positive feedback that climate history shows to be not valid. 5. That the GCM users/creators won’t divulge to competent evaluators some of the details of their computer programs. 6. That the only indicators that human activity causes global warming are these GCMs. 7. That the multi-billion dollar government grants for ‘climate research’ depend on ominous prediction of looming catastrophe. 8. That over 30,000 qualified scientists and engineers have signed a document stating that human activity has had no significant influence on climate.
  39. There is no consensus
    I missed that windows comment entirely. Writing a program for windows is not the same as writing for microsoft. It means to run on the windows O/S rather than on a unix or Linux or Mac O/S. Most likely using an MS language for compatibility like visual basic.
  40. There is no consensus
    Paledriver, There was no outright lie about the APS. No one said their position changed (a strawman argument); rather, that there is debate. Granted, it turns out it was a subset of the APS, but it is still part of the APS. Here is the link from the APS website: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm Partially quoted herein: "With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." Personally, I think you do your self a disservice quoting a smear site (desmogblog.com) that only seeks to discredit and personally attack those who argue against anthropogenic warming. Arguing semantics about "rocket scientist"? Contacting Microsoft Corp. because he says he is "building a word processor for Windows"? Is this disgraceful behavior all the Inquisition has to offer?
  41. There is no consensus
    PS Publishing peer reviewed papers does not a scientist make.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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
  50. 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 !

Prev  2625  2626  2627  2628  2629  2630  2631  2632  2633  2634  2635  2636  2637  2638  2639  2640  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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