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  2633  2634  2635  2636  2637  2638  2639  2640  2641  2642  2643  2644  2645  2646  2647  2648  Next

Comments 132001 to 132050:

  1. La Nina watch: March update
    WA I have posted additional comments on why this area of the map is relavent on the Volcanos thread because the El Nino / La Nina cycle is caused by vulcanism.
  2. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    John Using a little circular logic I made a guess at where to place this comment. Sorry if I am incorrect. For starters Volcanoes Unleash El Niño. I had mentioned this in a couple of threads as there does not seem to be an EL Nino thread. But logically, since solar cycles stopped following warming in the late 70s (actually erratic weather conditions started then ie. the ice age scare of 1978-79) we need to take another look at the worst (hottest years) since: 1997-1998 El Niño 1982-1983 El Niño I would like to point out that the triggering and actual cause is volcanic/vulcanism and that these severe cycles must also include the La Nina events that follow each El Nino event. I would also like to point out that prior to the late 1970s there was very little mention of these climate cycles (in the US) other than California where they are very noticeable due to the lack of drastic seasonal changes.
  3. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Recent articles indicate that AGW is not fully responsible for Greenlans glacial melts. von Frese explained. that "under a big place like Greenland or Antarctica, natural variations in the crust will makes some parts of the ice sheet warmer than others." from Magma May Be Melting Greenland Ice he also said "to effectively separate and quantify human impacts on climate change, we must understand the natural impacts too." "The researchers don't yet know how warm the hotspot is, but if it is warm enough to melt the ice above it even a little, it could enable the ice to slide more rapidly out to sea." from Volcano Deep Down Could Be Melting Greenland's Ice Since these articles were printed, I have seen none of the data from the stated conference that by now should be available.
  4. They predicted an ice age in the 70's
    I well remember this as I was still in college at the time. The winter of '78 was one of the worst. In Buffalo NY the snow along roads was higher than a semi and there were many accidents because you could not see a vehicle approaching an intersection. It was popularized by the television show "In Search Of" at the time hosted by the very popular actor L. Nimoy (Mr. Spock from the original Star Trek). So it had a very wide audience and became very well known.
  5. Models are unreliable
    Poptech When I was in college we were taguht Fortan IV, even though it had already been supplanted by Fortan 77. I did not realize that anyone was still using it. My own last experience was in SAS and that was in the 90s. Are you saying that these climate models are being coded in Fortran?
  6. Do growing glaciers disprove global warming?
    John I am not familiar with the number of glaciers. Do you know what percent this is or how they represent all glaciers?
  7. Global cooling: the new kid on the block
    Wondering Aloud, That particular argument was about whether or not a decline in solar irridiance since 1985. It shows no correlation with temperature anyway. But I do believe there's a longer time lag between solar activity and temperature since solar irradiance penetrates deeper in oceans (as I suggest elsewhere on this site). So if solar activity slightly increased past decades it's warming effect could hold on longer but a lag of 35 years seem too long. Another problem is that solar effects mis the temperature peak around 1940 when you lag it. What I wrote about snowcover was my own conclusion simply based on data from the site below. Here you can find information about total northern hemisphere snowcover back to 1966. If you check the list I think you will assume the same. Clearly March had the second lowest snowcover for that month not for every month. About accuracy and calibrations of that data I have still to learn a lot. The same for the GISS-dataset (I wrote 'premature'). GISS didn't took Southern Africa in account which region was colder as average. http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/index.php
  8. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    Chris, The Came et al 2007 paper uses a (relatively) new temperature reconstruction method and Veizer notes here that there is still much uncertainty: http://blogs.nature.com/nature/journalclub/2007/10/francis_albarede.html It is yet to be determined if this method is more accurate. Celestial drivers better explain the GEOCARB Phanerozoic reconstructions, while CO2 fits (somewhat) well with the Came 2007 reconstruction. Regarding Royer 2004, Shaviv and Veizer gave this comment: http://www.gsajournals.org/pdf/online_forum/i1052-5173-14-3-e4.pdf A quote: "Note that Royer et al. do not dispute the existence of the CRF/temperature correlation of Shaviv and Veizer (2003), only its role relative to that of CO2." Despite the Came 2007, the paper still applies... for the most part.
  9. Evaporating the water vapor argument
    John The argument made by BestTimesNow above here is what I was referring to when I remarked about the Clean Air Act of 1975 in the U.S. a while back. Not only does every car with a cat push out more CO2, it pushes out more water vapoer (both by design) and additionally makes the water vapor acidic from Sulphur Dioxide. This issue becomes more interesting all the time.
  10. It's the sun
    I have, so far, only determined that CO2 does not cause Global Warming and that there is no such thing as ‘water vapor feedback’. To my knowledge the combination of factors that contribute to climate has still not been sorted out. The reason why increased greenhouse gas level has no influence on average global temperature is proven at http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc . See more at response 16 to Climate’s changed before.
  11. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    Hi Chris, If a direct solar input (say TSI) causes the solar cycle trend in cloudiness, that would imply that increased cloudiness is a function of increased water vapor in the atmosphere correct? It is pretty hard to see how decreased water vapor can lead to increased cloudiness. The problem with this is that the direction is the wrong way around, isn't it? We would expect there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, when it was warmer, hence, it should be easier to become cloudy when the sun is hotter. IAC, are you aware of any studies that compare TSI to cloudiness in the lower atmosphere? I would be interested in these if they exist. "Now it may be the cause that some of these effects were due to solar influences on the cosmic ray flux (CRF). Unfortunately it's not easy to seperate these contributions out. However there isn't really any compelling evidence for a CRF influence on the Earth's surface temperature. When someone comes up with some evidence then I'm sure that we'll all believe it!" Well, I guess that this is a matter of opinion, but I think that the CRF hypothesis is better than any alternative. It does have some actual empirical support for the formation of cloud condensation nuclei. It is entirely possible that the CRF effect is not very large or (more likely) been swamped by some other effect in recent years. The latter would probably be the *most* consistent with *all* the evidence. Cheers, :)
  12. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    shawnhet: re your comment: "Also, just curious, since you agree that there is solar effect on climate, how do you think that this effect happens. if not at least partly by way of cosmic rays?" Surely the most likely solar contributions to the Earth's heat budget (and thus climate) is the solar irradiance and related parameters. It's very clear that this (or a related parameter that is reflected in the sunspot data for which there is a very good several hundred year old record) can cause very significant effects on the Earth's temperature as indicated by the cold periods around the Maunder Minimum and the possible contribution of rising solar outputs during the early decades of the 20th century. Now it may be the cause that some of these effects were due to solar influences on the cosmic ray flux (CRF). Unfortunately it's not easy to seperate these contributions out. However there isn't really any compelling evidence for a CRF influence on the Earth's surface temperature. When someone comes up with some evidence then I'm sure that we'll all believe it! What we can say is that there's no contribution from the CRF to the widespread and rather significant contemporary warming (since the early 70's). Even the most ardent supporters of the CRF idea consider that to be the case.
  13. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    Hi Robert, I wouldn’t say it’s my main issue (the absence of trends in CRF during the period of large contemporary warming is a serious issue too)! However it is surely a serious flaw with respect to the notion of a dominant influence of the CRF on the Earth’s temperature during the last 500 million years. Yes, Veizer’s reanalysis applies specifically to the Palaeozoic. However it basically negates the putative relationship between Shaviv’s putative CRF cycle and the Earth’s temperature over one full cycle (i.e. where the putative CRF indicates a cold period centred around 450 MYA, Veizer himself now indicates that the earth was very warm; compare Figure 2 of Shaviv and Veizer (2003), with Figure 2 of Carne, Eiler, Veizer et al (2007). Veizer’s reanalysis indicates that he himself considers his early analyses based on fossil carbonate del-18O were problematic. Presumably other periods of Veizer’s temperature reconstruction may similarly be problematic as indicated by other independent studies (see following); e.g. as described in Royer et al (2004). I really only highlighted Veizer’s reassessment of the Palaeozoic paleotemperature since it was Veizer’s own temperature reconstruction that Shaviv fitted his putative CRF cycles to. However there are many other independent problems with the putative correlation. For example if one examines the entire paleotemperature record and paleoCO2 record (as done for example in Royer’s recent compilations at least with respect to identification of well-defined evidence for significant glacial episodes), the cold periods expected in the Mesozoic (centred around 165 MYA according to Shaviv’s putative CRF reconstruction) aren’t represented in the record (see Royer 2006 reference below). If a major chunk of the Shaviv-Veizer apparent “correlation” is “dis-correlated” (!) by Veizer himself then there’s clearly a problem as is indicated by other independent proxy-temperature data. There’s a more general problem I think which relates to the seductive ease of fitting very grand “cycles” to extremely sparse data sets (paleotemperature/paleoCRF, although the latter is implicitly “cyclic”). With more abundant data (e.g. the Royer 2006 compliation of coincident paleoCO2 and paleo”temperature” data) the historical records look rather more realistic – they don’t seem to be cyclic at all. There are warm and cold periods, and the warm periods are interrupted by spikes of mild, medium or strong glaciations and so on. Now it is possible that the slow passage of the Earth through the long arms of our galaxy has some influence on climate. But it doesn’t seem very convincing in the record, and in fact that data seems to support a dominant temperature-CO2 relationship (as Veizer’s own recent work supports). R.E. Carne, J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer et al (2007) Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era; Nature 449, 198-202 D. L. Royer et al (2004) CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate; GSA Today March 2004 pp 4-10 D. L. Royer (2006) CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic Geochim. Cosmochim Acta 70 5665-5675 Shaviv, N.J. and Veizer, J. (2003) Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?; GSA Today July 2003 pp 4-9 P.S. I’m a common or gardener “Chris” and not “Chris Colose”!
  14. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    "[ Response: Figure 3 compares the fractional change between neutron counts (solid dots and solid line) & ionisation (open squares, joined by the dashed line). The ionisation modulation is computed for solar cycle 22 for the total ionization from figure 5 of the Usoskin paper. It's the fractional modulation for cycle 22 multiplied by 2 since their fig 6 is a plot of n (which is proportional to the square root of q hence dq/q=2 dn/n, see equ 5 of their paper). This Usoskin paper where Sloan gets his ionisation data is "Cosmic ray-induced ionization in the atmosphere: spatial and temporal changes" published in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terretrial Physics vol 66 (2004) page 1796, presumably the work Usoskin 2004 is based on. I haven't managed to get hold of this paper yet but haven't seen any criticism of the handling of this data from Shaviv or anywhere. The quibbling over neutrons versus ionisation is missing the major point that cosmic ray theory predicts latitude dependence in cloud cover modulation. The crucial result from Sloan and Wolfendale's paper is that cloud cover modulation shows little latitude dependence. ]" Well, first off, whether there is latitude dependence ,is dependent on what latitude dependence looks like(Shaviv thinks it will look different than Sloan). Secondly, if you look at your third figure there you will see that the slope of the muon line is much less than the neutron monitor line(consistent with what Shaviv said). Since, IIRC, muons are the particles that are hypothetically responsible for lower atmosphere atnospheric ionisation, we should be basing our conclusions on that line not the other two. There appears to be some confusion over what Usoskin is actually saying. Both Shaviv and Sloan think Usoskin supports their conclusions. Possibly, one or the other, has misinterpreted the Usoskin results. I found the paper in question, but I must admit it is outside my ability to actually move from there to the calculations in question. http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/JASTP_published.pdf "The ionization of the atmosphere at low and moderate altitudes is fulfilled not by the primary CR particles but by secondaries of a nucleonic–electromagnetic cascade initiated by primary energetic cosmic rays in the Earth’satmosphere. Accordingly, in order to study the cosmic ray-induced ionization, one needs to take into account the development of such a cascade. Here we employed the CORSIKA Monte Carlo package (Heck et al., 1998) which is specially designed to simulate cascade and includes recent and reliable description of various physical processes and cross-sections. Cosmic rays are assumed to consist of protons and a-particles ( 6% in particle number). (When denoting CR energy we mean energy per nucleon, throughout the paper.) In particular, CORSIKA can calculate energy losses deposited by the developing cascade for ionization of the ambient air at every step." Now, I don't know what that means exactly ;) , but it sure sounds more complex than a simple proportion. Also, just curious, since you agree that there is solar effect on climate, how do you think that this effect happens. if not at least partly by way of cosmic rays? Cheers, :)
  15. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    Chris (Colose?), I see your main issue is with Veizer's supposed "reinterpretation" of the data. Veizer's 2000 paper "Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon." Veizer and Shaviv's 2004 paper "Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?" The 2007 Veizer paper you reference "Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era." Notice the difference? The paper your reference is describing coupling during the Palaeozoic era. The Palaeozoic era occurred during the Phanerozoic eon, which is what the 2000 and 2004 papers are about. I don't see any major reinterpretations, rather I see that Veizer found *some* evidence for coupling of CO2 and climate during roughly 1/3 of the Phanerozoic eon. An approximate one-third is still a thorn in the sides of the two earlier Veizer papers, but it certainly isn't enough to come to your conclusion of "...and the putative correlation that Shaviv described in the GSA article is now lost. In other words there is no evidence for a very-long-scale link between the CRF and Earth's temperature."
  16. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    Sorry John I was replying to ScaredAmoeba "You are repeating the deceitful alarmist allegations made repeatedly by skeptics" Attempting to show that not all skeptical arguments are denials or harmful. If you prefer to delete it thats OK by me, it's your blog.
    Response: Nah, I'll leave it up. One of my pet peeves when having online discussion about global warming is when someone just posts a whole bunch of diverse links to a wide range of topics - it essentially shuts down the discussion because it's not practical to post a reply addressing each link. More constructive debate keeps to the topic at hand. I don't think you were necessarily trying to do this but for future reference, those links would be more effective posted on the appropriate page. Plus from my point of view as webmaster, I like the comments section to be relevant and useful to readers.
  17. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    These articles all present a case for either natural warming or non-CO2 forced AGW, or simply that the alarmist claims don't quite cut it. Water Vapor Feedback Is Rapidly Warming Europe About the coral reefs: Coral Reefs May Be More Resilient Than Expected "The deniers' fallback position is to argue that what is happening is due not to human intervention but some sort of natural cycle." During the last centuries human methane emissions artificially increased CH4 concentrations to approximately 1750 ppbv: Current Spike In Atmospheric Methane Mirrors Early Climate Change Events NASA Studies How Airborne Particles Affect Climate Change "Tropical deforestation currently accounts for roughly one-fifth of the global emissions of carbon dioxide, the most important human-derived greenhouse gas, Gurney said." Researchers Propose Way To Incorporate Deforestation Into Climate Change Treaty "Whilst rising air temperatures are believed to be the primary cause of recent dramatic disintegration of ice shelves like Larsen B, the new study suggests that the ocean may play a more significant role in destroying them than previously thought." Antarctic Ice Shelf Retreats Happened Before Antarctic Deep Sea Gets Colder My point being that healthy skepticism leads to better understanding of the big picture.
    Response: I'll leave this comment up as there are few links there I wasn't previously aware of. But from now on, I'm taking a zero tolerance policy on comments that post a bunch of links not related to the topic. I know its a bit more work but please post any links on the relevant page.
  18. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    Re: "You are repeating the deceitful alarmist allegations made repeatedly by skeptics" No, I am not repeating anything. My statement is purely from personal experience. I tried again this morining, after reading your reply, to go back and see if some of the alarmist articles were still there. Most were gone. I checked back through January - gone. What few skeptical articles I had read are still there. I may be ignorant about many subjects but I am not stupid. Those articles were intentionally pulled when proven incorrect. Here are the few that have not been deleted: The rhetoric of climate and slavery Climate change 2007 - a year in review Trees absorbing less CO2 as world warms, study finds Acidic seas may kill 98% of world's reefs by 2050 Deniers of global warming harm us Global warming to trigger volcanic eruptions
  19. Models are unreliable
    Robert S: Yes, I do know that model parameters are usually adjusted according to some past data, _and_ the resulting model has to be validated with data that are _not_ used to configure the models in the first place. If I didn't make this clear enough, my apologies. From my understanding, this approach of tweaking and holdout validation is what climate scientists have been doing. And it's perfectly good science, of course.
  20. Wondering Aloud at 03:05 AM on 24 April 2008
    Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    That part I understood I think (re: response in 1). What Shaviv is saying is that for cosmic rays above 15 GeV there should not be increased incidence near the poles. (He doesn't say so but if the magnetic field is not significantly displacing them incidence near the poles should be reduced compared to lower latitudes) So cloud formation near the poles should not be increased if Cosmic Rays are a significant cause. So the entire premise of looking at cloud formation by latitude has nothing to do with the issue. The idea that cosmic rays cause cloud formation is not coming from this debate but rather from seperate direct experiments that clearly show it can do just that.
  21. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    There are two questions really: (i) do cosmic rays influence clouds formation? (ii) is this effect, if real, significant with respect to the Earth's surface temperature and climates? Robert posted a list of papers that address (i) especially. However I'd say that there are some problems: The Shaviv Veizer analysis of a possible link between the CRF and Earth's temperature on the 100's of millions of years timescale (the GSA Today 2003 paper in Robert's list) rested on a paleo-CRF flux analysis and paleotemperature analysis. However Veizer has reinterpreted his temperature data (see abstract below ***) and the putative correlation that Shaviv described in the GSA article is now lost. In other words there is no evidence for a very-long-scale link between the CRF and Earth's temperature (and in fact the Earth's temperature right throughout the last around 500 million years correlates with the atmospheric CO2 level as Veizer indicates in his recent reinterpretation of paleotemperature data) Many of the papers in Robert's list are essentially neutral with respect to evidence for a CRF-cloud link. Thus Svensmarks Proc. Royal. Soc paper on micro-aerosol formation as a result of ionizing radiation in the lab is not an indication that CRF nucleates clouds in the real world...and so on... However there does seem to be some evidence (some of papers in Robert's list again) that the CRF can influence cloud formation (e.g. the Forbush events correlating transient changes in CRF with transient local changes in clouds). How about (ii) (significance with respect to the Earth's surface temperature)? This seems rather difficult to justify for several reasons. First, there isn't a correlation of CRF with the Earth's surface temperature on any timescale as far as I'm aware (see point about the Shaviv/Veizer analysis above). Second there has been no persistent trend in the CRF during the very marked warming of the last 30-odd years. Svensmark in his website report (http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view) explicitly demonstrates that the solar contribution (CRF et al!)during the very marked warming of the last 30-odd years is zero (a slight cooling contribution since 1958 if anything). That's pretty uncontroversial. The third general problem relates to the demonstration of the transient changes in local cloud cover in the so-called Forbush events that a couple of papers in Robert's list refer to. How can these processes give rise to a persistent long lived effects? This could presumably only occur with long lived persistent changes in the CRF. Short term local events (like those described as Forbush events if I understand these correctly) won't have much influence. That's partly the thrust of the Sloan/Wolfendale analysis. When the latter authors assess the relationship between Forbush events and cloud data averaged over weeks/months there isn't any correlation at all. Now one could argue that one should analyse only the correlations betwen transient changes in CRF and any transient local changes in clouds. But then the CRF/climate relationship becomes essentially unsupportable, because if there isn't any influence on a weekly/monthly averaged basis, how can there be significant persistent effects on temperature/climate? One explanation for the lack of correlation that might be significant for CRF-cloud-temperature/climate relationship is that the local nucleation of clouds mediated by CRF might relate to super-saturated regions of the atmosphere, which would anyway condense out into clouds by other (non-CRF) atmospheric nucleating species that are known to exist... Overall I would say that the evidence supports the possibility of some CRF influence on cloud formation but this remains to be substantiated, and that the evidence supports the conclusion that these effects are sufficiently small that they haven't provided any evidence in the real world for a CRF-cloud-temperature/climate link. Here's the recent Veizer reinterpretation of paleotemperature data: ***Came RE, Eiler JM, Veizer J et al (2007) Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era Nature 449, 198-201. Abstract: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations seem to have been several times modern levels during much of the Palaeozoic era (543-248 million years ago), but decreased during the Carboniferous period to concentrations similar to that of today(1-3). Given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it has been proposed that surface temperatures were significantly higher during the earlier portions of the Palaeozoic era(1). A reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperatures based on the delta O-18 of carbonate fossils indicates, however, that the magnitude of temperature variability throughout this period was small(4), suggesting that global climate may be independent of variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Here we present estimates of sea surface temperatures that were obtained from fossil brachiopod and mollusc shells using the 'carbonate clumped isotope' method(5)-an approach that, unlike the delta O-18 method, does not require independent estimates of the isotopic composition of the Palaeozoic ocean. Our results indicate that tropical sea surface temperatures were significantly higher than today during the Early Silurian period (443-423 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been relatively high, and were broadly similar to today during the Late Carboniferous period (314-300 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been similar to the present-day value. Our results are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures(1,6).
  22. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    In rereading my comment I see that I misworded it. The entire first paragraph is the first source of heat and what increases it. The Second source of heat is the earth itself released by vulcanism or created by large forest fires. In both cases the soot while airborne will cool but once settled on the ice will warm as far as solar effects go. Both produce direct heat however and the second paragraph explains how internal heat controls weather.
  23. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    Here are a few studies that are in favor of the GCR-climate/cloud formation link (sorry the order is kind of a mess and you have probably addressed a few of them): http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0409123 http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/77543w3q4mq86417/ http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/prlresup2.pdf http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/... http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-4004... http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/3163g817166673g7/fulltext.pdf https://utd.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/4/2273/2004/acp-4-2273-2004.html http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JA000248.shtml http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/tin_atmtrans.pdf These two studies came out at roughly the same time as the S&W paper: http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.2765.pdf http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.2766.pdf
  24. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
    Undersea volcanos are indeed active but I don't think that is a big issue. The skeptical argument on volcanos has some merit but not in the way that they are explaining it. First, keep in mind that there are 2 and only 2 natural sources of heat on this planet. The first and more important is the sun. Block the sun and CO2 can have zero effect (it is a feedback). So you do have greenhouse conditions. Second is albedo, soot from volcanos and man-made sources collect over the poles, moreso over the north because that is where industry is largest. This lowers the albedo by darkening the ice. Less active volcanos in the northern hemisphere means that much less soot as well as other greenhouse gas emmitted from eruptions. Note that the south pole is not warming as much, nor south america or africa. The power of increased vulcanism is heat transfer to the ocean that causes upwelling currents and change the direction of air currents in doing so. The best known of these is El Nino/La Nina. See Johns "La Nina watch: March update" on this site.
  25. La Nina watch: March update
    Also, on the northern part of the March map you mentioned, Mackey had predicted that when enough ice melted covering ocean surfaces, the additional moisture picked up off the water would cause very heavy snowfall in Asia due to the path of the air currents over the pole. He was obviously correct. The march warming is most likely due to aerosol pollutants and particulates that collect over the pole from all over the northern hemisphere. It is being investigated right now.
  26. La Nina watch: March update
    That is the area of welling up that I mentioned, where El Nino originates. The heated area is full of very active volcanos and the subduction zone is just off shore. The maps show the increase in activity and signal that La Nina is ending soon. This is currently the most active area in "the ring of fire". There are similar but weaker events all around the ring and they have been more active since the late 1970s (strong El Ninos, not as strong La Ninas, but this one is fairly strong).
  27. It's the sun
    John No offense, but this is an issue that true environmentalists need to take a strong stand on.
  28. It's the sun
    I believe in taking care of the environment, buying only efficient products and recycling. But these alarmists and violent greens that burn other peoples Hummers really get me. Greenpeace is the worst of all, even one of its founders will have nothing more to do with them. They make me ashamed to say I am an environmentalist because it makes me part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Can't anyone see where rash actions lead? The blame for this is squarely on the UN itself for pushing Algorism and punishing skepticism and the green alarmists pointing fingers at oil companies instead of thinking things out rationally. Come on people, wake up, get off the bandwagon and start using constructive criticism.
  29. It's the sun
    "Environmentalist Groups Say Tech Firms Get Great Publicity from Their Green PR Efforts, But They Wonder How Deep the Commitment Really Is" But eho are the real Hypocrites? I am now seeing things that I have been afraid of for 40 years.
  30. Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
    John, exactly what's skeptical about this? "So while Al Gore was in error attributing the Mann/Jones graph to Dr Thompson, the main conclusion that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were less than modern times is correct. This is an important point and seems to be overlooked in the eagerness to debunk Gore. " You're taking this hook line and sinker with absolutely no skeptical inquiry at all. A careful review of the evidence convinces me that the opposite is as at least as likely to be true, namely that it could have been as warm or warmer during the MWP as it is now. The IPCC summary of computer simulations you link above only go back to 1850 and blurs out problems with individual models by replacing the spaghetti curve with a grayed out region. (Errors in the simulations are highly correlated from year to year, the figure makes it seem they are not, which is false and misleading.) Furthermore, there are no reconstructions of temperatures that *don't include tree ring chronologies* that conclude that the MWP was cooler than it is now. And there is every reason to be suspicious of tree rings as proxies for temperature, given the multivariate relationship between temperature, precipitation, and CO2 fertilization on tree ring growth. Even if you ignored CO2 fertilization and precipitation as factors, there is an optimal temperature range for any plant: Presumably in their natural climate (the temperature zones for which they are optimized), you will find them near their optimal rate, otherwise you'd find the plants in a warmer climate than they are actually found. Ecology 101. Lower or *raise* the temperature, and you will see a decline in growth rate. One would certainly not expect anything approaching a linear relationship between the two. (Isotopic measurements of δ18O do not suffer from any of these problems, because they are measuring a ratio rather than an absolute quantity.) I happen to agree that CO2 is playing a role in our current warming trend, but don't agree with Al Gore that it is "appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is." That's just coded words for lying. And I am not nearly as infatuated with Mann's work as you appear to be. Even the plots the NAS make the answer to whether the MWP appear much less certain that you are portraying it to be: See Figure 11-1 on page 112: Most of the multi-proxy reconstructions show the modern temperature to be about 0.1-0.2 C above that of the Medieval Optimum, which is probably a smaller difference than the absolute uncertainly in the reconstructed temperature for that period. BTW, I don't think it's appropriate to hot link to other people's blogs without getting permission first. I would hope you have done so, or would make a local copy of Steve's figure with a hyperlink to his original image.
  31. Models are unreliable
    I'm repeating here what I've said in another place on your blog: The IPCC summary of computer simulations you link above only go back to 1850 and blurs out problems with individual models by replacing the spaghetti curve with a grayed out region. (Errors in the simulations are highly correlated from year to year, the figure makes it seem they are not, which is false and misleading.) Also did you notice the huge 0.3°C anomaly around 1940-1950 that the models, even with the fuzzing provided by IPCC, are unable to explain? Where did that warming come from? I would conclude from that, that we aren't at the place yet, even for a 150-year period with a lot of fudge factors thrown in, where we can accurately describe past climate, let alone accurately predict future climate. Secondly did you notice that there was very little anthropogenic forcing before 1970, according to the models? Have you ever considered how disingenuous it is, given this fact, to compare glaciers from e.g. 100 years ago to current, when the models say that almost all warming prior to 1970 was natural?
  32. It's the sun
    ScaredAmoeba Call for delay to biofuels policy This is why I said that drastic measures without thinking things through could kill us all.
  33. It's the sun
    ScaredAmoeba Definition of Argument UN food chief urges crisis action Still don't think greens kill out of ignorance?
  34. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    I have to guess that this would come under "other" in Cloud_formation_processes. I have seen articles and blogs all claiming that the cosmic ray hypothesis is false. Is there actually any agreement?
  35. Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
    I really don't see that Sloan's response addresses Shaviv's point at all. Presuming Shaviv is right (from his blog) "Another option is to calculate the actual latitudinal dependence of the atmospheric ionization variations. This was done by Usoskin et al. (2004), who took the top-of-the-atmosphere variations in the CRF, and using a *code* to calculate the shower products, calculated the actual latitudinal ionization rate variations. They found that the relative change in the LCC is the same as the relative change in the ion density (which itself is proportional to the square root of the ionization rate). *Both vary by several percent from equator to pole over the solar cycle.* This can be seen in fig. 2. In other words, the latitudinal dependence of the cloud cover variations is totally consistent with the CRF/cloud cover mechanism. *For comparison, the solar cycle variation in the neutron monitor data is almost 20% at the poles, and 5% at the equator.* " (asterisks mine) Since Sloan doesn't dispute this that I can see, he is using the wrong numbers (his proportion is off) to evaluate Shaviv's claims. Cheers, :)
    Response: Figure 3 compares the fractional change between neutron counts (solid dots and solid line) & ionisation (open squares, joined by the dashed line). The ionisation modulation is computed for solar cycle 22 for the total ionization from figure 5 of the Usoskin paper. It's the fractional modulation for cycle 22 multiplied by 2 since their fig 6 is a plot of n (which is proportional to the square root of q hence dq/q=2 dn/n, see equ 5 of their paper).

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

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

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

    The bottom line is that both CRII and neutron counts increase at high latitudes so you would expect cloud cover amplitude to also increase. That cloud cover amplitude shows little dependence on latitude indicates cosmic rays are not a major factor in the modulation of cloud cover - if correlation between the 11 year signal in cloud cover and the solar cycle is real, most of it is due to other aspects of solar activity.
  40. The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
    It seems that there is another new twist where the Antarctic Deep Sea Gets Colder. "The data gap can only be closed with the aid of autonomous observing systems, moored at the seafloor or drifting freely, that provide oceanic data for several years."
  41. Antarctica is gaining ice
    "Computer models have predicted that energetic particles hitting the top of the atmosphere in polar regions may change temperatures by stimulating the production of nitrous oxides (NOx)." "NOx destroys ozone in catalytic reaction cycles; and when you change ozone in the stratosphere, that... can then feed down to surface temperatures." From an article by BBC News "More doubt on cosmic climate link By Richard Black, Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Vienna" under the subhead Local change
    Response: I did see that article earlier today. The section on Antarctica is interesting although the phenomena they're describing seems to be regional and shows no long term trends - it's a localised, short term effect. However, what did get my attention was the section on cosmic rays as I've actually been preparing a post on that very topic - cloud cover during Forbush events. This new study covers the same material using different data so I contacted the author this morning hoping to get more info. More on this soon, I hope.
  42. There is no consensus
    Frankbi, I believe the number 19 originally came from Andy Revkin's Dotearth blog. Andy Revkin later said that he had gotten emails from other scientists saying that there were several dozen more in attendence. Granted, its not 19,000, but its not 19 either. Beyond that, the 19,000 scientists are not all in climate related field, but apparently the Scientific American did some "crude extrapolating" and found roughly 200 climate researchers in the bunch. Again, not 19,000, but still a respectable number. The Oregon Petition isn't worth much anyhow.
  43. There is no consensus
    frankbi I was referring to all the peer-reviewed papers, and the blogs that link to them. Legitimate or not, there is an awful lot of dissent. The conference you mention was more like a rally from what I have read about it. I really don't consider that dissent, although a few of it's speakers did post their papers on-line. I have read many papers on-line that are skeptical but not actually in opposition to the AGW hypothesis. Do you consider these to be dissenters?
  44. It's the sun
    John Me too.
  45. The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
    Here is the link directly to the CO2 Sources sample map
  46. The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
    In a recent article the new "Vulcan" system maps CO2 Sources (and sinks as well). Take a good look at the sample map in the article!
  47. It's the sun
    Quietman Definition of Argument 1'A connected series of statements intended to establish a position; a process of reasoning or disputation..,' NSOED 1993
    Response: I'm having a deja vu of a Monty Python sketch :-)
  48. It's the sun
    ScaredAmoeba And I do not intend to make an argument, my intent is to learn more about climate change by questioning the points that I do not understand. The articles and papers that I have read all seem to be conflicting and I want to know why. The most logical statements I have seen all agree that we need to plan for a changing climate. Cleaner resources are a given, that is common sense. But putting the effort into controlling CO2 does not seem sensible given that we can have so little effect by following that route.
  49. Climate change on Mars
    Philippe So what you are saying is that the same forces that cause the increased speed of the solar wind do not carry along with it the increased heat that is expelled in the microflare?
  50. It's the sun
    ScaredAmoeba It would be silly to try to do something about the sun now would it not? Perhaps since we actually have no control over climate change we should put our effort into ways that we can live with it?

Prev  2633  2634  2635  2636  2637  2638  2639  2640  2641  2642  2643  2644  2645  2646  2647  2648  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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