Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Suggested supplemental reading:

India just set a new all-time record high temperature — 123.8 degrees by Angela Fritz, Capital Weather Gang, Washington Post May 19, 2016

‘99 Percent Chance’ 2016 Will Be Hottest Year by Andrea Thompson, Climate Central, May 18, 2016

theCTTA at 00:54 AM on 21 May 2016

Why I care about climate change

Agreed, I don't want to tell my daughter that I was part of the problem. I would much rather tell her that we went down fighting or solved the problem. We are ultimately responsible to our children for the way we leave the future.

The way I see the issues are as a cascading series of interconnected effects, like dominos falling. That said, I believe that many approaches to problem solving are needed, and am heartened by the responses here. We, the Clean Technology Trade Alliance, are working on finding businesses with technologies and engineering approaches to develop coalitions to solve the wide variaty of issues (symptoms) being created by not only climate change, but our overal devaluing of natural resources.

ie: Desertification in Chihuahua Mexico, Texas and California are adversily affecting water. Which effects agriculture...food supplies etc...

As I said cascading events, cause and effect.

Thank you for providing this forum for information and conversation.

billev at 22:07 PM on 20 May 2016

The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change

If the CO2 caused energy imbalance is the reason for the Earth's temperature rise then that temperature rise should be continuous like the steady, and accelerating, rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the record of the Earth's mean temperature since 1880 shows that the rise in the Earth's temperature has not been continuous. There have been two thirty year periods of no temperature increase that have alternated with two thirty year periods of temperature rise. Why this inconsistency?

Moderator Response:

[TD] Read the post "CO2 Is Not the Only Driver of Climate." Put further comments on that thread, not this one, for this topic in this comment of yours. Further off-topic comments by you will be deleted without warning, because you have had plenty of warnings.

[GT] billev, I have replied to your comment on the thread TD linked to.

sam13501 at 21:12 PM on 20 May 2016

It's cooling

i never said i had 'evidence' i said i heard about an interview once about the theory that the movie 'day after tomorrow' was based on.. and that theory is a co2 theory (or man made warming theory), so its one of the 'establishment' science things..since they used it in a hollywood film and hollywood tends lend support to the co2 science..i'm not bent out of shape about the evidence you have posted indicating that warming is continuing.. i know that the skeptic's have questioned the reliability of some of these charts that orgs like the noaa put out..im not going to challenge them here as anyone can goto those sites.. all i did here was to suggest that extreme cold events like super blizzards in the north and snow in the tropics 'seem' to be on the increase and that these are typically 'mini-ice age' conditions and they 'seem'to be gathering pace as the solar minimums set in.. and that possibly the global warming movement was born from the fear of an imminent ice age.. in short I am interested in global cooling and mini-ice age so i asked about any information on the theory that co2 or manmade warming can create a very cold spell.

Moderator Response:

[RH] You're clearly not listening to anything that's being said. And you're just prattling along with your incorrect information that you can't seems to find.

You've been given multiple warnings now. Patience is wearing very very thin. You're going to have to significantly up your game if you want to continue your posting privileges.

ranyl at 20:59 PM on 20 May 2016

Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping

Thanks Howard...

Road to 2C is inevitable I suspect now even with negative emissions.

Early Pliocene 3-5C hotter with a max CO2 400ppm and average more like 350ppm from many recent papers and were at 480ppmCO2e.

Its going to take a huge brake to stop this rollcoaster ride.

However we have depleted almost every ecosystem and therefore their regenration might bring CO2 in check to some degree.

michael sweet at 19:53 PM on 20 May 2016

It's cooling

Sam,

When you are unable to find your supposed evidence people here believe that the evidencce never existed. It appears that you remember a lot of evidence that you cannot now find. If you want to convince people at this web site you will have to start supporting all your wild claims with citations. I note that Tom Curtis has provided data and evidence for all his claims, and written citations so they can be verified. You have provided no evidence to support your wild claims.

sam13501 at 17:35 PM on 20 May 2016

It's cooling

later i was unable to find the interview..

sam13501 at 17:33 PM on 20 May 2016

It's cooling

Once when I was browsing youtube, less than a year ago (i guess) i came accross a bit like "The Dick Hartman Show" and he said he was going to interview a guest, Michael Mann(im sure you know who he is) and if I remember correctly MM was going to talk about the possibility of an extremly cold period starting around 2020, due to in his opinion, "conveyer belt shutdown" a theory used in the Denis Quaid movie "The Day After Tomorrow" oddly enough that would be the same time the current weak solar cycle would be bottoming out.. I'm thinking pdo&amo both cold at the same time but i don't know what a 'conveyor belt is' any information anyone has on that theory?..it seems to be the co2 version of iminent ice age..

sauerj at 13:54 PM on 20 May 2016

What Sir David King gets wrong about carbon pricing

One Planet, I can't find pledge signers list for current 114th congress, but HERE is list for previous 113th congress. 3 of 6 GOP Climate Solutions Caucus members are on the 113th pledge list. The other 3 GOP reps didn't start office until the 114th congress. Of these Bob Dold has signed the pledge; I can't find if either Carlos Curbelo (FL) or Ryan Costello (PA) have signed. ... Unfortunately, the Grover Norquist pledge (Americans for Tax Reform) is a formidable political reality as 94% of House GOP have signed it (link). ... But, the 100% revenue neutral Fee & Dividend approach effectively gives us a way to get around this political stumbling block, and that's OK, because this by itself would still be very effective in moving us toward a FF-free (or greatly FF-reduced) economy. Take note that Dr. James Hansen is a strong supporter of this 100% revenue neutral CFD approach. ... This is what makes CCL vision so attractive; they realize the political reality and embrace it head on. If we can help keep building this political will and getting other GOP pledgers to get on board, we might actually get some real national discussion going and get something with some real force passed.

One Planet Only Forever at 11:34 AM on 20 May 2016

What Sir David King gets wrong about carbon pricing

sauerj,

My observations of the behaviours of the die-hard adherents to Grover Norquit's pledge indicates that anything that would shift wealth and benefit away from the portion of the population that does not deserve the benefits and rewards it has been getting away with personally gathering will be unacceptable to them. And they will use the Pledge to Grover as an excuse for the irresponsible inexcusable choice they want to make.

So I would expect that the GOP members who are receptive to CFD did not sign Grover's pledge (not all GOP signed onto that piece of Playschool Theatrics) and that Democrat members who support it do not represent regions where the smiting might of disinformation political campaign attacks would significantly affect them (some Democrats have supported continued coal burning). However, I would wholeheartedly welcome learning that GOP members who signed the pledge have decided to ignore the expectations of those who sign it and are willing to act rationally and responsibly to advance global humanity to a lasting better future for all.

Glenn Tamblyn at 11:01 AM on 20 May 2016

The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change

billev

Proof that CO2 causes temperature change. Perhaps rephrase that. Proof that CO2 influences the planets energy balance, and that in turn changes in the energy balance then change temperatures.

The earths energy balance is heat flowing in from the Sun and heat flowing out to space. If those two flows don't match, the amount of energy here on Earth can change. If heat in is greater than heat out, heat here on Earth builds up. And the size of these energy flows is staggering. A rate of around 121,500 trillion watts in and out. AN energy flow in of that magnitude, if it wasn't balanced by a flow outwards, is enough energy to boil the oceans dry in less than a 1000 years. Even a small imbalance in these flows can cause significant changes.

So something that can influence the flow of energy out to space, restricting it in some way, would have a profound impact.

The following graph is from a paper published in 1970. It is measuring the energy flowing out to space from a point on the Earth below, from near Galveston in Texas. To understand the graph, think of it like a rainbow. It is plotting the energy flowing to space for a range of different wavelengths in the infrared region, infrared 'colours' if you like. So the amount of energy flowing out to space is proportional to the area under the curve.

There are to curves. One is a calculation from theory, the other was a direct measurement, taken by the Nimbus 3 satellite in 1969, the first time this sort of measurement could be taken from space. Today such measurements are everyday occurances. One graph has been shifted up for clarity, actually the two graphs match almost perfectly, such was the state of this science in 1969.

Remembering that the energy flowing to space is proportional to the area under the graph, look at the big notch. That is less energy reaching space than would be expected. That is a disruption of the outward heat flow that sets the Earth's energy balance. And that is caused by CO2. There is the Greenhouse Effect and the impact of CO2 all in one observation.

The Earth is over 30 degrees warmer than it otherwise would be because of it.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Billev seems to accept that photons received direct from sun will affect temperature, but that photons coming from gases in the atmosphere somehow magically do not affect temperature (or energy balance). If someone is willing to deny something has experimentally tested and fundamental as Plancks Law, then I doubt any science will convince them.

JIm Steele at 10:24 AM on 20 May 2016

Corals are resilient to bleaching

Rob, Seriously. Reef forming coral expanded during the warm periods of the Mesozoic. Do you really want to argue coral suffered more from warmth than they have from the cold during the most recent ice ages?? Please provide the evidence? LInks?

And indeed there has been episodic declines in coral reefs, but the greatest mortality has been due to tropical storms, predators like Crown of Thorns, or disease like White band. Dynamite and cyanide fishing have also been destructive as well as nutrient runoff from agriculture and seage. INstead you want to focus on bleaching, the smallest cause of mortality which is also part of their amazing adaptation mechanisms?!? Why do you disagree with the experts who promote the Adaptive Bleaching Hypothesis?

http://landscapesandcycles.net/coral-bleaching-debate.html

Moderator Response:

[Rob P] - You mention the Mesozoic and make the flawed assumption that the marine revolution that occurred during this time, as it pertains to coral reefs, came about because of some hitherto unrecognized invulnerability to warm water. This is nonsense.

Coral reefs likely acquired photosymbiosis during the Mezosoic and both the evolution of herbivorous marine feeders and the flooding of continental shelves occurred during this time. The development of photosymbiosis enabled coral to spread into oligotrophic (low nutrient) environments, and the flooding of continental shelves with warming opened up new territory for them. The arrival of mobile marine herbivores also meant coral were better able to complete with macroalgae and seaweed for space - indeed this is suggested as being the primary evolutionary driver during this period. I suggest this review paper as a starting point might prove illuminating: The Ecological Evolution of Coral Reefs by Professor Rachel Wood.

There are simple reasons why coral have suffered or gone extinct because of (natural) global warming events in the past, a) surface seawater was too warm, and b) low carbonate ion abundance associated with ocean acidification made skeleton-building too energetically costly. Calcification rates drop, the coral skeleton becomes weakened and the reef cannot precipitate aragonite fast enough to overcome bioerosion. And this segues into why we are seeing coral reefs disappearing at an alarming rate today. You see that the scientific case explains both the past and present behaviour of coral reefs perfectly well.

As for adaptive bleaching, it's not only me that disagrees with the adherents of this hypothesis, it's other coral reef experts and, more importantly, the observations. Intense coral bleaching events induce mortality soon after bleaching and thus dead coral are unable to acquire new algal partners. I'm sure you can agree that death makes adaptation impossible. Moreover, some of the reefs on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) that survived the smaller-scale bleaching events of 1998 and the early noughties, have since died from the 2016 GBR bleaching event.

billev at 10:10 AM on 20 May 2016

The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change

I am not postulating that the Earth can warm or cool without cause. What that cause is I do not know but I would tend to think it is an alteration in the Earth's relationship with the Sun. I also think that if one wishes to prove that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming then the focus of temperature measurement should be upon those few feet between the Earth's surface and the measuring instruments employed on land for measuring that temperature. The nature of the heat loss from the earth's surface to those instruments might reveal whether it is a linear loss or whether it is influenced by an outside agent such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As far as increased irradiation not increasing surface temperature, this could occur if the irradiation was so small that its effect could not be measured with the instrumentation available.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Orbital forcings are directly calculated. Their influence is well studied (maybe start here). How you accept that this forcing, slow and very small compared to GHG, affected climate and yet GHG do not. To suggest that GHG affect thermometers 2m about surface is to profoundly misunderstand how GHG effect works. I suggest you go to the basics. How about the ocean measurements then?

John Hartz at 10:01 AM on 20 May 2016

It's cooling

Suggested reading for Sam:

Extraordinary Heat Wave Sweeps Southeast Asia and Points Beyond by Christopher C. Burt , Wunderblog, Weahter Underground, April 19, 2016

sam13501 at 09:07 AM on 20 May 2016

It's cooling

oh i see, those are not temps they are 'temp. ranks' this is exactly what im talking about.. they will always manage to slice the data in a way that shows it's 'warm' again they are saying that April was the warmest april on record.. that's obvious bullshit when it was freezing the whole month with snow and asia and europe were also cold.. I was just watching the Rome masters with djok and murray last week, been watching it for years, this year everyone in the stands were wearing jackets and scarves, i checked the weather it was 11*c there in May.. it has been a very cold april and may..something is being seriously fudged here.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped.

Please see the Moderation advice given you in your previous comment.

sam13501 at 08:57 AM on 20 May 2016

It's cooling

and i think what people like tony hellar are saying is that these charts include adjusted and fabricated data. In April I checked the weather for various cities in the US everyday, Boston, Wichita Falls, WDC,NY, everyday it was freezing, like i said there was a white easter and 16 FEET of snow in PA, everyday in the entire region it was freezing or near freezing..if it was 60* in PA then why was there 16 feet of snow, if it was so warm then why was only 5% of the crop planted? Today is May 20 Chicago-low7*c, high 18, NY 12,21 WDC 12,21 wis 6,22 etc. according to your chart it was warmer in april than it is now.. obviously the charts that the noaa put out are faked.. i put up photos that showed much more ice in greenland now than just a few years ago, but im sure you have charts that show opposite..

also tonys charts that shows there are less days now that break 100*f, 95*F than in the 30's and 60's .. real or fake?

Moderator Response:

[DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped.

Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

MA Rodger at 04:20 AM on 20 May 2016

It's cooling

sam @278,

If you are to get anything from your visits here, it would be best if you show your data sources. I get the impression you are rather too wedded to Tony Heller & his RealClimateScience.com website, a place that is certainly packed full of WMD or Wordage of Mass Deception, so you may be reluctant to do this.

However, data sources are always useful. For instance, if you track down the Heller post you talk of with its "(3)charts, using US HCN stations" you can also find the source of the drought chart Heller uses, which is an update of Fig 2.3a of U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3, June 2008. (PDF here) Note that it was likely sight of Fig 2.3b that gave Heller the inspiration for his post. But tellingly for us here, what else is there in that document of June 2008? I think there is some (for instance, see Fig 2.4) that makes a bit of a nonsense of this talk of yours of cooling US winters.

sauerj at 02:41 AM on 20 May 2016

What Sir David King gets wrong about carbon pricing

One Planet Only Forever@6: I agree w/ your comment, but the reality of today's US Republicans (who have pledged not to enact any new taxes; Grover Norquist pledge) causes an impasse. CCL's approach: 'OK, that won't stop us, we can get around this'. And, they are! They are getting some GOP members' attention & real support (which opens the door to building relationships for really getting things moving).

SkS members would all agree that CFD at $100 US/ton CO2 (CCL proposal) would be a very effective start to motivating toward a FF-free economy. Dr. Shi-Ling Hsu (Case for Carbon Tax) argues that CFD is the most effective way (compared to Command&CaptureControl (Regs), Cap&Trade, and Subsidies). CCL's approach is to figure out a way to effectively and respectfully work within the political constraints that we have. And, the 100% revenue neutral CFD proposal (no new net tax burden) removes any political foothold from the GOP to thwart this policy (on the grounds of tax burden). And, this is working; GOP members are signing-on in support (see citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus/). In fact, CCL places such a high priority on bipartison cooperation that they purposely do NOT invite any new Democrats until a new GOP member joins (currently there are 6 democrats and 6 republicans). I find that kind of "vision" very refreshly (another example of the positive spirit behind CCL).

But, in the end, though CFD by itself will be very effective. A combination of 1) 100% revenue neutral CFD, and 2) subsidies to R&D, and 3) Command&Capture (regs) would be extremely powerful. My personal analogy is that CFD is a "pulling" economic force (it pulls the economy & markets toward the best solutions); while Command&Capture (regs) are a "pushing" economic force (they push the economy & markets away from an undesire state). I compare the effectiveness of these to that of front-wheel drive cars (pulling) vs rear-wheel drive cars (pushing). If you had to pick between the two, you would pick the former. But, the ultimate would be BOTH (an all-wheel drive car), especially to move somewhere as expedieting as possible. R&D subsidies would be like hiring a mechanic that works 24/7 on your car to continuously optimize its technology.

Moderator Response:

[JH] Edited per request.

howardlee at 01:25 AM on 20 May 2016

Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping

Ranyl - I'll answer in sequence:

Remineralization depth CO2 feedback starting in ernest?
I don't know, but it's a plausible factor among many including fires that you mention. The Global Carbon Budget shows that the ocean carbon sink continues to increase at about 10 GtCO2/yr but there is large yearly variation in those data. Kwon et al said: "...considerable fractions (more than 30%) of the full response occur on timescales of decades..." and: "... changes in remineralization depth could feed back on twenty-first century climate change." And "... our work suggests that the impact on the global carbon cycle could be substantial."

Iron fertilization:
Iron fertilization is nutrient supply, so it would tend to increase anoxia, provided other essential nutrients like phosphorus, nitrogen, etc are present in the Redfield Ratio.

Inundation of nutrient-rich land:
Yes this should increase nutrient supply at least in coastal areas.

Industrial farming:
Yes this is one of the major factors behind the exponential increase in coastal dead zones since the 1960s.

Carbon sequestration: Yes. See Andy Skuce's excellent 3-part article on "The Road to 2 degrees"

The bottom line is that the climate system is complex machinary that we've stuck multiple fingers into. All the knock-ons and feedbacks - positive and negative - are highly tangled. But evidence from Earth's past show that the positive feedbacks exceed the negative ones on a human timeframe, before he negative ones win out on a geolgical timeframe of many millennia.

One Planet Only Forever at 01:12 AM on 20 May 2016

What Sir David King gets wrong about carbon pricing

I agree with Carbon Fee & Dividend, with the carbon fee being significant enough that the dividends are noticably improve the life circumstances of the least fortunate who actually live in ways that result in very little CO2 impact.

In addition to that action, I agree with Sir David King's push for more tax money to be collected and spent on reserch and development of truly suistainable energy technologies. But that tax should be a special surcharge on individual gross income (before reducing the inome by tax allowed deductions like loss of value of stocks), for anyone whose gross income is significant (a tax only on the top 10%).

The bottom line is that many of the currently developed perceptions of prosperity and wealth are clearly unsustainable and undeserved. Pushing for those perceptions to be excused and be maintained until (or unless) a cheaper more popular or more profitable way of living is developed is simply shameful. History clearly shows that less acceptable actions that can actually be temporarily gotten away with will be cheaper, popular and most profitable (for a few for a little while). That Invisible Slapping Hand of the marketplace needs to be acknowedged in order for humanity to more rapidly advance to a lasting better future for all.

Tom Curtis at 00:51 AM on 20 May 2016

It's cooling

sam @278:

"I do not consider charts such as that,to be reliable."

Of course you don't. I never imagined for a second that you are one to let a "beautiful theory" be spoilt be ugly facts. So you just cherry pick some more.

First, when discussing the record global warmth, you cherry pick data from the USA (which had only its 18th warmest April). And not the USA as a whole, but only two particular zones within the US. You can guess which zones be looking at the temperature rankings by state for April 2016:

You make a point of mentioning the North East (which was near average, or below average for the 20th century, and hence very cool relative to 21st century to date) and central US (which is a bit of a stretch, given that most states in the central region were above average, and hence below average for the 21st century todate) - but you very carefully do not mention the North West where three states had their second warmest April on record. I'm sure that was entirely accidental, and not in any way an attempt to cherry pick /sarc.

You also manage to mention Europe (where parts were near average relative to the 20th century record) - but no mention of Australia, or the central Meditarainian, or the Indian Ocean, or the Amazon, in all of which large tracks were the warmest on record. Now either you genuinely believe the Globe consists of just the US and Europe, or you are cherry picking. Outrageiously so.

I like statistical evidence where you can see at a glance that you are not getting a biased picture. If you say April 2016 wasn't that warm, but have to restrict your discusion to less than 5% of the globe to make your case (as you have), then you have not case. You ought to either be honest with yourself about that fact, or leave discussion here to the grownups who are happy to look at the whole of the data, and don't start invoking conspiracy theories every time the data doesn't tell them what they want to hear.

howardlee at 00:20 AM on 20 May 2016

Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping

Chriskoz - I believe that remineralization effects were accounted for in carbon pump calculations which explain some but not all of the 80-100ppm CO2 drawdown in glacial times. As Prof Archer noted in his book The Global Carbon Cycle (2010) "There is no single satisfactory explanation for the positive ocean carbon cycle feedback responsible for the glacial and interglacial atmospeheric CO2 cycles."

I brought this up in my interview with Prof Andy Ridgwell last December, and he said:

"I suspect it’s more likely we have all the mechanisms known but it’s how we piece the whole thing together consistent with all the different bits of proxy information we have. Now that the CO2 record of the glaciation is getting better and better resolved in time, they are looking like 100-year steps of 20 - 25 ppm CO2 and there’s some radiocarbon evidence that this carbon must have been mostly radiocarbon-dead. So people have been thinking: could it have been rapid sea rises? Could it have been destabilizing permafrost or marine hydrates? In terms of really trying to interrogate the highest resolution ice core record of the glaciation and actually see within a general change in the carbon cycle between glacial and interglacial, are there particular mechanisms that might be giving a huge kick of CO2 at certain times? If you just flood permafrost with ocean that’s not at freezing temperature, then you suddenly melt the permafrost so you can have a lot of carbon release just because the sea level rise is massive."

sam13501 at 00:18 AM on 20 May 2016

It's cooling

I do not consider charts such as that,to be reliable.. I saw something on one of the news, "April 2016 was the hottest on record, and it wasn't even close" This was the same April that was freezing all over the NE and central US with heavy snow..and it wasn't just the USA, east asia and europe were also cold, not as cold but it wasn't very spring like.. There have been April's in my life where Spring actually existed, this wasn't one of them, even May is cold.. How could that possibly be the coldest on record. Climate Central's chart says one thing, but tony hellar puts up (3)charts, using US HCN stations that there were more days in the 30s, and 60's that were over 90,95,100* That there were more hot days back then, then there are now.. Charts contradicting each other, ice studies contradicting each other, the charts in the 70,s and 80's showing one thing, the currentcharts showing another.. at this point I only look at weather patterns not charts.. what comes to mind ofcource is all the reliable data we had that showed Iraq had a WMD program..

Moderator Response:

[RH] You don't get to merely dismiss data you don't like and accept data you like. You need to show why the data is wrong if you don't accept it. If you're incapable of doing this, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you don't know what you're talking about and should keep your mind open to the potential that reality may be something other than what you prefer to believe.

ranyl at 00:06 AM on 20 May 2016

Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping

Thanks Howardlee,
Sobering indeed, also interesting how recent CO2ppm 12 month apart month on month rises are increasing whilst emissions are apparently falling, is there evidence that this natural positive feedback or others (forest fires) are possibly already starting in earnest?
What do think iron fertilization will do to the fine balance of things?
Do you think sea level rises invading nutrient rich lands and soils will have any significant affect?
And lastly sorry for so many questions, what are your thoughts on how the increase in runoff nutrients caused by the expansion of industrial farming may affect things?
Does seem more and more that a huge carbon sequestration effort is going to be needed and keeping the oceans healthy and carbon sequestering through the warming coming is going to be a vital challenge.
Mind you if over activates like over fishing, waste, pollutants, etc, somehow just stopped occurring then maybe the surface oceans might actually get healthier for while despite the accelerating warming period being experienced.

howardlee at 23:53 PM on 19 May 2016

Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping

Mitch - in talking to people who know way more about this than I do, they tell me that the thermal stratification is indeed transient exactly as you describe, but anoxic conditions in Ocean Anoxic Events sometimes lasted hundreds of millennia, well beyond the shelf-life of stratification, suggesting a prolonged enhanced nutrient supply, which seems to be linked to enhanced weathering rates in a warmer, wetter climate.

Tom Curtis at 23:23 PM on 19 May 2016

It's cooling

sam @275:

"I also appreciate that there can be this cherry-picking on both sides of an argument and in different ways, when something 'appears' to show something basic, like Ice-accumulation on antarctica, it can be 'viewed' in a different light."

The way to avoid cherry picking is not to look at yet more anecdotal evidence as you are doing. It is to look at the summary statistics. Thus, while you quote incidents from some states in the US, in fact in 2016 to date, there have been 640 warm daily records compared to just 121 cold daily records, a ratio of 5.29 to 1 in favour of the warm records. Globally, to date, there have been 46,542 warm daily records compared to 8,275 cold daily records, a ratio of 5.64 to 1 in favour of the warm records.

In contrast to those record, your listing of incidents is 100% cold incidents. When the data shows >5 to 1 in favour, but all your samples come from the 1 rather than the >5, we know very clearly who is cherry picking.

Further, this tendency towards of warm records is something which is well known, and increasing in magnitude:

(Data for contiguous USA, source)

While this is in fact what you would expect from global warming, the idea that we could have global cooling while warm records outnumber cold records by >5 to 1 is an absurdity.

billev at 22:02 PM on 19 May 2016

The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change

I still have seen no proof that the current level of atmospheric CO2 has any measureable effect on temperature readings. The fact that an entity has the quality of causing something does not guarantee that it will cause that something if there is not enough of the entity. For example, steel has the quality of being able to stop the flight of a bullet. A thickness of one inch of steel will stop a bullet fired from a pistol but 1/2500th of an inch of steel won't. The recorded temperature change the Earth has been experiencing since 1880 conforms to the statements by climatologists that a 500 year period of warming began about 1850 with the end of the of a 500 year period of cooling that had begun around 1350. This would not appear to have anything to do with atmospheric CO2 levels, Also, I think that continuous recording of the pattern of heat loss that occurs between the Earth's surface and the temperature recording devices would be key to determining whether changes in the atmosphere were acting upon that heat loss and to what extent.

Moderator Response:

[PS] I am quite sure that if you do not want to accept GHG theory, then nothing will change you mind. However, if you can show an example of increased irradiation of a surface not increasing its temperature, then line up for a Nobel prize. Furthermore you seem to postualating that the earth can warm or cool without a cause (ie a violation of 1st law). Please cite the "the statements by climatologists" - otherwise this is sloganneering and prohibited. Since most of the earth is covered by ocean, most of heat goes there. How to explain this energy build up with your "natural cycles"?

chriskoz at 20:17 PM on 19 May 2016

Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping

Interesting summary Howard.

Do you think the remineralization depth changes during ice ages may explin the phenomenon of strong CO2 feedback of the initial orbital forcings?

Oceanographers have been saying that the CO2 feedback responsible for the magnification of orbital forcings comes from the ocean degassing. But they don't know or are unsure of the mechanism responsible for such degassing and regassing cycles that dominated climate cycles of the last 1My.

Rob Painting at 17:43 PM on 19 May 2016

It's cooling

Sam your comment reminds me of this:

It is extraordinarily unlikely that ten of thousands of scientists are wrong about global warming. Especially when the Earth continues to accumulate heat, ice continues to melt, and sea level continues to rise as expected.

sam13501 at 16:40 PM on 19 May 2016

It's cooling

well ok i appreciate you replies.. I also appreciate that there can be this cherry-picking on both sides of an argument and in different ways, when something 'appears' to show something basic, like Ice-accumulation on antarctica, it can be 'viewed' in a different light. But things like snow in the tropics, first time ever snow in tropical area's-it is what it is.. and what snow in the tropics is-is typical 'mini-ice age' conditions. Do an image search 'gtemps' and you will see a diagram that shows the 'roman warm period' etc. You can see that the roman empire existed during a warm period between 400AD & 500AD the solar minimums came along with their volcanic activity and there was the natural shift to a cold period..It was also about that time that their civilization collapsed. In fact every chinese dynasty collapsed during solar minimums, these things come, agricultural production suffers-next thing you know, famine- death, the emperor's head is on a platter.

After the 70s,early 80's ice age scare-where scientists like George Kukla and Leona Woods Libby mapped out the natural cycles, and then onto the global warming greenhouse gas movement.. what facinates me about the global warming movement is on the one hand they claim to fear the environmental destruction that (man-made) global warming can create, but in talking to the followers of this movement, they also claim that this man-made warming will 'protect' us from mini-ice ages-which have repeatedly ravaged civilizations throught the previous 10,000 year inter-glacial. There can be this sort of 'mitigation' of a MIA. So far the weather patterns are showing this is not the case-notice the cold related crop failures have already started. no one can deny from a historical standpoint: global warming=good times, global cooling=bad times (despite all the wars and conquest that these good times go along with). I believe that history will later see the GW movement as a 'collective psycosis'. It starts with a realistic fear-fear of ice ages; from this fear a group creates a defense mechanism, a 'wrong' ideology that they think will save them, they then collectivly re-inforce it, when one doubts, the others set him strait, when others tell them that their logic is flawed-they insist that these people are evil; in this case a derogotory word is used; "deniers" Deniers are people who secretly work for fossil fuel energy polluters and all they care about is corporate profits-that's their motive so everything they say is evil. But all that aside, this thing (MIA) is coming, it can't be stopped, it can't be mitigated, and there is no escape. Perhaps it could have been mitigated if these western countries had put their resources into protecting their agricultural sectors instead of middle eastern wars; but with 2019 only a few years away, i guess it's too late.

Moderator Response:

[RH] You're becoming completely nonsensical and that's far from the intent on this website. If you wish to continue posting here you're going to have to come up with substantive scientific research to support your position. Continued speculation and supposition will not suffice.

Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 19 May 2016

It's cooling

Someone believing what they read on Tony "CO2 could fall as snow in Antarctica" Heller's blog has their critical faculties turned off completely.

JIm Steele at 10:58 AM on 19 May 2016

Corals are resilient to bleaching

Coral Bleaching is the Legacy of a Marvelous Adaptation Mechanism

http://landscapesandcycles.net/coral-bleaching-debate.html

Observations of increased bleaching have happened for both warm and cold events

Moderator Response:

[Rob P] - Note the text on the post you have commented on:

"Because reef-coral have adapted tolerance to a narrow band of environmental conditions, bleaching can occur for a number of reasons, such as ocean acidification, pollution, excess nutrients from run-off, high UV radiation levels, exposure at extremely low tides and cooling or warming of the waters in which the coral reside. Typically these events are very localized in scale and if bleaching is mild, the coral can survive long enough to re-acquire new algal partners. So bleaching in itself is not something new, but mass coral bleaching on the huge scale being observed certainly appears to be, and represents a whole new level of coral reef decline."

Coral reefs globally are in dramatic decline and the worldwide bleaching event currently underway is likely to kill quite a few more coral reefs. When one steps back to look at the 'big picture' it's pretty clear why coral reefs in the ancient ocean suffered crises and extinctions - a too-warm and acidified ocean was just too inhospitable for them to survive.

Bob Loblaw at 10:51 AM on 19 May 2016

The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change

billev:

Your "fact" that temperature rise has not been continuous even though CO2 rise has been "constant" would only be a reasonable conclusion if CO2 was the only thing that affected global temperatures. It is not, and there are lots of posts on this site that will educate you if you bother to look. Although many factors affect short-term trends (and some longer-term), the current rise in temperatures cannot be explained by those other factors and it is entirely consistent with the known physics of CO2 and radiation transfer.

Your logic is like saying that your long-term increase in your bank balance is not caused by your regular paycheck because the bank balance drops sometimes (when you pay bills) - even though you have no other source of income.

pattimer at 03:03 AM on 19 May 2016

What Sir David King gets wrong about carbon pricing

I am 100% in favour of a carbon tax to take into account, as far as possible, external costs but when David King says "“It needs to go hand in hand with other regulatory systems.” I cannot find fault with that opinion either. We neeed surely to use every tool at our disposal, carbon tax, government planning and regulation. If on the other hand he argues that regulation should be used instead of carbon tax I would say he was in error for excluding an important strategy.

billev at 02:31 AM on 19 May 2016

The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change

The referenced papers, in my opinion, do not prove that the increase in radiative forcing has been sufficient to have any measureable effect on temperature change as recorded since 1880. The fact that atmospheric CO2 rise has been constant but temperature rise has not been continuous does not support a finding that CO2 levels are influencing temperature.

Moderator Response:

[PS] These papers show that energy radiating to earth surface increase precisely in line with predictions. Unless you want to revoke Plancks Law and conservation of energy, this must increase temperature. To discuss correlation with temperature, please see the myth "There is correlation with temperature". Please note that nowhere does science claim a linear correlation with temperature - CO2 is not the only factor in surface temperature, especially on scales less than a couple of decade. This site is not the place for rhetorical tricks like strawman arguments.

You might find the "Arguments" item on the top menu bar helpful for finding resources about your apparent beliefs. Please read the article carefully before commenting and if you want to dispute the science, please ensure that you have understood what the science claims first, not taking some misinformation site's word for it.

mitch at 01:29 AM on 19 May 2016

Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping

Very nice presentation.One of the best summaries I have seen.

Important point to make is that the expanded anoxic zone is a transient, because the ocean is heated from the top but mixed by winds and tides. The density gradient across the thermocline strengthens as global temperatures go up, making it more difficult to mix water and oxygen down.

Eventually as the ocean warms and the gradient drops, there will be more exchange. However, warm temperatures still cause organic matter degradation shallow and maintain higher atmospheric CO2.

Tom Dayton at 01:04 AM on 19 May 2016

Models are unreliable

dvaytw, more details on how the Bates paper is ridiculous are at ATTP.

Joel_Huberman at 00:19 AM on 19 May 2016

What Sir David King gets wrong about carbon pricing

Nick @ 3. I'm a member of a Citizen's Climate Lobby chapter in New Hampshire. Our chapter is just a year old, but already it's lobbying effectively at the Federal legislative level (Senate and House). Citizen's Climate Lobby has posted a great deal of information about its proposed "carbon fee & dividend" policy here: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

In addition, the Carbon Tax Center posts lots of information about carbon taxes in general, with and without dividends, on its website.

Finally, I fully agree with sauerj@1 that Dr. Shi-Ling Hsu's book, "The Case for a Carbon Tax," is an excellent source of information. In addition, it's brief, well written, and occasionally humorous. Look it up on Amazon.

MA Rodger at 23:50 PM on 18 May 2016

It's cooling

sam @268,

If you wish to set out an argument that "you can't say there is global warming when the ice is increasing," it would be advisable not to link to a NASA press release which demonstrates that you actually can say it -

“At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said. The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet... (My bold)

Of course, some may question the authority of Jay Zwally to make such a statement, but he is the lead author of the work in question and was also clever enough to predict even before its publication that silly denialists will distort his work for their own ends.

“I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.”

Eclectic at 23:41 PM on 18 May 2016

It's cooling

Sam, I am happy to give you a detailed reply to your latest posting, which has been "half struck out".

In collecting anecdotal evidence and a scattering of selected events, it is all too easy for the human brain to be influenced by unintended bias and subconscious prejudices. That is why a careful and thorough scientific evaluation is the only way we can come to realistic conclusions on a complex and worldwide phenomenon such as climate measured over time.

The most straightforward approach here, is to look for an aggregator which compiles all the net effect of the cold & hot events you are interested in. Such an aggregator is the "global mean sea level" over time. ( You can find recent graphs of Global MSL via the University of Colorado website. )

3 or 4 mm per year may not seem very much when you are standing on the beach on a particular day - but think about what it means over the oceans of the whole planet. Each 1 mm of rise represents the melting of approx. 360 Giga-tons of ice, coming from the ice-sheets of Antarctica, Greenland, and so on (and even from the sadly-depleted Glacier National Park ! ).

360 cubic Km of ice is a colossal amount - try a mental picture of 360 blocks of ice measuring each 3,300 feet tall and wide and long. And don't forget that part of each year's rise in MSL on top of that , is caused by thermal expansion of water in the oceans (thermal expansion because the oceans have been warming up more every year).

Allowing for some minor fluctuations from retention/release of surface water on land (and similar changes in ground-water) , we find that MSL shows a strong upward trend during the 20th Century - as measured by tidal gauges and in recent decades, by the more accurate satellite measurements. And the rising sea level rate has been even stronger during the past 20 years. Look at the Global MSL, and you will see an even more impressive rise during 2015.

These findings all point in one direction - and they are entirely inconsistent with the idea of a preponderance of cold events and more build-up of snow & ice-sheets.

It may seem cold where you are : but the planet itself is telling us a different story. The totality of evidence shows that the Earth is continuing to warm up. Nor can the scientists find any reason for it not to continue warming - and that's because there's more solar radiation entering Earth than radiation leaving Earth (the planet hasn't yet reached equilibrium from the effects of current Greenhouse Gasses - and worse, the GHG's are continuing to rise: e.g. CO2 is now above 400 ppm, and climbing) .

Overall, it is clear that AGW hasn't paused or reversed.

Nick Palmer at 23:21 PM on 18 May 2016

What Sir David King gets wrong about carbon pricing

Hi Baerbel! Could you send me any good stuff you might have on how to start implementing a carbon tax with full or partial dividend? I'm on our local government's advisory panel to their Energy Policy Executive and they've asked me to submit some carbon tax stuff. I have my own information but I'd like to see a different perspective to keep me as up to date as possible. I'm still on the usual email

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments