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  839  840  841  842  843  844  845  846  847  848  849  850  851  852  853  854  Next

Comments 42301 to 42350:

  1. One Planet Only Forever at 12:46 PM on 17 September 2013
    The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

    The worst among the contrarians are the ones who "actually know better but refuse to fully and properly inform on this issue or try to misinform", the ones who are informed and intelligent but deliberately develop and disseminate deceptive claims. Those claims then get repeated by the second worst type of people, the ones who deliberately want to fight against the best understanding of all the available information because such increased public awareness does not suit their interests. And those misleading messages get ready acceptance by the third worst type of people, the ones who want more personal wealth, pleasure, comfort and convenience for themselves without caring about how sustainable their actions are.

    Burning non-renewable resources has to end because it is simply not sustainable, even without considering any future consequences it creates.

    And the denial/delay dance continues because most of the wealth and power is in the hands of those who did not care about how they got that wealth and power. They will fight to maximize their short-term personal gathering of wealth, power, pleasure, comfort and convenience any way they can get away with.

    The future has already lost a lot. It stands to lose a lot more from the careless actions of those who only want more for themselves.

    The truth will eventually win out, but the more fortunate changing their way of life to be sustainable forever should have started 20 years ago (or even earlier). All the deliberate contrarians who know better are the most despicable intelligent people on the planet. But despicable people can be popular. Therein lays the flaw of promoting popularity as a measure of legitimacy.

  2. Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph

    The author correctly points out that, compared to the 2012 record lows of Arctic ice area and volume, a relative recovery in both was to be expected in 2013 and this has occurred – but with what effect on ice cover in future years?

    Increased area of sea ice cover in 2013, means that albedo has also recovered so might we expect a further increase in area covered by sea ice in 2014?

    Or will on-going Arctic amplification of average global surface warming combined with loss of 2013 ice volume outweigh the effects of increased albedo, resulting in decline of sea ice mass and area in 2014?

  3. Philippe Chantreau at 11:16 AM on 17 September 2013
    Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy

    This is indeed a dilemma. Restoring the responses but not the posts would be unfair and even somewhat misleading. Now that decision has been taken to remove all the posts and associated responses, I think mods should stick with it and leave it at at that. Restoring per request only should be grounds for selectively restoring responses, but that would put undue burden on the mods, and the authors would probably be unsatsified because of a loss of context. No real good option, I think it should be left alone now.

  4. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy

    DSL, a reasonable compromise would be to restore all the posts, but to snip the contents of josieki's posts as per her request with an explanation that her request is the reason for the snip.  Moderators call, of course.

     

  5. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy

    I'm torn.  I agree with Tom re the posts replying to Josiecki.  On the other hand, I'd argue that error is the actual reason Josiecki wants all the posts removed.  After all, if she believes in the truth of those posts, she'd defend their publication.  I'm also sad about losing such an excellent, sustained example of empty rhetoric.

  6. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy

    I seriously object to the actions of the moderator in complying with josiecki's requist.

    She does not have the right to request the deletion of anybody's posts other than her own.  Nor does she have the right to remove the context of other people's replies to her by removing her posts.  Therefore the complete removal of all her posts is an unreasonable request that should not have been complied with IMO.

    This situation is very different from that in which a poster immediately after posting discovers an error in their post and requests removal before others have responded.  Rather, we have had several days worth of debate removed because josiecki found it personally embarassing just how little she could defend her opinions (none of which, I believe, she ever offered substantive support of).

    I request that the moderators actions in removing those post be reconsidered by the entire moderation team and that the posts be reinstated.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] The matter has been brought up for discussion.

  7. Global Warming’s Missing Heat: Look Back In Anger (and considerable disbelief)…

    Philippe, I disagree. I like to look at WUWT to see what is the latest thing they are now trying to deny. I find reading their posts and finding the errors to be a good way to pass my time. 

  8. To frack or not to frack?

    Note that the UT/EDF study was just published in PNAS (a useful press release is here). It shows that extensive mitigation of emissions as advocated does work as expected, pushing total "leaked" emissions quite low (likely <1%). Unfortunately, mostly sites where active mitigation measures are in place were investigated.

    While we study the results and wait for more studies to be published, stay tuned for an update to this post some time in the fall.

  9. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy

    Waiting for a response....

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] You hae requested that all of your comments be deleted. Your request will be honored.

  10. Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph

    Part of the explanation is Agung.  See figure 2 of Domingues et al. 2008 and especially Balmaseda et al. 2013.

  11. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy

    All:

    Per his/her request, the most recent post of josiecki has been deleted. DSL's response to it has also been deleted. 

  12. Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph

    I've had a question for a while about the heat content chart.  What is the "dip" in the ocean heat content between 1960 and 1970?  Is that a plot artifact, or have to do with the baseline?  It's just always a bit weird how it starts at 0, then drops, then jumps back up.  I reference people to that chart fairly often but some of them point to that drop and try to cliam there's something wrong.

  13. CO2 effect is saturated

    davidwell, regarding comment 277"

    If a ring-down optical path lengh was say 900 meters, then the pulse duration would be 3 microseconds. If the lifetime of the v2 CO2* state is much longer than that would some probe beam intensity survive even at 100% CO2?  I ask this because I'm guessing that the excited state (v2 CO2*) does not absorb the probe beam. Anyway, I'm just a guy that likes science, and your question is interesting to me. 

  14. The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

    Jim @2 - good luck.  Rose is one of the worst "journalist" serial climate misinformers on the planet.  Climate scientists in particular (except Curry of course - go figure) are clearly getting really sick of him distorting their work.

  15. CO2 effect is saturated

    Excuse me, I am but a poor and ignorant engineer.  Also, as MThompson , above, I have not read all the pages.

    so, with that, I venture the following question:

    with ring down IR spectrophotometers with path lenghts of hundreds of meters, would not the premise that "saturation" in the heating of the atmosphere from increasing CO2 occurs..

    also mean that the spectrophotometers might become useless at a % CO2 level which intercepts all their source laser IR energy?

    Which doesn't happen, up to 100% CO2.

    Probably I'm missing something here, your elucidation is solicited.

  16. The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

    This is a good thread.  I'd like to compare it to "The Stages of Dying", but don't have the time or inclination.

     

    Stage 5 "it's too damn late, may as well enjoy the process"  is an analogue to what I have felt which is "WTF, nobody gives a s...."  and go away in despondence and rejection.

    Direct Air Capture can possibly "save the day":  here's hoping.

  17. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy

    Since late 2009 this somewhat heated debate has gone on, "deniers" are falliing off the wagon by droves.  Only the most  "attached to their arguments"  persons can fail to accede to some facts, inconvenient or not, that the reality bearing down will affect us all the same.

     

    "It's not that warm", saith the lobster, turning pinkish..

  18. The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

    Well the fake skeptics and those in denial are in a panic with the release of the IPCC's fifth assessment report looming.  They don't seem to be able to decide whether they accept the stolen draft report's findings or that the report is largely wrong or part of some conspiracy. No surpises there though, fake skeptics are renowned for the logical fallacies and contradictory nature of their arguments.  As Dana shows they are also very nicely demonstrating all five elements of denial, sometimes simultaneously!

    Steve Sherwood in response to Judith Curry's musings (see more at the Australian Media Centre):

    "Just as it is possible to know that a cancer patient is likely to die without treatment, even if the date or particular symptoms cannot be predicted accurately."

    To build on Prof. Sherwood's excellent analogy-- fake skeptics like Dr. Curry seem to believe that uncertainty always means the patient will die later, never sooner. Or at its extreme, that the patient will not die, even though 97% of patients will the same disease do die.  I'm all for optimism, but denying reality when their is so much on the line is just irresponsible and to be frank, stupid.

  19. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #37

    I sort of agree with numerobis because quantity is not quality and sometimes I don't have time to read the trolls and debunk them, espetially if the troll authors are helpless and the best tactic is "don't feed the troll". So "trolling threads" could be indicated as such.

    I noticed that recent trolls are evolving around "GW has stopped since 1997" and Cook at al 2013 about 97% consensus. I don't understand the reason for the former because science is so simple in  our debunkings. The latter suggests poor understanding of statistics and polling techniques in general public, so there is something to do in that area.

    I remember other weeks with proliferate scientific discussions both explaining and complementing the articles. But this week lacks them.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Fixed text per request.

  20. The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

    We're now officially pursuing David Rose and the Mail on Sunday via the UK's Press Complaints Commission. Our latest riposte to "The David & Judy Show":

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/09/shock-news-why-isnt-the-arctic-ice-free/

    For Lomberg et. al. we're still at the Twitter stage!

  21. The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

    Alternative POV (or the same view stated differently):

    If someone wants to protect their investment, whether financial, political, business or just their way of life. Attack the source of the problem (climate science) so that delays make it impossible to proceed with the changes that effect your investment.

  22. Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph

    @funglestrumpet - Thanks for your kind words. As recommended by the PCC I have had several communications with the Managing Editor of the MoS. A brief extract:

    Them - "If you wish to express a different opinion, you are welcome to write a letter for publication which I will forward to our letters editor for consideration. "

    Us - "There's been a large "hole" in the sea ice near the North Pole for weeks. It's invisible in the images in your article. 100-200 words is nowhere near enough to explain the significance of that one "inaccuracy" to your readership, let alone all the others."

    More on my own blog:

    http://econnexus.org/the-great-white-con-continues/

  23. CO2 effect is saturated

    MThompson @275, that mental picture is largely correct.  What is missing at this point is that the probability of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon falls of towards the wings of the absorption band so that near those wings, the distance before nearly all light is absorbed is 100s of meters, or at the very fringes, thousands.

    More important, however, is the next step, which is described here (which, if you have not already covered that material, I recomend you read before going further).

  24. CO2 effect is saturated

    I’m new to this thread, and I confess that I’ve not yet read all the preceding comments. I’m still trying to construct a good mental image of the role of CO2 in global warming.

    According to the article that starts this thread, “Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure.”

    Now I believe this statement to be even more generally true because the earth’s blackbody radiation in the entire 750 to 600 cm-1 band is around 3x1022 photons per square meter per second. Furthermore, I estimate that near the earth’s surface there are about 1x1022 CO2 molecules per cubic meter. Thus a few tens of meters of the near-earth atmosphere should be plenty to absorb all photons in the band, not just the central emission at 650 cm-1. The high rate of collision between bending-mode CO2 (v2 CO2*) and the other atmospheric molecules will transfer that vibrational energy to translational energy quickly, thus converting the photon energy to thermal energy. The v2 CO2* population should stay very close to the distribution predicted by Boltzmann statistics for the observed temperature and pressure ranges. Any increase in CO2 concentration within these “few tens of meters” will not lead to additional warming.

    Of course the observed increase in CO2 is not confined to very near the surface of the earth.

    This is where I’m at so far in my mental picture. I want to make sure I’ve got this right before I continue. Any corrections or suggestions would be most appreciated.

  25. Medieval Warm Period was warmer

    Spoonieduck,you are an extraordinaryly selective reader.  When I read Dugmore et al 2011, I saw that Greenalnd never raised crops, only pastoral animals.  Today they raise cabbages and a number of other crops in Greenalnd.  It must be warmer in Greenalnd now since they were unable to raise crops in 1200 that they can raise now. Dugmore states:

    "the Greenlandic economy seems from the outset to have been geared to obtaining and exporting rare and prestigious commodities such as walrus tusk and hide, narwhal teeth, and live polar bears."

    It would have taken years or decades to build barns for herds and to breed sufficient animals to support a society.  The original settlers were primarily engaged in hunting and exporting high value objects. You ignore this completely.   Dugmore goes on to say:

    Climate variability always provided challenges to Norse
    Greenland’s TEK, and the notion of a uniform medieval warm
    period has long been replaced by the realization that even the
    earliest periods of settlement saw considerable variability requiring
    effective coping strategies. The Norse Greenlanders survived many
    hard years before the 13th century and not only persevered but prospered.
     
    Dugmore states blankly that your argument that your notion of a midieval climate optimum is false.  The paper you referenced does not support your wild speculations.
  26. Bert from Eltham at 10:33 AM on 16 September 2013
    2013 SkS Weekly Digest #37

    Exactly moderator! The more trolls that comment is a fair indicator of the fear these same trolls have in the veracity of the real information in that story. This also gives a a better measure of the 97% as the tiny minority still loudly decry its insignificance! Bert

  27. 2013 SkS Weekly Digest #37

    I find that the story that "attracted the most comments of the articles posted on SkS during the past week" is actually the one that got the most trolls posting.  I'm not sure that's something to highlight.  Maybe remove that line?

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] My purpose is to highlight "where the action is" re comment chatter. In that context, a comment is a comment. 

  28. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #37B

    William, try PIOMAS. You need to identify yourself to download.

  29. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy

    Philippe Chantreau - The Richelieu quote was from me, directed towards josiecki and pointing out how out of context quotes were abused by folks wishing to deny the science. 

  30. 2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #37B

    Does anyone know where one can get the data on ice volume in the Arctic over the past three years as determined by Cryosat.  My searching abilities aren't all that great but this information seems to be hidden behind a pay-wall. 

    Signed

    A computer dinosaur.

  31. It hasn't warmed since 1998

    Again, MrGibbage, the problem is in the wording.  Whenever scientists use "global warming" to refer to global mean surface temperature, confusion is the result.  I don't know why Fyfe did that in his published work.  Note that he says "warming" in his email. I take "global warming" to mean the entire climate system, including oceans.  One cannot talk about the future of GMST without factoring in the energy going into the oceans.  That energy MUST come back through the atmosphere, so it's ridiculous to say that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is _________ based on any analysis that ignores ocean heat content.

    In other words, when Fyfe says "global warming has paused," he's not saying that CO2 is suddenly not continuing to store more energy within the climate system.  He's just saying that the accumulating energy is not, over time, uniformly going into the various components of the climate system.  The top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance remains.

    So my question to you is "what is 'the planet'"?

  32. It hasn't warmed since 1998

    So, if the point of this page at SkepticalScience is to suggest that the planet hasn't been cooling since 1998, and has in fact been warming, then who do we believe? Dr. Fyfe, who suggests that it hasn't cooled or warmed, or Skeptical Science? Does this page need to be updated?

  33. Medieval Warm Period was warmer

    Spoonieduck@194

    "I think the problem that some people are having with the Little Climatic Optimum concept is not so much as to whether temperatures were a little warmer then than now or vice versa. That is largely irrelevant."

    I don't know about the other commenters here, but as far as my view goes, you have a serious problem of being myopic in your arguments. And as such it is strictly your and not my problem. Maybe you should actually read what other commenters respond to your writings, instead of 'thinking' what their motivations might be?

    "The real problem is that the temperature seems to have undergone a long, hundreds of years cycle, in Greenland in which human produced atmospheric carbon couldn't have played much of a role."

    'Seems'? Based on what? Do you even realize that you are solely arguing for a warm(er) Greenland in the time of ca. 1200-900 bp? And that your basis is only in the anecdotal oral stories which were only later written down? If you still fail to show any actual material to support your assertions, then you are merely mixing in two other often recited myths, "It's a natural cycle" and "It's not us" through the non sequitur-fallacy.

    As for the irrelevance that you talked earlier, your arguments are irrelevant as long as you continue repeating the same stuff over and over again, without providing any actual material.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Spoonieduck has now been officially warned about excessive repitition and sloganeering.  

  34. Medieval Warm Period was warmer

    Tom,

    I don't believe that Iceland then or now is "less verdant" than Greenland.  Quite the contrary.  Even during the medieval period, the Greenland settlements' total population hovered at 10% that of Iceland.  I'm not saying that temperatures aren't warmer now than they were 100 years ago.  One poorly documented internet site I've come up with claims that the growing season in southwestern Greenland is 3 weeks longer now than it was not so many years ago.  Then again, I came up with another not so well-documented site, that claims that temperatures now--in the same area--have plunged 1.0-1.6 C, although they predict that temperatures will rise 2.0C by 2100.

    I'll refer you to Dugmore et al, Arctic Anthropology, 2007.  Dugmore is supportive of climate change theory and believes the colony collapse to be multifactorial, although he believes Greenland cooling, with reduced growing season and increased sea ice--tougher for trade vessels and harder for Norse hunters to access herds of Walrus--was a major factor.

    Dugamore and Rachel  Bold [Norse Utilization of Archaebotanical Resources with the Myvatssvert locale, Northern Iceland, Dept. of Arch., Durham University, 2011] describe a biota in what became the Eastern and Western colonies far different than today. Bold: [I'm paraphrasing]:  "Greenlad attracted settlers with its wide open grassy spaces close to the coast.  Remaining land deemed suitable for occupation was predominantly covered in dense scrub--birch and willow in the Eastern Settlement, with the addition of alder in the Western Settlement.  Land clearing, manually, and by burning was necessary to increase agricultural utility as evidenced by a thin black deposit underlying the occupational layer of the Western Settlement." Note:  There is only one tiny "National Forest" today in southern Greenland composed of dwarf birch and willow.

    Therefore evidence suggests the possibility that southwestern Greenland was undergoing a warm period before the Vikings ever arrived.  We can't know for certain, of course, because, as I wrote to Michael Sweet, "The Vikings didn't carry thermometers."

    On to Erik or Erik.  You are correct and quoted the Saga accurately, but I'll paraphrase Dugmore, who references the same line.  I'd like to quote him perfectly but my printer is on the fritz so I had to scribble it down.  "Despite Erik's sales pitch, it is unlikely that the traditionally strong-willed Viking women and mothers could have been lured to go to and/or stay in a marginal land."  My point exactly.  Certainly, Erik wanted to see his settlements grow but an outright lie would have provoked a blood feud that he couldn't have survived.  Erik's "Green Land" was--at least in a few isolated areas--a "Green Land" suitable for settlement.

    I think the problem that some people are having with the Little Climatic Optimum concept is not so much as to whether temperatures were a little warmer then than now or vice versa.  That is largely irrelevant.  The real problem is that the temperature seems to have undergone a long, hundreds of years cycle, in Greenland in which human produced atmospheric carbon couldn't have played much of a role.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and excessive reptition -- both of which are prohibited by the SkS Comment Policy. Please cease and desist, or face the consequences. 

  35. Medieval Warm Period was warmer

    Spooniduck@192

    "Lastly, we just don't know. Unfortunately, and unlike today, the Norse didn't have thermometers. If they had them in Greenland, used them frequently, recorded the results for posterity, we wouldn't be having this discussion now"

    Why do you expect the only way to get the temperature from past to be by the way of thermometers? Or reinterpreting the, initially oral, history tales?

    It is as if you deliberately want to avoid looking at the multitude of reconstruction graphs, linked both to the article, as well as previous commenters.

    And if your objection to them is that they are too general (being global or NH-centric), then I would point out that Kobashi et al. 2011, did reconstruct the temperature located on Greenland.

    It is considered poor form to disregard other evidence and just concentrate on one detail in order to carry on an argument.

  36. Medieval Warm Period was warmer

    Michael,

    One of the primary justifications for this particular thread is historical accounts of a so-called medieval warming trend i.e. written histories.  If it weren't for the histories--oral and written accounts--researchers [in my opinion] wouldn't be much concerned about anomalies in pollen samples, ice cores, sediments, tree rings from this period of time.

    The Sagas i.e. Icelandic Sagas, Saga of the Greenlandders, Vinland Saga are some of the primary sources.  Yes, Diamond wrote "Collapse" amongst other pop science histories.  I haven't read it, yet, but reviewed his interesting "Guns, Germs and Steel."  In a similar vein, I suggest "West Viking" by Mowat who supports the concept of the "Little Climatic Optimum."

    Science is, of course, a generally materialistic approach to get at the truth and is usually best handled in a multidisciplinary fashion.  It is not adequate to say "things were colder" in the face of historical testimony that things may have been "warmer".  You may be right but you have to back it up.

    Back to Diamond, Mowat and Dugamore et. al., Arctic Anthropology, 2007.  None of these authors--including Diamons--dispute a medieval Greeland warming trend.  After all there were two [East and West] Norse Greenland Settlements that existed for 450 years, from about A.D. 985 to at least A.D. 1427.  Deteriorating cold weather was a major factor in the ultimate retreat from Greenland.

    The various authors above also believe--entirely correctly--that the colony collapse was multifactorial.  Political disruptions in Norway with reduced trade were possibly important.  They also believe that the Norse were "slow learners" and might have hung on if they'd adapted eskimo lifestyles.  I find the last contention amusing.  It's almost like stating that the Aztecs might have defeated the Spaniards if they had guns.

    Lastly, we just don't know.  Unfortunately, and unlike today, the Norse didn't have thermometers.  If they had them in Greenland, used them frequently, recorded the results for posterity, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

     

  37. Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph

    Or try here for the AR4 graphic.

  38. Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph

    Here is the link to the latest David Ruse nonsense in the Rail on Sunday mentioned @3. An interesting quote from Myles Allen apparently made "last night"  that will likely get some discussion. The headline pronouncement of the nonsense is effectively debunked by this AR4 graphic showing the 1956-2005 trend that Ruse says has been revised so much in the final draft AR5 that he say he's got hold of. He (or his paper) also takes ambiguous credit for their early detection of "the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year."


     

  39. Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph

    Jim Hunt @ 1

    I wish you the very best of luck. It is difficult to see how we stop such people unless they face some form of meaningful sanction, though I have my doubts that any complaint to the PCC will result in such.

    It would be better for the U.K. media at least to face another Leverson type enquiry, but this time on the deliberate publication of misinformation on climate change, surely a more important issue than the hacking of some celebrity's 'phone in order to discover who they were sleeping with - information that will be long forgotten by this time next year, or even next week, let alone by the time climate change is wreaking its seemingly inevitable havoc, I fear.

    P.S. - Great graphic on your 'Great White Con' link! Have you offered it to the Mail and Telegraph? I am sure they would jump at the chance to show graphically what they are obviously trying (and failing) to say in words, being such honest and upstanding fellows that they are, of course.

  40. Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph

    In reality I fear the PCC has far less teeth than a great white shark, and that US legal precedents don't carry a whole lot of weight over here in the UK. Nevertheless we shall pursue matters to the bitter end!

    David and Judy are on show again in the Mail this Sunday morning. More over on the Arctic Sea Ice Blog.

  41. Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again

    There's a typo in that latest one (which has even more of a squawk-factor):

    For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human influence caused more than half the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ – 90 per cent certain – in 2007.

    Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.

    should read:

    For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human influence caused more than half the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ – 90 per cent certain – in 2007.

    Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible - to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.

    The well-trained parrot strikes again!

  42. Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again

    David Rose, even worse than before:

    “Global warming is just HALF what we said: World’s top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong.”

    “As things stand, the atmosphere is expected to have twice as much CO2 as in pre-industrial times by about 2050. In 2007, the IPCC said the ‘likeliest’ figure was 3C, with up to 4.5C still ‘likely’.

    Now it does not give a ‘likeliest’ value and admits it is ‘likely’ it may be as little as 1.5C – so giving the world many more decades to work out how to reduce carbon emissions before temperatures rise to dangerous levels.”

  43. Philippe Chantreau at 02:00 AM on 15 September 2013
    Global Warming’s Missing Heat: Look Back In Anger (and considerable disbelief)…

    Perhaps today, a few visits to the planet Wattsupia would serve the same purpose for somebody who was capable of scientific analysis. However, for those who are not, Wattupia would not be worth visiting.

    I disagree with that. WUWT is not worth visiting under any circumstances.

  44. In Wall Street Journal op-ed, Bjorn Lomborg urges delay with misleading stats

    Here's his latest along these lines:

    Don’t blame climate change for extreme weather

  45. Medieval Warm Period was warmer

    Spoonieduck @189, the relevance of modern photos of Greenland and Iceland is that current temperatures in those nations are comparable to those in the MWP.  If Iceland is more verdant now (as it clearly is), it follows that it was more verdant then - and the name "Greenland" is, therefore, not explicable by the unusual greenness of the land.

    I am unsure why you want to explore a counterfactual hypthetical.  Greenland (or at least, those portions of it colonized by the norse) was not "a pile of frozen rocks fit only for arctic wildlife".  Colonies were established there, and survived several centuries.  So Norse settlers decieved by Eric's clever naming would have found a land less verdant than those from which they came, contrary to what the name suggests - but one in which it was still possible to survive and make a living.

    In any event, we do not need to speculate as to why Eric called Greenland "Greenland":

     

    " Eirik and his people were outlawed at Thorsnes Thing. He prepared a ship in Eiriksvagr (creek), and Eyjolf concealed him in Dimunarvagr while Thorgest and his people sought him among the islands. Eirik said to his people that he purposed to seek for the land which Gunnbjorn, the son of Ulf the Crow, saw when he was driven westwards over the ocean, and discovered Gunnbjarnarsker (Gunnbjorn's rock or skerry). He promised that he would return to visit his friends if he found the land. Thorbjorn, and Eyjolf, and Styr accompanied Eirik beyond the islands. They separated in the most friendly manner, Eirik saying that he would be of the like assistance to them, if he should be able so to be, and they should happen to need him. Then he sailed oceanwards under Snœfellsjokull (snow mountain glacier), and arrived at the glacier called Blaserkr (Blue-shirt); thence he journeyed south to see if there were any inhabitants of the country. He passed the first winter at Eiriksey, near the middle, of the Vestribygd (western settlement). The following spring he proceeded to Eiriksfjordr, and fixed his abode there. During the summer he proceeded into the unpeopled districts in the west, and was there a long time, giving names to the places far and wide. The second winter he passed in Eiriksholmar (isles), off Hvarfsgnupr (peak of disappearance, Cape Farewell); and the third summer he went altogether northwards, to Snœfell and into Hrafnsfjordr (Ravensfirth); considering then that he had come to the head of Eiriksfjordr, he turned back, and passed the third winter in Eiriksey, before the mouth of Eiriksfjordr. Now, afterwards, during the summer, he proceeded to Iceland, and came to Breidafjordr (Broadfirth). This winter he was with Ingolf, at Holmlatr (Island-litter). During the spring, Thorgest and he fought, and Eirik met with defeat. After that they were reconciled. In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, “Because,” said he, “men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.”]"

    Eirik the Red's Saga

    A counter argument based on assuming the alternative to a Greenland less verdant than Iceland is a Greenland having no colonizable lands at all is hardly a sound basis to reject the reasons given by the Nords themselves, and attributed directly to Eric.

  46. Medieval Warm Period was warmer

    Spoonieduck:

    The problem is that your "detailed discussions" of Vikings amount to uninformed speculations about behaviour you know nothing about.  Your suggestions that your vague knowledge of Viking sagas, presented here without any documentation, is "historical evidence" is worthless.   Have you ever read a Viking saga or a reasoned analysis by someone who has read them?  I have.  Link to a scholarly article summarizing the sagas and I will discuss it with you.  Discuss what you learned in elementary school at WUWT.  There is a wealth of archaelogical data and saga analysis about early Viking settlements, some of it referenced in Collapse (which I have read so I know more than an elementary school student). 

    This is a scientific board.  Speculations about how you might feel when you arrived in Greenland and it was too cold for crop farming are completely inappropriate.  It is currently warmer in Greenland than it ever was for the Vikings.  The Vikings were not able to grow vegetable crops like those currently grown in Greenland. They raised cattle and sheep.

    A significant part of the reason Vikings went to Greenland was to obtain walrus ivory, polar bear skins and Gyrfalcons. Perhaps the settlers were ecstatic because of the Gyrfalcons and did not care about farming.  Why havn't you mentioned these items which were available on Greenland?    Because you don't know what you are talking about.  Provide citations to support your opinions or stop bothering us.  Looking back through this thread you have provided not a single reference to support your wild speculations.

  47. Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph

    Well if US courts respect and uphold climate science, presumably a Press Complaints Commission might follow legal precedent.

  48. One Planet Only Forever at 15:41 PM on 14 September 2013
    Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial

    Tom Curtis, I appreciate that your comment indicates the cost of mitigation should be comsidered to be less than the future costs created without tat mitigation, but that is still playing into the delayer/denier game of discussing the relative evaluation. They will claim there is no concensus about the relative values.

    It is simply unacceptable for a current generation to enjoy benefits from actions that create any potential problem for a future generation. It is even more uncceptable to discuss the comparison of the magnitude of the problem being created with what the current generation thinks they deserve to benefit from.

  49. Medieval Warm Period was warmer

    Michael,

    I know that you don't care about my grade school recollections but the issue is nevertheless significant.  This site shows abundant sophisticated charts, graphs and calculations and I am duly impressed.  Still, most of these graphics are, in a real sense, highly indirect, when they apply to climatic events many hundreds of years ago.

    Most of this evidence--tree rings, Sagasso Sea sediments even ice cores--is indirect and subject to various interpretations.  Historical evidence, despite its problems, is more direct.  Yes, there are problems with Viking Sagas.  Most weren't written down until 300 years or so after the events, leaving plenty of room for error.  Prior to this they were oral tales, probably recited for entertainment.

    The other problem with the Sagas is that the events are very much local.  It is quite conceivable that Southwestern Greenland was relatively warm, maybe even warmer than today, 1000 years ago.  It is even possible that the frost line along the East coast of North America was farther north 1,000 years ago than it is at present.  Maybe.

    Even if true, none of this proves that the entire world was warmer then nor does it disprove that the earth is presently entering a dangerous warming trend.  It certainly doesn't disprove that excessive atmospheric CO2 is contributiing to the current warming trend.

  50. Medieval Warm Period was warmer

    Tom,

    How are photographs of Iceland apropo to conditions in southwestern Greenland between A.D. 1,000 and A.D. 1,400?

    Detailed discussions of Viking violence are probably a bit afield for this specific topic but Erik didn't directly deceive anyone.  He had been outlawed in both Norway and Iceland for successive murders, which is why he traveled west to Greenland [Saga of the Greenlanders].

    Your other iteration that Erik was simply trying to convince.....etc. is simply a repeat of your previous statement.  I'll try to put it another way.  What if you were deceived into putting your entire family at the considerable risk of a hazardous sea voyage in an open boat?  What if, on reaching your Greenland destination you found it a pile of frozen rocks fit only for arctic wildlife?  Of course, I don't know how you would have reacted but I would have been truly upset.  At a bare minimum, I would have packed up my family and left as soon as it was feasible--that is, if we didn't starve or freeze to death in the meantime.  I certainly wouldn't have celebrated Erik as a great chieftain. 

Prev  839  840  841  842  843  844  845  846  847  848  849  850  851  852  853  854  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us