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 Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

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
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #27, 2019

Posted on 9 July 2019 by SkS-Team

43 articles this week. Summer slowdown?

The top pick for "extended implications" seems to be The Role of the Tropically Excited Arctic Warming Mechanism on the Warm Arctic Cold Continent Surface Air Temperature Trend Pattern.

Another humdinger: The polycentricity of climate policy blockage

Other articles:

Policy and human cognition meet climate change:

Shift in seasonal climate patterns likely to impact residential energy consumption in the United States

Beyond Technical Fixes: climate solutions and the great derangement

Seasonal injection strategies for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering

Polycentric governance compensates for incoherence of resource regimes: The case of water uses under climate change in Oberhasli, Switzerland

Social representations of climate change and climate adaptation plans in southern Brazil: Challenges of genuine participation

Potential energy and climate benefits of super-cool materials as a rooftop strategy

The polycentricity of climate policy blockage

The provision and utility of earth science to decision-makers: synthesis and key findings

Optimizing dynamics of integrated food–energy–water systems under the risk of climate change

Planning for the past: Local temporality and the construction of denial in climate change adaptation

Biological systems and climate change:

Opportunities for behavioral rescue under rapid environmental change

Thermal stress induces persistently altered coral reef fish assemblages

Snowmelt and early to mid‐growing season water availability augment tree growth during rapid warming in southern Asian boreal forests

A genome‐wide search for local adaptation in a terrestrial‐breeding frog reveals vulnerability to climate change

Climate Change Trends and Impacts on Vegetation Greening over the Tibetan Plateau

A social-ecological approach to identify and quantify biodiversity tipping points in South America's seasonal dry ecosystems

Divergent growth between spruce and fir at alpine treelines on the east edge of the Tibetan Plateau in response to recent climate warming

Varying temperature sensitivity of bud-burst date at different temperature conditions

Physical science of climate change:

Evolution of the seasonal surface mixed layer of the Ross Sea, Antarctica, observed with autonomous profiling floats

Modeling ocean eddies on Antarctica's cold water continental shelves and their effects on ice shelf basal melting

Organic carbon pools in the subsea permafrost domain since the Last Glacial Maximum

Climate change and regional ocean water mass disappearance: Case of the Black Sea

The Role of the Tropically Excited Arctic Warming Mechanism on the Warm Arctic Cold Continent Surface Air Temperature Trend Pattern

Projected changes in European and North Atlantic seasonal wind climate derived from CMIP5 simulations

Last Millennium Reanalysis with an expanded proxy database and seasonal proxy modeling

Comment on “Insignificant effect of climate change on winter haze pollution in Beijing” by Shen et al. (2018)

High organic carbon burial but high potential for methane ebullition in the sediments of an Amazonian reservoir

Scaling and balancing carbon dioxide fluxes in a heterogeneous tundra ecosystem of the Lena River Delta

What was the source of the atmospheric CO2 increase during the Holocene?

Surprising similarities in model and observational aerosol radiative forcing estimates

Possible impact of North Atlantic warming on the decadal change in the dominant modes of winter Eurasian snow water equivalent during 1979–2015

Characteristics of summer heat stress in China during 1979‒2014: climatology and long-term trends

Seasonal precipitation change in the Western North Pacific and East Asia under global warming in two high-resolution AGCMs

The CO 2 -induced sensible heat changes over the Tibetan Plateau from November to April

Enhanced impact of Arctic sea ice change during boreal autumn on the following spring Arctic oscillation since the mid-1990s

Interannual linkage between wintertime sea-ice cover variability over the Barents Sea and springtime vegetation over Eurasia

Summertime mid‐latitude weather and climate extremes induced by moisture intrusions to the west of Greenland

Polar low variability and future projections for the Nordic and Barents Seas

Future ocean climate homogenizes communities across habitats through diversity loss and rise of generalist species

Assessing changes in risk of amplified planetary waves in a warming world

Towards a more reliable historical reanalysis: Improvements for version 3 of the Twentieth Century Reanalysis system

Processes determining heat waves across different European climates

Radiation and energy balance dynamics over a rapidly receding glacier in the central Himalaya

 

 The previous collection of articles may be found here.

 

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 7:


  1. Why do you call your self skeptical science when you are not skeptical att all, just trying to find argument to support your opinion?

    Every educated in all relevant disciplines know that the CO2-threat is scientific rejected, in this 2,6 million long ice age.

    The interglacial before was 2,5 C warmer globally and 8 C for 6000 years on Greenland with just positive effects on life.

    Desert are cooling, that´s why it was 2 C warmer global early in this interglacial with 6 C warmer climate on Svalbard.

    If there was an increased greenhouse effect as result of higher level CO2 than 300 ppm it would give a signal in 15 µm where no other greenhouse gases act and the level of CO2 shift between region and seasons.

    Skeptical science, my ass.

    0 1
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Welcome to Skeptical Science.  Unlike most other venues that you might be familiar with, this venue uses the scientific method and places the burden upon participants to support their claims with citations to credible sources, preferably those appearing in peer-reviewed journals of note or from primary producer organizations.

    That places the Burden of Proof upon you to support your claims you've made, not for others to disprove them.

    Please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy and construct future comments to comply with it.

    Cursing snipped.

    [PS] SkpSci is interested in real skeptism of the scientific kind. ie critical thinking, peer review etc as opposed to motivated reasoning. Pseudo-skeptics are only skeptical about what conflicts with pre-determined positions and swallow nonsense that suits their narrative without a thought (ie you might like to check your positions). If you cant imagine any data backing the science changing your mind, then this is not the site for you.

  2. Gunnar Littmarck, yeah well a warmer greenland would be nice for growing some forests and crops there, but what about sea level rise as it melts, and what about a warmer tropical zone? Of course looking at the big picture does require a certain level of thinking.

    1 0
  3. Some other research with full text available for free: The influence of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism on environmentalism: A five-year cross-lagged analysis.

    0 0
  4. The new research referenced above on Greening on the Tibetan Plateau says that "The major significant greening trend of the TP was mainly caused by climate factors." ... and then goes on to talk about warming on the TP.

    Has the "CO2 is a poison" parade become so embedded into climate change science that geologists and general scientists have forgotten 4th grade biology class?

    Let me get this straight.  CO2 causes warming. And it's warming increases plant growth. And associates that accept this research actually want intelligent skeptics that embrace the scientific method to believe what they say?

    NASA has it right. But even they have to down play the obvious with qualifiers.  At least this site allows scientific discussion without fear of reprisal. For the NASA study ...

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

    I hope that we can all agree the CO2 between the 500 and 2000 level is beneficial to a wide range of common flora. Two reasons:

    1) The three requirements of most flora life are sun, water, and CO2.

    2) As CO2 levels increase, the pores/system that take in CO2 become more efficient, which results in (a) an increase in photosynthetic rate, (b) a decrase loss of water vapor from inside the plant out those same pores (called transpiration) ... allowing plants to grow faster, produce more photosynthesizing green leaf matter, be more draught tolerant, and healthier (more tolerant to disease and insects).

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Off-topic, logical fallacies and sloganeering snipped.

    Please read this thread and the comments on it before you post further on that topic.  Place any relevant comments about CO2 fertilization there.

    Anyone wishing to respond to the points snipped, please do so there.

  5. Climate change is a critical science. We need to understand how humans impact our home. 

    But, it's my opinion (don't know it it's allowed) that the movement to get funding from governments will backfire and die a premature death because they have chosen CO2 as the enemy.

    1) The long historical record does not support that

        ... CO2 is a leading indicator of temperature change (the opposite can be shown)

        ... As CO2 levels increase, that heating rates increase (the correlation is extremely low).

    2) Recent records (120 years) does not support that the accelerating rate of CO2 increases and absolute highs are causing accelerating rates of heating (which it should if the science was correct).

    3) Before long, it will be clear to the general public that the earth is greening dispite what dismissive climate scientists say about the minor affect to no effect that CO2 will have on crop and plant growth (they are digging a deaper hole).  Earth greening contains the word green. That will be difficult to villify.

    The movement chose the wrong enemy. They should intead embrace fossile fuels that increase CO2 (lessens poverty) but warn against warming oceans and the decreasing pH of the oceans and what that might do to organisms that rely on the basic pH of the ocean.

    Governments need to understand the trade between a more efficient agriculture and damage to the seacoast.  That is worth big $$$ in research. It's also real and won't backfire.

    Just my opinion. 

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] You continue to be off-topic.  Thousands of threads exist at SkS on virtually every topic pertaining to climate change.  Use the Search feature to find the most relevant one or peruse the Taxonomy listing.  Pretty much everything you've said above has been addressed at length before.  Repeating failed talking points debunked hundreds and thousands of times before does you no credit.  Please read the thread you select before posting and stay on-topic.

    Anyone wishing to respond to the above, please do so here.

    Future off-topic comments will be removed.

  6. Wffranz,

    Gish gallop of nonsense, contradictions, demonstably false statements that in no way represent the state of the science, pitiful attempts at appearing concerned. I'm not impressed.

    0 0
  7. Wffrantz...  Even your #1 is grossly oversimplified and insufficient. Plant life requires a vast number of things beyond sun, water and CO2 to survive. Example: you can't plant a redwood tree in the middle of the ocean.

    All life on this planet is evolved to fit the environment in which it exists. When you change the conditions too rapidly (within a few generations)  those life forms struggle and may die out. 

    As stated by the moderator, all the points you're posting have been addressed in the scientific research and explanations can be found on this site. As usual, I don't expect you'll take the time to learn what the science actually says, but if you are that unique individual who is open to learning more, I wish you the best. Climate science is a very large and complex topic. You have to work extra hard to get a full grasp of the issue.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2019 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us