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.

Comment Search Results

Search for haarp

Comments matching the search haarp:

Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate

digging_the_dirt at 02:18 AM on 15 October, 2015

Thanks for this very thorough article as well as the discussion .

I have run into a few other denier hypotheses; 1. That the weakening of the earth’s electromagnetic field is causing climate change. 2. That it is from HAARP. 3. That it is from climate warfare. 4. That it is caused by reduction in cloud cover. 5. That it is caused by chem-trails. Most of the above is easy to ignore.

Here’s part of my response to the cloud cover and chem-trail hypotheses:

Here is some science and math related to the purpose and weather out-comes from chem-trails. It also documents increased rather than decreased cloud cover: http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/Caltechweb.pdf

See:
Page 19 for a chart that shows the type of clouds that reduce the green house effect.
Page 29 for a discussion of anthropogenic effects that make clouds more reflective.
Pages 30 and 31--charts that explain the above.
Page 64 --last statement: "Cloud changes since 1952 have had a net cooling effect on the earth."
(Of course we know that the net cooling the clouds are providing is not enough to offset global warming.)
Important— on page 59 he states that the increase in the types of clouds which are reducing the effects of climate change cannot solely be attributed to anthropogenic sources.

~~~

Thanks again, just thought if you hadn't seen this link or these hypotheses you might find the interesting.

Emphasizing co-benefits motivates people to take action on climate change

ranyl at 18:48 PM on 5 October, 2015

"even for those unconvinced climate change is real."

There are also those those who HAARP on and others who behold the creator's hand as the reality of things.

Wonder what would convince the oil producing countries, companies and ISIL to stop selling fossil fuels?

What army would or could war or protect without fossil fuels?

Holy war with promised salvation versus eating local produce, using as little power as possible and sharing for those around you etc......?

US school infiltration attempt by Heartland’s IPCC Parody

Doug Bostrom at 05:08 AM on 4 November, 2013

As an object lesson perhaps it would be good to begin demanding that the BBC occasionally air viewpoints from HAARP enthusiasts during weather forecasts, or Erik von Daniken fans during segments on archaeology?

If one crank gets to speak, why not all of 'em? Why can't we hear about the "Electric Universe" when cosmology is discussed?

No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down

witsend at 08:01 AM on 16 February, 2013

Haha, KR, that trailer was great, thanks! Now I know where all the HAARP conspiracies originated.

A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios

Photon Wrangler at 09:54 AM on 14 February, 2013

ianw01, I agree. It's a bit mabre, I suppose, but I actually find myself hoping for drought, for heat waves, for a (even more) dramatic reduction of sea ice. Anything to shock people out of complacency, so we can go about properly mitigating our risks.

But let's fast-forward 15 years: N. America and Europe have been getting walloped by searing heat waves and drought, interspersed with periods of unprecendented rainfall, causing massive floods. Summer sea ice has effectivly vanished. The era of consequences is upon us. Yet, everything the Deniers hold to be true still applies:

- The earth has been this warm before (true)

- You can't prove that any given meterolgical event is "caused" by climate change.(true)

- It's possible that man is only contributing a small portion of the warming, the rest being caused by: solar flares, ocean turnover, gamma rays, HAARP, volcanoes, God, what have you (untrue, although that doesn't stop people from believing it today)

- Any action we take today will not significanty affect the climate in ourlifetimes (true for just about anybody in their mid 30s -- look at the above charts)

Not sure where you hail from, but in the States there are a not ignsignifact number of individuals who would tell you that God - and only God - can change the climate. This worldview is deeply ingrained in many folks, and virtually impossible to dislodge. Efforts to dislodge it will be met with ever more furvor.

As you said, we'll need a "motivated majority". But unfortunately, it's hard to get motivated about taking actions that at best will yield tangible results in ~40 years. Rolling back carbon taxes or raising emissions caps will always provide immediate economic relief, with the costs pushed out to generations you haven't met yet. Humans are exceedingly good at falling into this kind of reasoning. Just look at our public and private debt levels.

Man. I really took a pessimistic turn there. Maybe I shouldn't have skipped lunch..

How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide

DSL at 12:53 PM on 23 September, 2012

Jack, you used the phrase "climate science complex," an allusion to "military-industrial complex." That use strongly suggests that you think there is some organized extra-scientific effort that controls climate science. In other words, you don't think the actual science warrants action, so there must be a conspiracy to prop up a weak science in order to achieve political goals (one world government? Marxism-Leninism? HAARP?) that go well beyond the science.

If that's true--and it may not be, but the evidence so far leads me there--then you have two problems. One, you've yet to show that the science is weak, and I've asked you. Two, you've yet to give evidence that SkS supports the "climate science complex." If you'd look around a little, you'd notice that the site does not advocate for any one solution. Solar and individual "at-home" responses come closest to having universal appeal among the dozens of regular posters.

That's where my analysis of your comments is so far. I'll be quite happy to have more data to work with, as long as it doesn't confirm the suspicions I outline above.

Further, if you are serious about engaging in an exchange of ideas (in other words, if you think your ideas are worth a _____), then you'd be much more effective by removing the accusatory tone and foregone conclusion from your rhetoric. Your comments thusfar contain very little information useful to an on-topic discussion. They strongly suggest that you're here to teach everyone a lesson. Maybe I'm wrong, but the problem is at least half yours: you chose the words and their order.

How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?

bill at 13:14 PM on 24 August, 2012

I was going to suggest that we shouldn't haarp on about this... ;-)

How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?

DSL at 12:54 PM on 24 August, 2012

When flying in comment streams, don't poke the HAARPies!

How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?

Daniel Bailey at 10:02 AM on 24 August, 2012

I'm dubbing it HAARP's Law (the equivalent of Godwin's Law):

1. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving HAARP and/or jet contrails/chemtrails/new world order (nwo) approaches 1.

2. In other words, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to HAARP and/or jet contrails/chemtrails/nwo.

3. Once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the HAARP and/or jet contrails/chemtrails/nwo has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?

vrooomie at 09:50 AM on 24 August, 2012

Tom@9: HAARP.

Oh, and the evil gummint contrails...

It's satellite microwave transmissions

jmorpuss at 20:06 PM on 1 May, 2012

skywatcher Do you see that the tropopause could be used as a parabola for reflection And also the way to increase the output of radio frequencies is as simple as building a bigger antenna aray and there's not much bigger then HAARP's ionispheric heater To create fire using water all you need is a clear plastic bag put in a cup of water manipulate the bag to form the water into a ball or freeze slowly so no bubbles form and you get the same effect magnification I see you didn't post anything about lower atmospheric electron discharge and cloud formation is it your belief that this is not taking place ?

2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?

Norman at 12:32 PM on 7 July, 2011

DB @ 267

"But unless you can prove that these extremes currently being experienced are NOT due to human-influence and that you have physics-based hypothesis' supplemented by solid statistical analysis to back up your contentions, then you are just being contrarian and most here will no longer waste any of their valuable time trying to help you gain understanding."

Good point. It does take time to develop ideas. My point of posting on this website was to gather information to learn what is already out there and progress with the concept I am developing in greater depth. I come here with some hope. Conspiracy sites are nothing but HAARP, media web sites are only some person's opinion. No depth, no science, no research. So many webpages are making the claim weather is intensifying and it is because of Global warming but no one is offering mechanisms of why they think this. I read Jeff Masters article. He is a PhD in meterology and I was hoping to read some mechanisms or behind the scenes physics but it was much the same.

The idea of a warming world does go against what I have come to know about the weather via experience and observation. This does not mean that what I know is valid or correct. I may be working on a wrong assumption. I have been on this site awhile and have read many posts. It seems that many intelligent and knowledgeable people post and this would be a place to test ideas and theories. If they are wrong the errors will be pointed out.

If I have become dull or "thick-headed" with my posts, I apologize. I do have reasons for them.

2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?

Norman at 00:36 AM on 30 June, 2011

Sphaerica @ 127

Sorry the 500 year for extreme events (to filter noise) was from Camburn. We are not one and the same. He lives in North Dakota and I live close to Omaha, Nebraska.

The question I am asking is one of historical perspective and it does not come from watching disater from the news.

So far the Munich Re report is the most used source of data on this thread. It shows weather related disasters are increasing in frequency. The article I linked to that Tom Curtis responded to in post 55 states that with normalized data they cannot determine if disasters are actually increasing at this time. There is not enough information to determine if the weather has become more extreme. The Munich Re report is about disasters. More people and more wealth could be the cause. I am still seeking a report of providing that weather events are becoming more extreme.

As I posted earlier, I do not think the human race should not take action on energy needs. Seeking alternative forms of energy is a great idea and I am in favor of it.

These extreme weather posts have an interest for me as I have already been researching the topic countering so many claims that it is all HAARP. I have been looking for historical trends before this thread was put up and I will continue looking.

There's no room for a climate of denial

Norman at 09:33 AM on 21 June, 2011

Tom Curtis @98

Your overall point "My point is, however, that this is not a reason for denial in any person, or at least it is not a substantive reason."

I totally agree with you on this. Most people do not seem to be scientifically literate (at least from my experience) very few would read a peer-reviewed climate article for themselves. They rely on Media to help them understand complex issues they do not have time or interest to explore at greater depth.

I was posting that to explain why people are losing interest in Climate Change science and switching to a denial state of mind. On this thread you have two video posts Albatross @28 and Daniel Bailey @39. Both are expamles of using an emotional appeal to sway a mental state. "Do you want to be a blind idiot and drown even as we try to save you....severe denial" From Albatross video. Or tornado in Joplin connected to Climate Change.

I read articles here daily but rarely post. The Daniel Bailey video started my posts because it so closely resembled arguments I have had on Conspiracy sites when individuals claim all bad weather events are HAARP induced.

The HARRP posts are what started me looking at Historical weather events to see if things really are getting worse today. So far I have not found enough evidence on this site to verify this sentiment or any other site.

Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming

Norman at 08:55 AM on 20 June, 2011

Paul D @66

"Camburn
"I have not read reliable data from any source that we are experiencing anything that is abnormal."

A warming climate is abnormal and no sensible person is denying that the climate is warming. Glacial melt, changing seasons and numerous other changes are a very clear indicator."

Paul D what happened to the Greenland ice sheet 3200 years ago. Greenland was much warmer than as compared with now...Almost 3 C warmer than today! In fact it was warmer than today for about 3000 years. If our current warming phase is so abnormal and dangerous how did all that ice last through the heat for 3000 years?

Greenland temps the last 10000 years.

Why is it that looking at history of weather and climate you cannot find any examples that we are entering uncharted territory and things will get much worse.

I guess it is because of that nasty weather manipulating and earthquake causing HAARP station in Alaska.

Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming

Norman at 07:56 AM on 20 June, 2011

Tom Curtis @57

Here are some thoughts to consider with your post on the ENSO topic where you are demonstrating an increase in intensity of events that seems to correlate with Global Warming.

Does Correlation equal Causation?.

Some expamples that seem to Correlate.

My main point questioning the linking of more extreme weather patterns to Global warming is that just coming up with a correlation is not good enough especially in something as complex as weather where many factors come into play in determining a weather event.

This tactic is creating the huge denier syndrome that so many on this site complain about. It is not making people concerned and want to take action, it is generating the opposite effect. It closely resembles the reasoning of some on the Conspiracy sites. Every terrible natural event is caused by H.A.R.R.P. (all weather...floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, droughts and even earthquakes). As a scientific minded individual I do not blantanly say this is wrong thinking, maybe it is HAARP, the possiblitly exists. I ask these people for a link, a mechanism a way HARRP can cause all these events. Anger such questions is the response.

If you want to prove Global warming is causing more extreme ENSO events then you need to find a link or mechanism that directly couples these events.

It is like AGW theory. The correlation is that CO2 is rising at the same time Global Temperatures are showing a rise. Without a possible linking mechanism it will never be an acceptable theory. Science does have such a mechanism and link. The link is that it can be demonstrated that CO2 absorbs certain bands of IR energy. And in the global arena sattelites can see reduction in IR energy at these bands and ground based sensors can pick up downwelling longwave radiation at CO2 band frequencies and measure the watt/meter of this radiation. So the observed correlation proves to have empirical links and can be considered a legitimate conclusion. With the extreme weather events only some nebulous and questionable correlations are presented without corresponding linking mechanisms.

Many exterme weather events are caused by blocking patterns (will form heat waves, droughts, and flooding as storm system follow the same tracts as long as the block persists). Can you find or demonstrate a link that would explain how a warming planet will create more intense, greater numbers and longer lasting blocking patterns?

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results