Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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


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


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...

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

Latest Posts


Climate Hustle

Recent Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Comments 151 to 200:

  1. Melting Arctic sends a message: Climate change is here in a big way

    Scientists have unearthed remnants  that indicate that the Vikings farmed on the Southern tip of Greenland for a few hundred years beginning in the latter part of the 1200's.  This is evidence that the Earth has warmed previously as claimed in current climate theory.  We appear to be experiencing the same sort of climate change that humans have previously experienced;  repeatedly experienced if the climatologists are correct in their theory. 

  2. It hasn't warmed since 1998

    I often find myself in discussions with contrarians about the supposed "hiatus" of AGW from 1998. I'm happy to have these discussions as it appears to me to be a dishonest statistical trick to claim the hiatus i.e. the random picking of 1998 as the starting point. If they pick any other year it doesn't seem like they can get the desired result, from their perspective. 

    One of the claims that is made is that the IPCC acknowledge that the hiatus occurred and they point to things like box 9.2 in the AR5 report that is titled "Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years". Although, again, I don't have an issue in what is written there, my question is, why do the IPCC reports refer to this period at all and why use the term hiatus when this doesn't really fit with what is said? It just seems strange that they should talk about a period starting with such an anomolous year. Is it just to address the hiatus claims?

  3. Melting Arctic sends a message: Climate change is here in a big way

    A program I wish every American would watch was a 2-hour presentation on NOVA this spring, titled "Decoding the Weather Machine". From the origins of climate science 200 years ago through to today's science modeling and issues, potential future outcomes and very interesting information on adapting, mitigating and even prospering to avoid the suffering that will come with inaction.

    Found it encouraging that one of the Koch brothers, being a principle sponsor of NOVA, would not block this sort of programming. It's available now on Amazon video, for 3 bucks.

  4. Melting Arctic sends a message: Climate change is here in a big way

    The stories about climate change in Siberia are important, and there are important stories in other countries as well. Our local media don't report them, perhaps because they are unaware, or see them as local issues, but when they are put together they become very important.

    It's the sort of thing large media organisations like the Wall Street Journal could investigate as a totality, but the Wall Street journal  is biased and writes poor quality articles on climate issues. Here are a collection of reviews of the Wall Street climate change articles, and they are not flattering reviews. 

  5. Melting Arctic sends a message: Climate change is here in a big way

    Study Finds 5,000 May Have Died From Hurricane Maria, Yet Cable News Covered Roseanne Instead

  6. Melting Arctic sends a message: Climate change is here in a big way

    How do we get these kind of stories (and so many others) to the general public? Just read a Discover magazine article on the subject, including reports on hundreds of cracking and destableizing buildings in Siberia, crumbling roads, surfacing of Mammoth bones (people sell the tusks as substitutes for elephant ivory), reemergence of virus spores, etc., etc.

    This information  needs to be seen on the evening news and in national publications. The Wall Street Journal gave Dr. Singer a megaphone with his easily refutable science on sea level rise. More on the realities of climate change need that kind of coverage.

  7. Melting Arctic sends a message: Climate change is here in a big way
    ‘Melting Arctic send a message’ is the title – but the message is barely explored. Only in the penultimate paragraph do the threats posed by CH4/CO2 emissions and sea level rise get a cursory mention. Nowhere is there an attempt to quantify and state their effects or those of ever thinning sea ice and coastal erosion on the future of the Arctic and global warming. Well illustrated but otherwise not very informative.
  8. Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right

    Regarding the  supposed 99.94% consensus study. The related article makes the claim that the public realise that sometimes eccentric dissenting voices in science turn out to be correct, so its important to have a "complete consensus" and they believe the climate change consensus is actually very close to complete at 99.94% (something it appears may or may not be the case)

    I suppose this is all true "in an ideal world". However with complex science  its unlikely to me that absolutely all scientists would agree, and you also get a few cranks. With contentious science you would get a few  people with hidden agendas and funding. The public probably realise this, and would if anything be suspicious if the consensus was actually 100%. It would look too much like a stitch up job.

    I think anything above 90% would be generally seen as a powerful consensus by the public, although nothing will persuade the hard core denialists. The important thing is to publicise the consensus studies to raise public awareness, regardless of the precise figure. We know its over 90% and the Cook study finding 97% is a rigorous and wide sort of study.

    Of course if it really is 99.4% great. Right now many people I know think scientific opinion on the climate issue is about equally divided 50 / 50, and that is the problem because it suggests considerable disagreement.

  9. Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right

    Sir Charles @10

    The paper you link to is "just" a response to our teams's response to Powell's comment on Cook et al. 2013. As outlined in our paper (Skuce et al. 2017) - which Andy Skuce wrote about here - we don't agree with Powell's approach to determine the consensus. His final rejoinder doesn't change that.

  10. Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right

    Jim Powel's new peer-reviewed study puts the scientific consensus on human made global warming at 99.94%

    => The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters

  11. Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right

    I might point out that the 97% seems to include several once active scientists on the 3% side who are now retired, or no longer with us.  It's not a case where any new information has emerged that would sway the majority to reconsider the minority argument.

  12. Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right

    The sad truth is that climate change is not about the science anymore. It is about politics.
    And this is how it should also be adressed by the people advocating to do things to stop it.

    Just pointing out the numbers or coming up with scientists is not enough, one needs to play the game that the "anti- camp" is playing.

    They do not care about the data or the 97% scientists that agree with the global warming issues. They see and take care of it as a political point.

    (and sadly this is the case with many other things as well)

  13. Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right

    “ Moreover, as I show, the consensus among publishing scientists is demonstrably not 97%. Instead, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015 combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%. “

  14. Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels


    I wouldn't call Singer a conservative; he is not advocating for any traditional viepoint or program. In my humble opinion, he's just a) shilling for dollars and b) is an old crank. 

  15. Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right

    The EPA has now become the environmental destruction agency. It's like something out of George Orwells novel '1984', for example The Ministry of Truth is really the ministry of propoganda. List of the ministries in 1984 here. 

  16. Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right

    Suggested supplemental reading: 

    In an internal memo, the White House considered whether to simply ‘ignore’ federal climate research by Chris Mooney & Juliet Eilperin, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, May 23, 2018

    Emails show cooperation among EPA, climate-change deniers by Ellen Knickmeyer, AP/Washington Post, May 25, 2018

    Emails show climate change skeptics tout ‘winning’ under Trump by John Bowden, The Hill, May 29, 2018

  17. Climate Science websites around the world

    Scratching the 1.5°C Jazz

  18. Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right

    Oh heck, what's the point of talking about Trump and the useless republican congress. That's all anyone does these days, and its what he wants.  

  19. Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right

    With Trump you have a guy who is clearly very dismissive of mainstream scientific views, and consensus positions, and a guy who tends to believe in conspiracies and pseudoscience as below:

    The problem is it looks like he is prepared to take huge gambles over policy, including totally dismissing majority scientific opinion,  to score points over opponents he despises, or people that he has vendettas against. Look at the absurd Obama birther thing and the way he is trashing Obamas policies, even when at lest some of them obviously make practical sense. 

    I don't know where this will all end, but I would bet serious money none of it will end well.

  20. Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right

    Human activity is warming the climate. Get the debate back to basics:

    CO2 absorbs IR energy, we are burning fossil fuels, CO2 is increasing, the world is warming, and solar activity is stable. Like Ubrew says the probability of warming being natural is almost infinitely remote.

    The rest is confusion, detail, and noise.

    America might also think of its southern border. Climate change is very probably going to increase illegal border crossings. Latin America and Mexico are considered at moderately high risk from climate change.

    Because of the huge influence of the fossil fuel and business as usual lobby, the science will always be infested with dissenting voices. Despite this, the IPCC has had a pretty consistent message, because its so strong and well researched even the doubters can't silence it.

  21. 2018 Hurricane Season: A Preview

    And when pacific typhoons wipe out entire countries like Tonga who cares, they are small, poor, countries..... not news worthy or geopolitically "significant".

    Related bits and pieces: Some evidence that pacific typhoons affecting China and Japan have already increased in intensity

  22. Trump administration refuses to consider that 97% of climate scientists could be right

    "There’s a 97% expert consensus... betting... humanity... on a... 3% long shot is a bad idea... Prudent risk management dictates that we should be taking serious steps...That’s why Americans buy... insurance"  There is another way of illustrating the 'long shot' Republicans are taking:  I downloaded (from here & here) the Vostok ice core temperature record and calculated the century-by-century temperature change in Antarctica going back 400,000 years.  This meant throwing out some data and duplicating others to get time intervals of between 80 and 140 years, i.e. around a century.  The result was 3,670 data points representing temperature change/100 years, for each century going from ~1800AD to ~400,000BC.  The average was 0.0C, as you might expect.  The standard deviation was 0.34C, and its a normal distribution, not skewed in any way.  The 20th century temperature change was 0.8C, so the probability that change was 'natural' is 2% (=1- erf[{0.8/0.34}/2] ). 

    But Vostok is just one place on Earth.  It likely is much more variable than the Earth overall.  I looked at the last 27 centuries of Vostok, and the 20 centuries of the Pages_2k tree ring database, to evaluated how much more variable Vostok is.  I got a standard deviation of 0.9C for Vostok station and 0.08C for Earth overall. If you use half the standard deviation I got for Vostok as a conservative value for Earth, or 0.17C, then the likelihood that the 20th century temperature rise was natural, based on the last 400,000 years of natural climate-change data, is 0.0003% (=1- erf[{0.8/0.17}/2] ).  Clint Eastwood said something in 'Dirty Harry' that should be said to Trump and the GOP: "Do ya feel lucky, punk?  Well, do ya?"

  23. 2018 Hurricane Season: A Preview

    knaugle @1,

    The other basins do have their predictions (eg in the N Pacific ) but it is the N Atlantic tropical cyclone season that gets all the coverage. This is because news-wise N Atlantic storms often dramatically hit the US and science-wise because records for the N Atlantic are significantly longer than elsewhere.

    And for the record, the 2018 N Atlantic season opened with Tropical Storm Alberto which formed off the Yucatán Peninsula four days back and made landfall in W Florida this morning, all this since the OP was originally posted at Climate Denial the N Atlantic.

  24. 2018 Hurricane Season: A Preview

    What puzzles me is that we get this heavily publicized hurricane season forcast, but I never read anything about the Pacific Ocean hurricane and typhoon season projections.  Not to mention Cyclones in the Indian Ocean...

  25. Climate Science websites around the world

    Here's a strategic suggestion. Wikipedia has this list of many of the worlds meteorological institutes, with links direct to their pages and websites. They will know about local climate change websites and are probably going to have an email contact box. Yeah I know its an hour or twos boring work, so an excuse for a coffee or three.

  26. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #21

    Of course,, the "it's volcanoes" argument was also used for stratospheric ozone damage, too. The volcanoes put out more chlorine, etc., than come from CFCs.. (No, they don't.) It's as if they just did a search-and-replace on the ozone anti-science articles.

  27. Climate Science websites around the world

    VictorVenema @5

    Thanks, Victor! I already have a snippet about Klimaatverandering from Bart for the planned (and started) post.

  28. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans

    Suggested supplemental reading:

    What Is Kilauea’s Impact on the Climate? by Emily Atkin, The New Republic, May 26, 2018

  29. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #21

    Volcanoes just don't emit enough CO2 to explain global warming over the last several decades. The magma from volcanoes does have a lot of dissolved gases including CO2, however emissions from fossil fuels are approximately 100 times greater, and emissions from volcanoes have been measured in multiple ways. The keeling curve is also smooth, rather than punctuated by peaks when volcanoes explode.

    Its also a question of what explains the increased atmospheric levels of CO2 in the keeling curve . I was as curious as anyone, so last year I did some digging. Volcanic activity has just not increased over the period when CO2 levels have significantly increased, so volcanoes cannot be the source of the growth of CO2. Look up "list of large volcanic eruptions of the 19th century on wikipedia" and ditto for the 20th century. There are no clear differences between the two centuries overall, although if anything the 19th century had a couple more really large eruptions. I'm not aware of any evidence of significant changes in undersea volcanic activity.

    Generally volcanic activity is reasonably regular on these time scales which is not surprising given its a release of pressure from a regular sort of process beneath the crust.

    Unfortunately people listen to other people on talk back radio or websites that spread climate denial ignorance, but who sound plausible and confident. I'm a strong freedom of speech advocate, but this ignorance is now on a huge scale.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Also see the SkS rebuttal article, Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

  30. VictorVenema at 12:49 PM on 28 May 2018
    Climate Science websites around the world

    For the counterpart article on climate blogs in other languages: In Dutch there is the climate blog of Bart Verheggen: Klimaatverandering.

  31. New research, May 7-13, 2018

    Military leaders, corporate CEOs, fiancial investors, and decision makers at many other levels also deal with uncertainty when making decisions. It is not unique to science and uncertainty is usually not a good reason for inaction. It is simply being overstated in the context of science as an excuse for doing nothing.

  32. Climate Science websites around the world

    SirCharles - thanks for the links but I'm actually looking for full-fledged non-English websites for this particular article, not just climate-related content in other languages.

    As I'm getting other suggestions for non-English blogs, I'll start a collection of those for a counterpart article about "Climate science blogs around the world".

  33. Climate Science websites around the world

    Two music graphs (CC). Feel free to use them:

    Jan 1880 - Dec 2017 Monthly Global Temperature Jazz

    Global Sea Level Jazz | Jan 1993 - Mar 2018

  34. Climate Science websites around the world

    You want sites in English too?

  35. Climate Science websites around the world

    German Alpenverein =>

    More German sites =>

  36. New research, April 16-22, 2018

    In a first-of-its-kind study, scientists have combined an array of NASA satellite observations of Earth with data on human activities to map locations where freshwater is changing around the globe and why.

  37. One Planet Only Forever at 04:41 AM on 25 May 2018
    Yes, EVs are green and global warming is raising sea levels

    My understanding has always been along the lines of the Kevin Anderson quote in Evan's comment @19. And I own a hybrid because where I live it is better than running an all-electric off of the power from the crappy Alberta regional electrical grid that still includes coal burning as a part of the base-load (meaning that even though there are renewable generating options built, the use of coal burning is maximized and the renewables are minimized (even a grid fully powered by burning natural gas produces about 0.6 kg of CO2/kWh which means 1.2 kg of CO2 per 100 km driven based on an electric vehicle efficiency of 20 kWh/100 km. My hybrid annual efficiency is 4.5 l/100 km (closer to 4.0 in the summer and closer to 5.0 in the winter). And burning gasoline is about 3 kg CO2/l when allowance is made for the CO2 associated with extraction, refining and transportation. So in the future my hybrid at 13.5 kg CO2/100 km will only be marginally poorer than an all electric that is powered from Alberta's future grid, after Alberta stops burning coal in 2030, which may not happen if the new United Conservative Party wins the next election).

    The only advancements that are true advancements are the ones that reduce consumption of materials or energy to achieve an objective. Kevin states that because of the lack of responsible action in the past to shift to more sustainable ways of getting energy dramatic reduction of energy consumption is now required while the required corrections of energy production are implemented. My understanding has always been that reduction of energy consumption is the proper objective of efforts to develop new things. And I add that 'All of the richest' need to be required to lead the way to sustainable ways of living (not just the richer ones who care to behave better), because the richer ones are the ones who can afford to behave better.

    Cheaper quicker flashier 'New'ier ways to do things will always be around and get created. But to sustainably advance humanity any unsustainable or harmful way of doing things ultimately needs to be excluded from competing for popularity and profitability.

    Significant effort is undeniably required to overcome the damaging developed popularity and profitability of unsustainable developed ways of doing things. Sustainable ways of doing things cannot compete with the unsustainable alternatives, especially when more people get used to benefiting form the unsustainable or harmful activity. That reality is a Truly Inconvenient Truth.

    The best any of us can do is pursue better understanding of what is going on and determining how our actions can best help achieve a sustainable improved future for humanity. That requires constant skeptical investigation of things, with a critical eye always looking for truly sustainable developments and identifying unsustainable things that have developed that need to be corrected or curtailed.

    A Good first step is recognising/admitting that self-interest can severely cripple skeptical critical thinking, leading to damaging developments of popular and profitable activity that can develop tremendous resistance to being corrected. A self-interested person will skeptically and critically understand that they have less potential for personal benefit if the accept a true better understanding in pursuit of sustainably improving things for the future of humanity.

    Another good step is understanding that the understanding of how to get away with misrepresentations and other misleading marketing is potentially the most destructive thing that humanity has ever developed. And promoting a belief that people should be freer to believe whatever they like and do as they please in pursuit of 'their personal interest' will likely create a massively destructive society, because many people will be tempted to like unjustified damaging and ultimately unsustainable beliefs.

    The result of promoting self-interest and people having more freedom to believe and do as they please, will be a society that John Stuart Mill warned about in the following quote from "On Liberty" - “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”

    But the damage is done to future generations who can blame their predecessors, but as stated in the following quote from the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future", the future generations have no ability to actually get even with the ones who caused their problems.

    "25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
    26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."

  38. Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming


    With you remaining oblivious to everything said to you and your continued spouting of the same nonsense, I would suggest your time here draws short. Perhaps you should think about returning wence you came. (I note you spent a week fulling up the borehole at RealClimate prior to arriving here at SkS.)

    Moderator Response:

    [DB]  User ab has recused themselves from further participation here.

  39. Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming

    Ab @51 , 

    if your proposed 1m x 1m square "black body thermometer" is absorbing 890 watts in total, and is emitting 890 watts upwards . . . then its lower surface (facing the ground) must be emitting no watts at all.   In other words, the lower surface must have a temperature of absolute zero.

    Do you not find that to be a peculiarly interesting situation?

    Could be a source of energy for a perpetual motion machine . . . or a wonderful new way of generating unlimited electric power !

  40. Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming

    MA Rodger @48, Philippe Chantreau @49, Glenn Tamblyn@50,

    It seems to one that you are clearly confounding the amount of energy reaching a unit of surface (the fluxes in the IPCC's diagram that we are talking about here) with the amount of energy emitted per unit of surface of the source of the flux itself. Those are totally different concepts.

    In the IPCC's diagram, the solar flux coming in is not based on the unit of surface of the sun, it is based on the unit of surface of the Earth, that is, it is based not on the unit of surface of the source, but on the unit of surface of the target: it is directional, as all fluxes are.

    Many people have difficulties with fluxes, and from what you are writing, I understand that you are not familiar with them, but in the Earth's Energy Budget, we have to use them, because it is based on them, and we are reasonning with them, as all calculations here are done with fluxes.

    A flux in the Earth's Energy Budget is measured as a surface power density in time (W m-² for a given period), so there is no need to look at areas, geometries, and energy, as the surface power density is independent of the surface or geometry that is reached: it radiates some amount of energy per unit of surface in time.

    So the unit of surface of a flux is "per se": it is not the unit of surface of the object reached by the flux, it is independent of any particular geometry. Moreover, we are not dealing with the energy exchanged by a particular object per unit of its own surface: we are dealing with "outward", "directional" vectors of energy only here, transmitted by a blackbody.

    A blackbody receives input fluxes and emits output fluxes, such as the total input flux is equal to the total output flux by definition. Why ? Because for 1 unit of surface "per se", there has to be the same amount of energy emitted or received for a given period in order that as much energy comes in than goes out of the blackbody. Therefore the total input and total output have the same value.

    In other words, there is the same surface power density going in than going out per unit of time, and the total flux value is independent from the blackbody surface, only the number of fluxes, their value and their direction being regulated by the surface, but not their total value, in conformity with the definition of a blackbody radiation.

    In other words, each m2 reached by the total input flux will have the same amount of energy than each m2 reached by the total output flux, because a blackbody emits as much as it receives, independently of its own surface or geometry, which is another issue.

    So, in fluxes, the total input flux is equal to the total output flux for a blackbody, and it is quite different than the amount of energy emitted per unit of surface of the object itself.

    Therefore, coming back to the IPCC's Energy Budget, we add all inputs fluxes together for a blackbody on Earth's surface and we get 890 W m-² coming in.

    Because it is a blackbody, there has also to be an output flux of 890 W m-²: it is the same flux going out than going in, only the direction and the quantity and value of individual fluxes are changing, not its total value per m².

    Now, if that is clear, at thermal equilibrium, let's apply the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. We get for a blackbody emitting/receiving a flux of 890 W m-² a temperature of 80,8°C.

    What would be the input flux for the normal temperature of Earth, 15°C, as experimentally measured on Earth's surface ? Let's apply again Stefan-Boltzmann Law: we get a 390,9 W m-².


    IPCC's radiative model has a 65,8°C difference in temperature, and a 499,1 W m-² difference in radiative fluxes with experimental measures.

    IPCC's uncertainties concerning previsional temperatures are just a distraction compared to the huge difference existing between the radiative model and the experimental measures, the radiative model being at the basis of all prevision models.

  41. Climate change is already making droughts worse

    Anomalous Synergies

    Stratosphere = 10-50 km

    Troposphere = 0-10 km

    Lower stratospheric ozone declines are biggest between 60° South and 60° North. I will refer to this area as mid latitude which includes the tropics. The tropics are 50% of human habitat.

    Lower stratospheric ozone is much more abundant than the high stratospheric ozone at the poles, where ozone depletion has somewhat ceased. This abundance makes mid latitude ozone more important to us than high altitude polar ozone.

    Mid latitude/lower stratospheric ozone depletion causes more damage to DNA in plants, animals and humans because radiation is more intense in these regions and more people live there. I believe that stronger winds are sending more ozone killing gas into lower stratospheric mid latitude areas.

    Ground ozone (tropospheric) ozone is a pollutant that is harmful to breathe and toxic to plants. It is also the 3rd most abundant greenhouse gas, not including water vapor I believe. Ground-level ozone pollution is already decreasing global crop yields from 2–6% for maize to 4–15%, and 9–14% for wheat and soybeans. Ground ozone visibly harms foliage and reduces their ability to suck carbon out of the air. North American emissions can affect ozone-induced yield losses in Europe. I believe increased winds are destroying stratospheric ozone. This is complicated by the fact that Asia may be cheating on the Montreal Ozone Protocol.

    How is ozone pollution reducing our food supply? - Scary stuff.

    Emissions of banned ozone-destroying chemical on the rise

    Oceans currently suck up boatloads of ozone, but as Asia increases nitrous oxide emissions from farms and cars, these ocean ozone sinks will turn into ozone sources.

    Earth's magnetic field has a big hole below the equator that stretches from Chile to Zimbabwe Africa. I imagine chunks of Cratons (huge upside-down mountains) break off and swirl around enough to upset steady magnetic field generation, which may or not be temporary. This area between South America and Africa is the same area affected by ozone depletion. The combination of ozone depletion and a weakening magnetic field will be doubly deleterious to plants and humans in those areas from space radiation because it takes both tropospheric ozone and a strong magnetic field to protect mid latitudes from the sun and space radiation threats.

    Water from the tundra and polar ice is moving to the equator, so much so that it lowers polar gravity and slows down earth's crust relative to its core. The rebounding and slowing crust has a double whammy effect on earth quakes and volcanoes. Volcanoes are extremely sensitive to nearby water and ice pressures.

    A Mysterious Anomaly Under Africa Is Radically Weakening Earth's Magnetic Field

    More volcanoes and quakes are expected this year. When volcanoes go off, they emit sulphur which destroys ozone.

    2018 may be the year the earth slows and the world panics

    How future volcanic eruptions will impact Earth's ozone layer

    What's important to the ozone are volcanic halogens. Scientists are just starting to figure out how important halogens are to their models. A good burst of volcanic halogens means you can kiss that ozone goodbye. Dire indeed.

    The 2 top causes of civil collapse are drought and volcanic ash. We got lots of both this year. Don't say I didn't warn you.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Off-topic snipped.  Please comport your comments with the OP of the thread you post them on and the Comments Policy.

  42. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:41 PM on 23 May 2018
    Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming

    "and the area of the object is of no importance at all".

    Um, sorry ab, wrong. Area is absolutely important.

    You aren't clearly enough distinguising between flux per unit area, and flux.

    In your simple plate example, the plate absorbs 890 watts, from where-ever. It then needs to radiate 890. Since it has a total surface area of 2 m^2 it thus has to radiate 445 per square meter. And the SB equation calculates flux per square meter. So feed 445 into the SB calculator and you get around 14.

    The mistake you seem to be making, at least implied, is assuming the SB calculator gives you flux (in watts) when it is actually flux per square meter.

    If the plate had a surface area of 10 m^2 and absorbed 890 watts from where ever, it would need to radiate at 89 watts/m^2 to be in balance and the SB calculator would give a much lower temperature than 14 C.

    Area matters totally unless you keep all your calculations on a per square meter basis.

  43. Art Vandelay at 16:20 PM on 23 May 2018
    Video: The Myth of the Mini Ice Age

    There are quite a few solar physicists who no longer subscribe to the Maunder climate theory. Some of the reasons include methodology changes that have altered SSN's since SSN's were observed and documented, and when SSN is homogenised the Maunder minimum doesn't actually exist. And there's little observational evidence that cosmic radiation affects climate as a consquence of cloud feedback changes, as proposed by Svensmark and Christensen. The only metric of value is TSI (irradiance), and as the is spelled out in the video, is a minute modulation.  

  44. Philippe Chantreau at 11:01 AM on 23 May 2018
    Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming

    ab is trying to pull a G&T type of argument. Not interesting. Just trying to play games.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Looks more like skydragon to me.

  45. Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming

    ab @45,

    Reading your comment @45 suggests you have a problem, not with physics, but with the simplest geometry. You write "That is, you have created a flux of 890 W coming in and two fluxes of 445 W going out, one at the bottom and one at the top. Those two output fluxes are generated from one square meter of surface, thus the fluxes that you have created are of 445 W m-²."

    But it is not "one square metre of surface."

    If I have a flat object measuring 1m x 1m. It has two surfaces, a top surface and a bottom surface. Both top and bottom surfaces have a surface area of 1 sq m. Thus the flat object with its two surfaces has a total surface area of 2 sq m.

  46. Climate change is already making droughts worse

    And climate change together with land use changes is causing rivers to dry up, which is causing rapid decomposition of accumulated and exposed leaf litter, and release of CO2 to the atmosphere. The scale of this is significant and not part of current climate modelling, new research here .

  47. Climate change is already making droughts worse

    Drought is of course one of the biggest fears of farmers all around the world. The great drought in America's great plains in the 1930s called "the dust bowl" was caused by natural factors but coincided with a warming period which possibly made it worse?

    The drought combined with poor farming methods to cause massive soil erosion and dust storms. Despite improved farming systems, millions of acres are still lost to soil erosion each year.

    Climate change in New Zealand is expected to increase droughts , stormy weather and so make wind erosion worse. When topsoil is eroded soil carbon is lost to the atmosphere, creating a positive warming feedback.

    What do Americas leaders say? "Its all a Chinese hoax". Talk about weapons grade ignorance.

  48. Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming

    michael sweet @ 46,

    My calculations have no error and the area of the object is of no importance at all:

    Once again, one is not dealing with energy but with fluxes of energy.

    Kindly reread my commentary above (@45).

    The results are that IPCC's radiative model has a 66°C divergence with observed temperatures.

    Unfortunately, here, most posters do not seem to be familiar with physics of fluxes and confound fluxes with energy exchange.

    You can not comprehend radiative fluxes with simple energy exchange considerations.

    It is like wanting to do quantum mechanics with classical physics.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

  49. michael sweet at 06:28 AM on 23 May 2018
    Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming


    This is a perfect example of why it is a waste of time for posters to do their own calculations.  

    As MA Rodger has pointed out, the surface you are discussing has two faces.  One is 1 m2 pointing up and the other is 1 m2 pointing down.  That means it has a total surface area of 2 m2.   This absorbs 890 Watts total and radiates 495 W/m-2 up and 495 W/m-2 down.  The area of the object is 2 m2. 

    Your calculation has a gross math error and you do not understand MA Rodgers explaination.  Since you cannot do basic physics calculations without gross math errors, why should I think you can explain the greenhouse effect to me?  You think the IPCC has made a mistake but the issue is you cannot do math correctly.

    If you are interested in learning how to do the calculation correctly, if you ask nicely there are several people at SkS who are willing to show you how it is done.  If you want to lecture us on how smart you are you need to find a venue where they cannot do the math properly.

  50. Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming

    MA Rodger @43,

    I can not put it any simpler either and it is very simple physics: of course the blackbody thermometer receives 890 W in the lapse of time that is considered, which is the period between Mars 2000 and May 2004 for the diagram, but here we are talking of fluxes of energy, we are not concerned with the energy itself.

    A flux, or flow, represents an emission or a reception of a certain amount of energy per unit of surface in time.

    So what is the total flux of energy coming in ? 890 W m-²

    And what is the total flux of energy coming out ? also 890 W m-² because it is a blackbody: it emits as much energy as it receives, or in other words, it has the same emission and reception flux.

    The only difference between the reception flux and the emission flux being that the blackbody radiates its energy according to its own surface: both 445 W m-² at the top and at the bottom, whereas the reception flux comes in three different fluxes: two at the top and only one at the bottom.

    But the energy is conserved, because both incoming and outgoing fluxes are equal: 890 W m-².

    Otherwise, if you say that the total flux of energy going out is only  445 W m-² you are violating the law of conservation of energy: there is more energy going into the system than energy going out of the system.

    Let's look at it from the energy point of view if you wish: there is 890 W entering into the system, you output 890 W, that is 445 W on the top and 445 W on the bottom.

    Now, advance in time, and do the same thing: you receive again 890 W, and you ouput again 445 W on the top and 445 W on the bottom. 

    That is, you have created a flux of 890 W coming in and two fluxes of 445 W going out, one at the bottom and one at the top.

    Those two output fluxes are generated from one square meter of surface, thus the fluxes that you have created are of 445 W m-².

    That is simple physics of fluxes.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps


© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us