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


Recent Comments

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

Comments 1 to 50:

  1. Rob Honeycutt at 09:17 AM on 27 March 2015
    It hasn't warmed since 1998

    Albert H...  That might seem like a logical assumption, but with all due respect to your engineering experience, the assumption would be wrong. There's far more that you should endeavor to learn about ocean-atmosphere coupling before coming to any conclusions. Here is a good place to start: LINK

    There are also many great informative articles here on SkS that you should take the time to read through. Nearly all of the articles here are fully cited with the relative current research which, if you have further questions, you should locate and read through.

  2. It hasn't warmed since 1998

    Albert H, for the following I have used the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) as I consider it the best currently available surface temperature index.  That is because it is constructed using (by far) more temperature records in determining the series than any other temperature index, and also constructed with a less controversial method than any other temperature index.

    Using the SkS trend calculator, I find the trends are as follows:

    1977-1997: 0.11 C per decade

    1999-2014: 0.121 C per decade

    I notice that the 1999 onward trend is slightly greater than the 1977-1997 trend.

    Of course, if I use 1998 for a terminal and initial year respectively, if find trends of 0.126 C per decade (1977-1998) and 0.09 C per decade (1998-2014).

    I will note first that that is not so large a difference as to justify your conclusion.  Your conclusion, therefore, is based on using an alternative, unspecified, and objectively inferior temperature index.

    More importantly, your conclusion is shown to follow primarilly from using 1998 as your bridge year.  1998, however, is an unusual year in that it was the year of the strongest or second strongest El Nino event on record.  (Its only rival occured at the same time as a major volcanic erruption, with the effects of the two events on temperature essentially cancelling each other out.)  1998's unusual warmth, on which your claim relies, is therefore a consequence of short term internal variability, not radiative forcing.

    Finally, the trend over the whole period was 0.164 C per decade, within error of model predictions.

    So much for the technical discussion.  I notice as an aside you claim to be an engineer with 40 years experience.  As such you would clearly know certain basic principles of data usage:

    1) You would know to use trends rather than end points in analysing rates to avoid "endpoint effects";

    2) You would know to use clearly identified sources of data;

    3) You would know to use the best available data, or at least to justify your choice when you do not; and

    4)  You would know not to cherry pick end points for data analysis.

    You have clearly violated each of these principles.  I am therefore forced to conclude that your claim to tenuous authority (engineers often have very bad understanding of science, together with an over inflated belief in their understanding of science) is false; or that you have deliberately violated good practise to strengthen a very weak argument.  Which is it?


  3. It hasn't warmed since 1998

    Albert, where are you getting your OHC figures?


  4. It hasn't warmed since 1998

    Hi. The year 1977 was the last year that the global temperature was ~the 20th century average of 13.9D C. - 21 years later, 1998 the gt was ~14.5. The 21st centruy average is so far 14.44D C. - 2005, 2010 and 2014 beat the 1998 temperature by a margin-total of just 0.1D C. -w/2014 being 14.6D C (warmest ever - with a measurement magin of error of 0.1D C ??)

    Today's rate of CO2 emissions has increased over the last century. The oceans of today that are "accumulating" heat existed back in the 20th century as well, yet the rate of change over 21 years was 0.6D C and the rate of change over the past 17 years (since) is only 0.1D C.

    2/3rds of the globe is ocean. Oceans are warming, per your statements, yet the 2/3rds of the planets atmosphere, above the oceans are only warming by 1/9th the rate, of previous warming.

    It would seem to this engineer in my 45th year as an engineer, that the atmosphere has reached a warming saturation and that all the heat trapping GHGs can't seem to provide any additiona warming in the atmosphere no matter how much the "plate" at our feet warms (accumulates) or how much CO2 enters the atmosphere.

    Something is not adding up. It would appear we need more heat-in to warm pass the curent highs we have been seeing. The highs can be beat by 0.01 or 0.03 degrees C but they will not increase by 0.6 without more heat input, it would seem.


  5. The UK winter of 2014-15: another Tabloid FAIL

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices these ridiculous predictions. You would really think that the "newspapers" - or their readers - would work out that these predictions are 100% wrong and cease and desist.

    I do remember the winter of '63 - I was 11 years old at the time and had just started secondary school. The snow seemed to last for ever and opposite my school the lake in Lister Park froze over.

    I also remember the winter of '71 when the River Cam froze in Cambridge. That has never happened since.

    I don't of course remember '47 but I have talked to people in the Cambridgeshire Fens who do - when the snow started to melt the pumping station at Tydd ran day and night for 2 months and they had to sandbag the doors to keep the water out. Upstream, there was catastrophic flooding when dykes broke across the Fens.

    Now those really were winters.

  6. The UK winter of 2014-15: another Tabloid FAIL

    Expect the same again next winter ..... :(

  7. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

     Apology for unintended duplicate post above.

    In my quest of seeking confirmation on historical WARMING Data, I re-examined the Graph derived from Vostok, Antarctica Ice Core Data;
    which examined both Temperature levels, And, CO2 levels - vs TimeBP.

    The quantifications of the Climate Parameters (Temp levels and CO2 levels)
    are Not based on each other: rather, their levels are directly derived independently from each other - from the data measured in the ICE core.

    The cause of the obvious repeating and abrupt up and down cycles shown in the Vostok Ice Core are attributed to - as others here have advised me - Milankovitch Cycles - which in turn are all unconnected with, e.g., CO2.

    Taking a re-look at the Vostok Ice Core, what jumped out to me in looking at the two graphs (Temp and CO2) is that a Rise in Temps drives the Rise in CO2 - with the lag time of CO2 being somewhere in the vicinity of 800 years!

    One might quickly argue:

    "Then how do you explain the current parallel-in-time correlation
    of Rise in Temps - with Rise in CO2?"

    My response: 

    "IF as the Vostok graph clearly shows - Temps drive CO2 - and not the other way around, THEN, the current rises in CO2 would have to have been driven by rises in Temps 800 years ago.

    The only c.800 TimeBP rise in Temperature Anomaly that I can find which would correspond to the recent CO2 rise - is the Medieval Warm Period - previously mentioned by this website."

    Note: The CO2 ppm concentration is indicated by the pink graph


    Moderator Response:

    [PS] This is now completely offtopic. Take it here but read the article first before regurgitating a myth. 

  8. The UK winter of 2014-15: another Tabloid FAIL

    But they do, Wili! How do we get them to start reading Viz comic instead? Far funnier.

  9. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    CBD -  

    "CO2 certainly correlates with Temps."  — I say,  "Yes, it does."

    So do: SO2, Sky Darkenings, Volcanic Emissions, Crop Failures, Etc, 
    - correlate with Global Temps.

    Without anyone reverting to "CO2 levels" and only "CO2 levels",  
    I still await science data or data-generated graphs
    which quantify Temps (not CO2 levels) versus Dates
    which in turn show correlation with historical Mass Extinctions! 

  10. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    This topic is "So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…"

    The Moderator @56 stated that the discussion was far offtopic, which I disagree with, yet does not seem to think it is true here. Why not? 

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] I agree it is far offtopic and latest post from watchdog has been deleted.

  11. The cause of the greatest mass-extinctions of all? Pollution (Part 2)

    The diagram shows NOx emissions, but I see no mention of the ozone that results when NOx reacts to VOX and UV radiation.  As mentioned in the article, acid rain from sulpher dioxide, then and now, is more localized and not long lasting; however, ozone precursors travel in the troposphere and raise the background level of ozone globally.  It is highly toxic to vegetation according to countless research papers and governmental agencies including the US EPA - so I am curious why it isn't even considered here as a potential driver in the Permian extinction of plants and ultimately animals that rely upon them.  It is certainly a primary reason for current forest dieback:  

  12. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    CBD -  

    "CO2 certainly correlates with Temps."  — I say,  "Yes, it does."

    So do: SO2, Sky Darkenings, Volcanic Emissions, Crop Failures, Etc, 
    - correlate with Global Temps.

    Without anyone reverting to "CO2 levels" and only "CO2 levels",  
    I still await science data or data-generated graphs
    which quantify Temps (not CO2 levels) versus Dates
    which in turn show correlation with historical Mass Extinctions! 

  13. 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A

    Climate Central now has a piece devoted to the article on the slowdown of the AMOC.

  14. The UK winter of 2014-15: another Tabloid FAIL

    Isn't putting the word "fail" next to the word "tabloid" some kind of tautology or redundance or something??

    It's sad that anyone actually looks to these rags as sources of information.

  15. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    Watchkog, one of the primary suspected causes of "The Great Dying" (i.e. the P-T extinction event) is rapid CO2 increase/global warming. You will no doubt revert to, 'there are other theories!' again... but that is true about all of the 'evidence' you have been citing as well. Evidence about past events is often inconclusive.

    There is no question that rapid changes in atmospheric CO2 levels can cause corresponding rapid changes in global temperatures OR that such rapid temperature changes can cause extinctions. Further, there is very little question that such changes have occured in the past... only debate over which precise events were due to these vs other kinds of changes.

    One way to minimize uncertainty is to look at regional shifts in the more recent past... as you do with the 'Little Ice Age'. Taking the same approach for 'recent' warm events we find the collapse of the Chaco culture ~900 years ago, the Maya ~1200 year ago, the Khmer ~600 years ago, California the past three years, et cetera. Maybe next you'll say, 'those events were not all caused by rising CO2'... but that's irrelevant. The cold events you cite weren't all caused by the same factor either. You've conceded that "CO2 certainly correlates with Temps"... leaving your only apparent argument, 'warming does not cause extinction'... but there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  16. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…


    The minor Cold Climate "blip" aka the Maunder Minimum, caused widespread Famine, and Forced Migrations of Peoples - including, forcing Vikings to abandon their colonies in the Land which became labeled "Green" due to the immediately prior Global Warming blip oft-referred to as, The Medieval Warming Anomaly.

    This Website discusses the Medieval Warming Period and its Causes. 

    How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

    " It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). "  

    Yes. Papers exist supporting its contention that: "warming would occur due to less volcanic activity resulting in higher solar radiation" - and I concur.  

    The article also presents a graph showing Temps surpassing the higher Temps of the MWP at some point in the 20th century due to AGW..



    So that I'm clear:
    I've never said: "Global Warming does not exist.
    Neither have I denied, "Periods of Global Cooling have existed".
    Nor have I denied, "Climate Change occurs with or without Man's input." 

    Please Show Me Temp Data - where Warmth Itself (which is "presented" as being predominately caused by its "predominate driver" - CO2, Yes? ) is the Climate- Parameter cause of Mass Extinctions? 

  17. keithpickering at 23:49 PM on 26 March 2015
    One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    Please note that the datasets being compared here are for TMT, middle troposphere, and are NOT the TLT lower troposphere data generally used as a proxy for surface temperatures. 

    The issue identified here thus has no effect on surface temperature trends as measured from satellite (where UAH's trend is higher than RSS's trend). It does, however, affect the tropical troposheric "hot spot" at 10 km, which Dr. Roy has implied (based in part on his UAH TMT data) does not exist. 

  18. Glenn Tamblyn at 21:12 PM on 26 March 2015
    So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    "CO2 is presented as being the cause of Global Warming."

    Umm... No It's Not!

    It is 'presented' as the most significant (but not only) driver of warming in our current context.

  19. One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    How very interesting and informative.  

  20. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…


    "Earth's Temperature is oft-presented as being too Warm for the Biota."

    Citation for the above please.


    Mass extinctions are associated with rapid change - change too fast for adaptation. As other commentators have pointed out, change from cool to warm is indeed implicated in previous mass extinctions. Extinctions from change to cold (eg YD) are more controversial. The objection to the YD for megafauna extinction has been that it doesnt fit well with species that disappeared compared to those that survived.

    CO2 can be released very rapidly but it is harder to reduce it quickly so it is natural to look at its effects. Volcanism warms in long run - it only cools in very short term. 

    We dont blame climate change on CO2 because of correlation but from basic physics. If the sun suddenly put out an extra energy to tune 4W/m2 received at surface, then noone would be even slightly surprized at temperature change. Why the surprize when you get 4W/m2 from extra CO2 and a frantic search for alternative explanations?

  21. One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    Thanks to both of you (Tom and Ian).  I understand the issue now . 

    Still, there is apparently  a different problem with RSS that has been publicized and even discussed by Spencer...  and the Trend calculator is going to leave people wondering about this (if they are using it as intended).    Since I "knew" that RSS was giving me lower readings than UAH based on the calculator and that it had a problem I also read with that bias making it harder to see the forest... too many trees.    

  22. New measurements confirm extra heating from our carbon dioxide

    jja @17, Feldman et al measured the surface radiative forcing of CO2.  The total surface radiative forcing will have been larger than that.  Therefore, for comparison I compared it with the radiative forcing of CO2.  The net TOA energy flux that you discuss includes the total forcing since 1750 from all sources, minus the increase in net upward energy flux due to increases in GMST including feedbacks on that temperature increase.

  23. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    KR@80 - My Apology for my sometimes opaque grammar. 

    No.. I am not saying CO2 causes Cooling

    Nor do I agree with this following:  
    "Long declines in CO2 causes Cooling."

    I am saying that Extended Periods of Extreme Cold
    are most definitely injurious to the Biota

    I am also saying that Blockages of Solar Radiation from e.g., Volcanism, 
    will directly cause Lowering of Temps. 

    With that above statement said, 
    I'm not saying that COLD is the only cause of injury to the Biota.

    Nor am I saying: Volcanism is the only cause of Lowered Solar Radiation.

    I am saying: Volcanism indeed reduces Solar Radiation / Temperature.

    Which brings me to CO2.

    CO2 certainly correlates with Temps
    - as does Black Carbon aka Soot, 
    - as does other Climatic parameters.

    Refer again to the Vostok Graph of Temp & CO2 @69
    and take close note of their correlation...

    CO2 is presented as being the cause of Global Warming.

    Which brings me to Global Warming

    Earth's Temperature is oft-presented as being too Warm for the Biota.

    I've several questions - and I'll begin with this one: 

    Has Warm Climate ever been the Cause of mass extinctions?

  24. One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    If UAH (0.139C/dec) underestimates global warming, then RSS (0.122C/dec) underestimates it by even more.

  25. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    John Mason:

    More grist for the mill...

    Fact or Fiction?: Dark Matter Killed the Dinosaurs by Lee Billings, Scientific American, Mar 25, 2015

  26. One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    villabolo - Roy Spencer is not a "young earth creationist". I believe that he is a proponent of "intelligent design" however. (eg see here )

  27. New measurements confirm extra heating from our carbon dioxide


    the 0.2 watts per meter squared increase per decade is a good fit for the TOA analysis using Nuccitelli et al 2012 with Durack 2014 reanalysis. However this is a decadal rate of change, not an absolute value.

    The absolute value was estimated by Hansen and Sato (2010) using Levitus et. al (2009) data at 0.6 watts per meter squared, corresponding to a median date of 2007.

    However, recent NODC 0-2000 meter OHC analysis shows that the lower bound of current TOA radiation imbalance is 1.0 Watts per meter squared. This is a least bound as the rate of TOA is currently increasing and increasing at an increasing rate!

    it was your use of the term TOA that threw me off. I have not seen a good analysis of TOA time series except for the one that I have done as an amateur compilation.

  28. One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    rocketeer - it would seem the Cornwall Alliance theology conveniently ignores anything concerning divine consequences for human greed and disrespectful destruction of divine creation.

  29. One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    Roy Spencer also happens to be a "young earth" creationist who believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old. In essence, he doesn't believe in geologic history.

  30. Ian Forrester at 08:24 AM on 26 March 2015
    One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    bjchip, the data discussed in the paper by Stephen Po-Chedley et al. is only looking at the narrow tropical band, 20 degrees north and south of the equator. The SkS calcualtor is looking at global coverage (or at least most of the globe).

  31. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    "The evidence points to a distinct warming of the southern mid-latitude atmosphere during the Younger Dryas and a close coupling between New Zealand’s cryosphere and southern high-latitude climate. These findings support the hypothesis that extensive winter sea ice and curtailed meridional
    ocean overturning in the North Atlantic led to a strong interhemispheric thermal gradient8 during late-glacial times, in turn leading to increased upwelling and CO2 release from the Southern Ocean9, thereby triggering Southern Hemisphere warming during the northern Younger Dryas."

    Kaplan M.R. et al (2010), Glacier retreat in New Zealand during the Younger
    Dryas stadial, NATURE| Vol 467|9 September 2010

    Those guys feel it was the thermohaline stopping that cuased the cooling as 2013 with improved proxies etc...and the evidence for an impact causing it is slimer as each new study is published, check the abstracts here,


    YD was most likely due a fresh water lake burst in the North Atlantic, and therefore was akin to Hienrich event, causing SH warming and another outgasing burst in CO2 from the southern ocean which firstly increased the temperature of SH then globally.

    The rapid warming in Greenland when the meridional circulation turned on again was10C in decades (similair to the cooling rate), and a tad worrying for those arround the North Atlantic really as it also induced quite marked changes in weather patterns and ecosystem dispersions across Europe, Asian (Monsoons), and North America, however it was not a global cooling event for the SH warmed. Although these abrupt changes in the NH climate, combined with the hand of man, does seems most likely scenario for the loss of the Sabre tooths etc.

    As for the science being settled about mass extinction. Well it does seem very suggestive that rapid global warming, induced ocean stratification and acidfication do have marked ecosystem impacts (that aspect is settled), however no one says these are the only factors in the major mass extinctions (just an essential one, it seems) for each mass extinction seems to also to have been associated with other climatic disturbances, ozone depletions and an input into the global ecosystem of an array of toxic substances (to release such large amounts of CO2 melting coal filled rock desposits is often part of the volcanic activity, so very toxic stuff being released as you can imagine). 

    However this is of no comfort for humanity has already induced an extinction rate in keeping with a mass extinction levels, at least, with many estimates that rates are far greater, with current rates being between 100-1000 times the baseline fossil levels.

    Therefore we have already induced a totally unprecendented rate of global  warming (I stress globally for those still in regional camps), which is at the very least only half complete having had already introduced a vast arrray of toxins, waste and poisons, disturbed the ozone layer, cleared vast areas of land of natural ecosystems, etc, etc etc,.....

    Therefore we have a very sick global ecosystem and the additional blow of the combination of CO2 warming and ocean acidification that has a long rap sheet for mass extinction involvement has only just begun in earnest really.

    Last time CO2 was 400ppm consistently at 400-450ppm (COe2 ~465ppm) was the Miocene, totally different climatic world back then.

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Shortened link.

  32. One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    Sure, accounting for diurnal drift is important but is there any account for Dr. Roy Spencer's belief that "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history"?  (Spencer, Roy W. (signatory and advisor), An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, Cornwall Alliance, May 1, 2009)  This could certainly influence analysis of satellite topospheric temperature data.

  33. One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    bjchip @4, the satellite data comes in various channels, each of which measures data from different altitudes, as shown below.  As you can see, the instruments cannot pick out a given altitude uniquely, but absorb radiation from a broad range of altitudes, but more strongly at some altitudes than others:


    The channel used for the study, the TMT channel, is the lowest actual instrumental record in the satelite data.  The TLT channel is an artificial channel made by deriving data from the TMT and TTS (?) channels, and using the later to eliminate temperature information from above the tropopause in the former.  Both UAH and RSS use different methods to do this.  The SKS trend calculator uses the TLT channel data.  The paper, in contrast, compared the TMT data.  In doing so they avoided confounding their study with differences introduced by the different methods used by the two groups in calculating the TLT channel.

  34. New measurements confirm extra heating from our carbon dioxide

    jja @15, eyeballing figure 2, CO2 concentrations at North Slope Alaska have grown from 369-385 ppmv, for a calculated increase of 0.227 W/m^2 of forcing, which is approximately the same as the 0.2 W/m^2 increase in surface radiative forcing shown on the trend line (blue).

    However, as you challenged the value, I looked at global annual average increases in CO2 from 2000-2010 (368.85-388.57 ppmv) for a global increase of forcing of  0.279 W/m^2.  Further, the calculated forcing for the annual average increase for Alert, Alaska (data), is 0.277 W/m^2 .  These are not approximately 0.2.  Further, the standard formula for radiative forcing of CO2 applies only to global values, and not necessarilly for regional values.  Consequently I withdraw my claim.

    I will note that using Modtran and the Alert values with the standard cirrus model, there is a 0.09 W/m^2 TOA difference in radiative flux for the sub-arctic summer and winter.  On that basis, the standard formula radically over estimates TOA radiative forcing of CO2 in the sub-arctic (including Alaska).  Of course, the modtran model at UChicago is obsolete, and I did not set up the model properly to get the change in radiative flux at the tropopause, after the stratosphere had adjusted nor to get all sky values, so the modtran estimate of forcing is very approximate.

  35. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    Also note that while Younger dryas is indeed associated with rapid cooling, the area of rapid cooling is geographically restricted (and absolutely not caused by Milankovich cycles - this can be catagorically ruled out). Volcanic cooling does not persist very long after an event because aerosols are rapidly removed from the atmosphere. Extra CO2 emitted however is very persistant.

    I should also point out that the hypothesis that rapid climate change was responsible megafauna extinction is also far from settled science.

  36. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    Watchdog - The article you linked to (published version here) is from 1999 - I dare say we've learned a bit in the last 16 years, in particular details about CO2 feedbacks and lags in glacial/interglacial temperature changes. 

    And yes, that was my understanding of your post - that you are claiming rising CO2 causes global cooling. If that's indeed your claim, I would consider it quite wrong, contradicted by basically all of known spectroscopy. 

    If it's not your claim, I would ask that you be a bit more clear about what you are saying. It's been quite difficult to identify what you are arguing. 

  37. michael sweet at 05:42 AM on 26 March 2015
    So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…


    Thank you for providing a citation for your data so it can be checked.

    Looking at your citation I noticed this at the start: "Last modified 14th March 1998".  The format of this cite matches your previous posts, so I presume this is what you have been citing all along.

    It strikes me that the references in the OP from 2014 are likely to reflect current scientific thought better than your reference from 1998.  Perhaps you can cite more recent data to support your claims.  

    I am not expert on this subject.  If I see one person citing references from 2014 and another citing references from 1998 I generally think the more recent references support the argument better. In this case, the OP claims that recent data has contributed to a change in scientific thought.  Your old posts cannot help us evaluate recent changes in thought.

  38. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    CBDunderson - I’ve more to say, but first:

    My “Is CO2 the Cause of Global Cooling? ” is intended to be construed as a much better phrased: “Does a Rise in CO2 Cause Global Cooling?

    Perhaps KR@67 intended the same understanding when he responded:
    CO2 is a warming, not cooling, influence

    Solar Radiation is the Primary Cause of Temps in the Solar System

    What can Cause Abrupt Major Cooling?

    IF - by whatever mechanisms, including Milankovitch cycles, Solar Radiation were reduced to (for the sake of discussion) Zero, that would respresent the maximum possible Solar-Cooling effect upon the entire Solar System: Atmosphere’s or Not.

    What mechanisms can reduce Solar Radiation received by Earth?

    One known occurring mechanism of blockage of Solar Radiation is: smoke, smog, ash, aerosols and other particulates - caused by, e.g., Volcanic Emissions.

    How fast could or would Temps fall or rise?

    The GreenLand and Antarctic ICE Core graphs show
    -> very “rapid” decreases and increases in temperatures.

    The Greenland Ice Core Data directly correlates Temperatures with rapid advances and recessions of Glaciations (Solid H2O) - as would be expected.

    These events also directly correlate with rapid Ocean Water Levels 

    What is “rapid”?

    We’ve strong evidences from:

    1 Graphs — 2 Ocean Levels Fluctuations and — 3 Published papers (plural) — that Abrupt Climate Temperature Changes have occurred in periods of time - far shorter than as someone(s) suggested, 1000 years. I’ve read “in as little as 10 years. Also, “over a few decades”

    This Frontnote to the following online paper mentions:

    This represents an earlier version of our text. Some changes have been made since we stopped modifying this web version: e.g. we have added a discussion of the role of volcanic aerosols in sudden climate changes...evidence suggests the rapid cooling at the end of the Eemian interglacial was due to a big explosive volcanic event. Other 'volcanic' cooling events occurred during the Holocene.

    ref: Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Link activated.

    I must again remind you that excessive repitition is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy

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

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators engage in excessive repitition. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

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

  39. One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    One looking at the Trend Calculator will wonder if the "RSS" and "UAH" values are swapped in this discussion  ???

    Something does not make sense.   Also there is Spencer's own discussion of RSS problems.   The modeled atmosphere profile is not clearly discussed, so people often believe that the "satellite" data is less fallible than other measures.  Resulting satellite derived temperature values all seem to read low over time compared to surface measurements.

    This is a very valuable start, but it is only a start.

  40. PhilippeChantreau at 03:00 AM on 26 March 2015
    One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    My bad. If these results hold then it will be another major error in the list of UAH errors that have been corrected by outside observers. Something that skeptics should approve of, undoubtedly.

  41. New measurements confirm extra heating from our carbon dioxide

    @tom 14

    you said:

    It turns out the "surface radiative forcing" Feldman et al calculate is approximately equal to the radiative forcing as calculated for the TOA using the IPCC's approximate formula.

    I have reviewed the paper and supplemental information and have not found an absolute value for surface radiative forcing that is equal or approximate to TOA values.  Do you have a value or quote from the paper that justifies your statement?  What is the Feldman total surface radiative forcing in their series at 2007?

    The references show that the total longwave downwelling trend is 2.1 watts per meter per decade increase.

  42. One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    Actually, I think there have been several major corrections made in the UAH dataset that were the result of outside examination - there's a list of them here. Accounting for orbital decay, diurnal corrections, errors in the tropics, etc. 

  43. PhilippeChantreau at 01:39 AM on 26 March 2015
    One satellite data set is underestimating global warming

    Very interesting. I hope other groups set out to replicate the results. If it holds up it will definitely help advance the science, but will also be the second time a major flaw in Spencer's work is caught by others.

  44. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    Watchbog, ok... sure, there is debate about all of this. However, a claim that CO2 changes cannot cause abrupt cooling is simply false. Even a claim that CO2 changes have not caused abrupt cooling is not "settled science", and indeed would be disputed by many paleoclimate scientists.

    Ergo, your statement that, "...CO2 does not cause abrupt Cooling", falls somewhere between unsubstantiated and certainly false.

  45. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island

    I would certainly entertain that as a possibility, but if your argument depends on the difference between the Warming Island climate and that at Tasiilaq/Angmagssalik, then there was no excuse for not showing the more local and relevant temperature series from Danmarkshavn.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] I sincerely hope your link to "clash of clans" stuff was error not spam. I deleted the link but feel free to post what you meant.

  46. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    Watchdog - I agree Younger Dryas is not settled science. However, with due respect to CBDunderson, I dont think there are scientists who are claiming it is settled science. I will admit to a certain wariness about strawman claims about what is "settled" and "unsettled".

  47. Glenn Tamblyn at 11:37 AM on 25 March 2015
    So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…


    I would suggest that cooling events have actually been a much smaller cause of extinctions than warming events.

    Looking over the period since the start of the Cambrian, there is only one event where a major extinction occurred that apears to be linked to rapid cooling - that is the end-Ordovician event. And that appears to be linked to a geologically rapid draw down in CO2 levels due to some unusual fgeology and possibly the evolution of vascular plants.

    We have to go back further than that, to when life on Earth wasn't much more than bacteria to find examples of extreme cooling events - the so-called Snowball Earth Events during the Cryogenian and the earlier Huronian Snowball.

    In contrast from the Cambrian onwards major extinctions appear substantially to be linked to major CO2 driven warming and major disruptions to ocean circulation and chemistry.

    The glacial cycles during the more recent Ice Age period over the last 800,000 year or so have not been extreme enough or rapid enough to trigger major extinctions. Life moved and adapted, may have declined in numbers, but wasn't devastated.

  48. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…


    I'm sure there are good explanations on this website for all the questions you are asking.

    The depth of the evidence that CO2 is the primary determinant of the earth's long term temperature is overwhelming and has been very highly scrutinized.

    Therefore again what is it about CO2 that inspires you to counter the well presented and explained scientific evidence about CO2's role in mass extinctions?

  49. So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…

    My Point re: 'not settled science' and 'multiple hypotheses' is: ..  

    CBDunderson's statement, "an explosion of nitrogen fixing plants led to rapid CO2 declines", posited as: the CO2 fact underlying Global Cooling;  
    - is in fact,  not fact. 

    Since we're discussing events from c.65 MYA - on up to Today, 
    including several posited Causes of "Mass Extinction (of Dinosaurs",
    such as: Bolides, Volcanism, CO2, Global Warming & Global Cooling,
    we can't exclude more complete knowledge of recent extinction events
    which correlate in time with Global Cooling - replete of evidences of:
    Bolide impact and Volcanism..  

    "Climate Change" encompasses several variable observable parameters. 
    E.G. - Life, Temperature, Ocean Levels are major factors.  We all know that Historical Global Temperatures include periods of constantly fluctuating   Cooling and Warming.  Do any here deny that? 

    I've obviously been strongly suggesting - replete with a plethora of varying historical events and evidences - that the extremes of the Global Cooling half of Climate Change - have been very causal to extinctions of Life - and can be argued as being the ultimate cause of the demise of many large hungry non-warm-blooded creatures who directly and indirectly depended upon warm lush environments. 

  50. New measurements confirm extra heating from our carbon dioxide

    Joel_Huberman @12, the definition, with my emphasis is:

    "Radiative forcing is the change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux (expressed in W m–2) at the tropopause or top of atmosphere due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as, for example, a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide or the output of the Sun."

    Feldman et al measure the change at the bottom of the atmosphere, which they call the "surface radiative forcing".  "Surface radiative forcing" and "radiative forcing" are not the same thing.  For what it is worth, the change in downward flux at the surface due to a change in CO2, and absent any feedbacks, is about four fifths of the change in radiative forcing (as calculated by the IPCC approximation).  

    As you note, "surface radiative forcing" also differs from radiative forcing in allowing considerable atmospheric adjustment increase in CO2.  That adjustment includes an increase in temperature and, importantly, an increase in H2O content.  H2O absorption bands have considerable overlap with the main CO2 absorption bands.  That is largely inconsequential for radiative forcing, for CO2 only decreases in concentration very slowly with altitude, whereas H2O is virtually absent above 3 km (except where there are very strong updrafts).  Consequently, at the tropopause, the effect of H2O absorption in those bands is very small.  In contrast, at the surface much of the effect of CO2 would occure regardless because of the presence of H2O.  Further, the increase in temperature will increase the downward flux from all radiative components of the atmosphere including CO2.

    It turns out the "surface radiative forcing" Feldman et al calculate is approximately equal to the radiative forcing as calculated for the TOA using the IPCC's approximate formula.  As the change in net TOA flux allowing adjustments is considerably less than that, there must be some other difference in the surface energy budget making up the difference.  To the extent that Feldman et al's results are respresentative of the global average, that difference will be made up by increased convection or evapo-transpiration, or heat flow from another region (or some combination of the three).

    That response is a lot longer than needed as, except for specifying the difference in location (which you probably understood but thought too obvious to need stating), your understanding was correct.  I just took the opportunity to flesh out some more of my thoughts on the topic :)

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)



The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps


© Copyright 2015 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us