Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1002  1003  1004  1005  1006  1007  1008  1009  1010  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  Next

Comments 50451 to 50500:

  1. citizenschallenge at 02:10 AM on 1 January 2013
    New research from last week 52/2012
    Thank you Ari for all the work you've put into this. It is important for folks to have a source of reliable news, when it comes to the steady flow of scientific papers and information. it's been useful and very valuable! Happy New Year
  2. Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
    andrewfez@25: Keeping this focused on food security, and tossing in a bit of geological data to gin up a SWAG about your question? I'll say an area centered roughly around Bend, OR: decent glacial soils, reasonably temperate, year-round, and good precip.
  3. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    (-sloganeering snipped-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please respond to Dikran's question above:
    "In that case, can you tell me exactly what it means for the observed trend to be not statistically significant?"
  4. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Sorry, Cross posted with JasonB - seems we had the same idea !
  5. Dikran Marsupial at 23:51 PM on 31 December 2012
    Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    punksta Consider an atmoshere and ocean in thermal equilibrium, so that the amount of heat radiated/conducted from the oceans is precisely balanced by the amount of heat recieved by the ocean from solar radiation, back-radiation from the atmopshere and by conduction from the atmosphere. No suppose an upwelling cold current replaces relatively warm water across a large fraction of the tropical Pacific. Clearly the ocean will now be radiating less IR as part of the surface is colder than before, but the incoming solar radiation is the same, so the oceans will begin to warm up. However, as part of the ocean surface is now cooler than before, the atmosphere will beging to cool a little in response. Now of course the energy transferred between the atmosphere and oceans will change a little (for instance there will be a little less back-radiation from the slightly cooler atmosphere). However the heat capacity of the atmosphere is small compared to the oceans, so I suspect the difference has relatively little effect. Now I am no physicist, but it seems fairly obvious that it isn't a given that ongoing atmospheric warming is a precondition to ocean warming. P.S. it is called "La Nina".
  6. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    RobP said: On the upper left hand side of the SkS homepage is the trend calculator. One simple experiment (with regard to this topic) is to use the trend calculator to do the following: 1. Determine the trend and uncertainty for the period 1996-2012 2. Determine the trend and uncertainty for the period 1980-1996 3. Determine the trend and uncertainty for the period 1980-2012 And then ask yourself: is the trend for 1. greater than or less than 2. ? Is the uncertainty in 1. greater than or less than 2. ? Are either of the results in 1. and 2. statistically significant ? Is the result from 3. a summation of 1. and 2. or is it different, is it statistically significant ? You might then come to your own view about whether there really has been a "pause" (whilst gazing at figure 1!) Caveat: I tried this with about 4 of the various datasets. They all showed similar results but I didn't try them all.
  7. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Punksta, The problem with what you are saying is that: a) The warming of the atmosphere needn't be "ongoing" for the ocean to keep warming over the last 16 years, merely that the ocean has not yet caught up, in exactly the same way that the car continues to accelerate until it has reached the speed it will eventually reach based on the final accelerator position, and the kettle continues to warm until it has reached the temperature it will eventually reach based on the final knob position. You have not shown any research that would suggest the time it takes for the world's oceans to reach equilibrium is only 16 years. b) The atmosphere has continued to warm anyway. You appear to be mistaking a lack of statistically significant warming for a lack of warming, which is something else entirely. There will always be a period of time that can be quoted that the warming is not statistically significant over. The lack of statistical significance is entirely due to the shortness of the period of time, not due to the lack of a trend. Think about this for a second: The GISTEMP warming from 1980 to 1996 was 0.081° ± 0.149° per decade — not statistically significant. The warming from 1996 to now was 0.113° ± 0.122° per decade — also not statistically significant. But the warming from 1980 to now was 0.153° ± 0.049° per decade — very statistically significant. How can that be? Here's a clue — the English phrase "statistically insignificant" does not mean the same thing as the statistical phrase "not statistically significant". So, the premise of your argument is false, and the argument itself would be incorrect even if the premise was true due to your failure to take into account inertia.
  8. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Punksta @232: (1) Trends 1996.92 to 2012.83 (ie, the most recent 16 years of data): Gistemp: 0.087 C per decade (0.139 trend increase in temperature over the 16 years). NCDC (NOAA): 0.047 C per decade (0.075 trend increase over the 16 years) HadCRUT4: 0.053 C per decade (0.085 trend increase over 16 years) UAH: 0.093 C per decade (0.149 C trend increase over 16 years) RSS: 0.003 C per decade (0.005 C trend increase over the 16 years). Of these, Gistemp is the most accurate in that it: a) Alone of the three surface temperature indices, has global coverage; b) Has more stations than NCDC, and significantly more stations than HadCRUT4; and c) It is a surface record, and is not contaminated by data from the stratosphere (which is cooling) as is the case with RSS and UAH. I note that a 0.03 C decadal trend taken over 16 years is a trend increase of 0.048 C, so even Punksta's cherry picked data set with its cherry picked period does not give a result of no warming, contrary to Puncksta's claims. It also leave grave doubts as to his maths, as he apparently thinks 16 years equals 10 years (to expect only a decades warming over the full 16 years); and that 0.048 = 0. Once again, there has been a warming trend on all data sets over the last 16 years. That trend has not been statistically significant on any data set. That just means that on all data sets, the error bars are wide enough so that they do not exclude underlying trends equal to zero, or indeed, equal to or greater than the IPCC predicted warming. Dressed up in its best form, Punksta's argument comes down to the inference: If we restrict our data to just the last 16 years, there is insufficient data to conclusively determine that the trend is not zero, or to determine that the trend does not equal the IPCC predicted trend. Therefore, the IPCC predicted trend has been falsified.
  9. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Rob, I am not claiming the earth or oceans are cooling. I am merely saying, pretty much in line with conventional wisdom on the topic, that since AGW happens by means of warming of CO2, and hence of the atmosphere, that ongoing atmospheric warming is a precondition of ongoing ocean warming.
  10. Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
    Thanks for the nice post. We have about a hectare of land in Northumberland, a poly-tunnel and raised beds etc. But 2012 was dreadful for the "rain it raineth every day." My land has turned into a slurry of mud and water. Best wishes for the new year.
  11. Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
    The only answer which need be given to cormagh's comment is that his claim is simply false. A combination of temperature records are not "needed" to prove the point. Any of the major temperature records (GISS, NCDC, HadCRUT4, UAH, RSS, BEST, et cetera) or any combination of them would show the same results... the IPCC projections have been in the ballpark and all the denier estimates above have turned out to be below observations. The differences between the observation data sets are much smaller than the differences between the IPCC projections and the denier estimates.
  12. Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
    Where do you guys think the 'best' place in America is going to be to survive/thrive at around 2050? I keep hearing food prices will double in real terms by 2030, so at some point, i'm going to have to at least try to produce a percentage of my intake by organic gardening, etc. Any thoughts on places with pretty robust water tables, etc.?
  13. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    In a rational conversation, the conversation progresses by people responding to the points that others have made. They do not simply yell more and more loudly the same slogan again and again. Punksta clearly is incapable of the former, and relies slowly on the frantic repetition of his slogan. Nothing is gained by conversation with a person that committed to irrationality. Consequently, I will simply note that: 1) Puncksta continues to insist that 0.14 C of trend warming over the last 16 years (gistemp) is no warming at all because it fails a test for statistical significance. He also no insists that noting that there has in fact been a warming trend over the last 16 years (even though all five major temperature indices show warming over the last 16 years) is propaganda. his world is so inverted that simply describing the situation accurately becomes, to his mind, propaganda. 2) He has clearly not bothered to read the introduction to the greenhouse effect that I linked to. Had he done so he would have seen that his objection to my description was in fact part of my description. Anybody confused by Punksta's bluster about absorption should think about what the effect of CO2 would be if the atmosphere was the same temperature as the surface, or warmer than it. In the later case, for example, adding greenhouse gases will cool the surface . I discuss this situation in a comment here (as does Chris Colose in the following comment).
  14. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Punksta - On the upper left hand side of the SkS homepage is the trend calculator. Use any of the global surface temperature datasets - they all show warming over the last 16 years. This is at odds with your claim. Indeed, the ocean heat uptake in the upper 2000 metres of ocean shown in Nuccitelli (2012)increased dramatically between 2000-2004 which negates your strawman argument of global surface air temperature and ocean heat content being closely coupled over such short time frames. Greenhouse gases exert a long-lived and persistent forcing of the ocean cool-skin layer, which is why there is a strong relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide in the ice core records, but they operate in tandem with other processes, such as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) which create short-term fluctuations in global temperature and act to disguise this persistent forcing when viewed over short intervals. This slower rate of warming of the global surface temperature, even if we don't allow for the possibility of human pollution aerosol-induced attenuation, isn't exactly a surprise, climate model simulations show periods of a decade or more where there is little or no warming, even in the presence of a strong global energy imbalance (i.e global warming scenario). Which bring us to the key issue - the Earth is currently in energy imbalance. The warming of the ocean, the major heat reservoir on Earth, shows us as much. The planet will continue to warm for decades until it is able to shed the excess energy and come back into equilibrium. To claim that the Earth is cooling, or about to demonstrates a poor understanding of the enhanced (increased) Greenhouse Effect. Also, note the comments policy. Repetition of an unsubstantiated claim, or myth in your case, constitutes sloganeering and will run the risk of deletion. We expect commenters to back up claims with references to peer-reviewed literature, or bonafide global datasets.
  15. littlerobbergirl at 21:54 PM on 31 December 2012
    Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
    I just found exellent australian permie site while following Anne's 'hugelkultur' lead. http://www.permaculturenews.org/ You guys are years ahead of me! Great stuff in comments too
  16. Dikran Marsupial at 21:51 PM on 31 December 2012
    It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Punksta wrote: "1) Warming is not at all like pregnancy - statistical significance matters." In that case, can you tell me exactly what it means for the observed trend to be not statistically significant? For example, does that mean that there has been a pause in global warming?
  17. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    JasonB, ou dispute that if the atmosphere is not warming, it (and hence CO2) cannot be the cause of ocean warming
    Well, obviously I dispute that, that was the whole point of the examples I gave. The car doesn't stop accelerating as soon as the pedal stops moving, and the kettle doesn't stop warming as soon as you stop turning the knob into the new position. They aren't in equilibrium instantaneously.
    So even if the atmosphere continues indefinitely with the the current non-warming pattern, never significantly warming ever again, the oceans will continue warming in line with CO2 ?
    Non-sequitur. Your claim is that the oceans cannot continue to warm until now because of AGW if the atmosphere hasn't warmed for 16 years. 16 years is not "indefinitely". And the atmosphere has continued to warm during those last 16 years anyway, so the point is moot. GISTEMP says 0.113° per decade. The 16 years prior were only 0.081. What on earth made you think the atmosphere had stopped warming?
  18. littlerobbergirl at 21:27 PM on 31 December 2012
    New research from last week 52/2012
    Thanks Ari, for all your efforts. I shall continue to follow your twitter feed, i had already started preferring it, my brain hurts less taking the hard stuff in smaller chunks ;) Happy new year, wrap up warm now x
  19. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    JasonB, ou dispute that if the atmosphere is not warming, it (and hence CO2) cannot be the cause of ocean warming So even if the atmosphere continues indefinitely with the the current non-warming pattern, never significantly warming ever again, the oceans will continue warming in line with CO2 ?
  20. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Doug H You avoid my point - IF (1) greenhouse warming happens by absorption of heat by CO2, and the consequent warming of the atmosphere, which slows cooling of the oceans into the atmosphere (2) there is no significant warming of the atmosphere for some period THEN greenhouse warming cannot be behind any ocean warming that may occur in that period. I have no suggestions as to what other forces may be dominant. Furthermore ocean temperatures readings are nowhere near as robust as surface ones, so any supposed match-up to expected AGW warming is equally open to question.
  21. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Tom Curtis @ 229 1) Denying the 16-year warming hiatus is pure propaganda. the greenhouse effect works because atmospheric CO2 is cooler than the surface ... No, it works because of the absorption spectra of GHGs. However, you do correctly conclude (albeit for the wrong reasons), that the surface warms as a result. Which means that if the surface is *not* warming, then the greenhouse effect is *not* in evidence. increased air temperature reduces the outgoing radiation at the Top of Atmosphere Yes, a warmer atmosphere slows the cooling of the oceans into the atmosphere. But, again, if the atmosphere is not warming, it cannot be slowing the cooling of the oceans into itself. So if the oceans are indeed cooling, it must be something other than increased GHGs at work.
  22. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    General comment It’s quite obvious that Punksta is talking in circular riddles, an art perfected by climate denier bloggers. He/she is jumping from one thread to another using the same silly red herrings. We can only hope this denier tires and goes away or the moderator enforces SkS’s site policy on this well recognised technique. I would like some questions answered properly though.
  23. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Punksta, are you now claiming that back radiation doesn't exist? Wow. Got anything to back that up? Here's an explanation of back radiation and details of how to see it for yourself by one of the "skeptics" favourite scientists, Roy Spencer. A more in-depth explanation is provided by The Science of Doom. Regarding your misunderstanding that that fact that warming has not reached statistical significance in the last 16 years means that there has been no warming in that time, have a look at the graphs in this post by Tamino. The trend from 1980 to 1997 is lower than the trend from 1997 to 2012. It just hasn't reached the point where we can say we are 95% sure that it isn't by chance. When we are over that 95% confidence level the deniers will simply pick a shorter period after that time. Previously the date chosen by AGW deniers was 1995, but when warming since then reached statistical significance (95% confidence) they moved the date to 1998. In a few years the meme will be that there has been no warming since 2004, or some such date.
  24. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Doug H @ 228 ...Nothing about 'trapping heat', per se, in that, is there? Well, it is implied, and quite in agreement with what you said. The randomly directed re-radiated IR will only reach earth or space if there is a free path for it. Otherwise it will be absorbed by another CO2 molecule. And so on ... It's all about the 'mean free path' as I understand it.
  25. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Punksta @227: 1) Prattling on about your "agenda is true science" does not turn an indeterminate test ("the warming is not statistically significant") into a determinate falsification ("there has been a 16 year halt in warming"). Misinterpreting tests of statistical significance is not a mark of true science, but of propaganda, pure and simple. If you wanted to interpret the test accurately you would note that, not only does the test over 16 years of data not exclude zero warming; but it also does not exclude warming at greater than the IPCC predicted rate. The key question then is, if you expand the period under consideration until the trend is statistically significant, does it show warming or not. Want to take a bet on what it shows? Or will you chicken out and show that propaganda is your aim with your misrepresentations of science and scientific method? 2) I have written an introduction to the physics of greenhouse here. In a nutshell, the greenhouse effect works because atmospheric CO2 is cooler than the surface. As a result, when it absorbs surface radiation it is more likely to loose the energy gained through collision than remision, resulting in less power being emitted. This reduction in emitted radiation requires compensating increases elsewhere, which can only be achieved by the surface warming. So, contrary to your understanding, increased air temperature reduces the outgoing radiation at the Top of Atmosphere, thereby resulting in an imbalance. If an imbalance already exists, and the atmosphere does not warm, then the imbalance will not be reduced, with the consequence that more energy will be absorbed at the surface than if the atmosphere had warmed. Bizarrely, with your clear misunderstanding of the physics, you have got it exactly backwards.
  26. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    But equally, if the atmosphere is not warming, it (and hence CO2) cannot be the cause of ocean warming.
    In exactly the same way that a kettle on the stove will never boil if you fail to keep turning the knob higher and higher, or a car will stop gaining speed as soon as you stop pushing the accelerator lower and lower. Because as we all know, inertia doesn't exist and everything reacts instantly to any imbalance so there is never any "catching up" to do. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that there's no statistically-significant indication that warming has slowed at all...
  27. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Punksta @ 227, you say "The physics of greenhouse warming says that the CO2 traps heat". Does it? I thought the theory said a molecule of CO2 captures an IR photon and either re-radiates the IR in a random direction, or excites an air molecule by collision. Nothing about 'trapping heat', per se, in that, is there? Of course, I don't have the advantage of your grasp of physics. I would be truly grateful if you could prove AGW theory wrong, as I am currently mildly alarmed by the evidence.
  28. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Punksta @ 75, given your understanding of physics, you should find this question a no-brainer: assuming CO2 is not responsible, what physical process is causing the oceans to warm at just the rate predicted by AGW theory? I would be delighted to have solid evidence that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not, in fact, warming the planet.
  29. Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
    WRT permaculture, Rebecca Hosking's film, A Farm for the Future, is an absolute must-see. It's on Youtube now (48 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixx1c3RSw_8 It is more a response to Peak Oil than to climatic factors, but dealing with either require strong resilience-design being built into food production. Rarely have I seen so much common sense crammed into one short film!
  30. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Tom, 1) Warming is not at all like pregnancy - statistical significance matters. At least to those whose agenda is true science. 2) The physics of greenhouse warming says that the CO2 traps heat. This necessarily means that the without heating of CO2, and hence of the atmosphere, there can be no knock-on warming elsewhere. Nothing you have said gainsays this. Indeed you yourself speak of a continuing warming of the surface.
  31. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Rob, Yes, heat typically flows from the ocean to the atmosphere. And the rate of this is determined by the thermal gradient between them. Which is determined by the temperature of the atmosphere, and which would be slowed by a warmer atmosphere warmed by longwave absorption by GHGs. But equally, if the atmosphere is not warming, it (and hence CO2) cannot be the cause of ocean warming. And whatever the impact of back-radiation (now dismissed not just by skeptics but also many alarmists), it cannot occur in the absence of atmospheric warming.
  32. New research from last week 52/2012
    Thanks, Ari, for a fascinating series of posts, which have served to shine a spotlight on the range of science being undertaken, that impinges upon our understanding of climate change. I wish you a successful and interesting New Year.
  33. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #52
    From Peru, the report is about a NASA mission which will probably significantly improve the accuracy of altimeter and mass concentration measurements. However, reducing the error bars of measurement (what the Satellite will do) is not the same as reducing the measured trend. It may even result in an increase in the measured trend. Deniers always assume the later is impossible, ie, that any measurement error always works in favour of acceptance of global warming - despite frequent examples to the contrary. We, however, don't know whether trends will increase, decrease or stay the same with more accurate measurement until the data is generated. In the meantime, I will note two points: 1) Even if the GRASP teams simulated corrections turn out to be an accurate prognosis, the sea level rise will still show an acceleration; and 2) It is unlikely that the sea level data will shift appreciably because, as noted by KR above, ground based data shows the same rate of sea level rise.
  34. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Punksta @221: 1) NASA's Gistemp shows a warming trend of 0.087 C per decade over the last sixteen years; or 0.139 C per sixteen years. Deniers may want to call that "no warming" or a "halt in warming"; but that tells us only about their honesty. "The warming is not statistically significant" does not mean "there is no warming", anymore than "the pregnancy test was inconclusive" means "you are certainly not pregnant". 2) Contrary to your claim, the physics of the greenhouse effect do not predict that the atmosphere will be warmed first. Rather, they predict that the accumulation of energy at the Earth's surface (warming) will not stop until surface temperatures have risen sufficiently to restore radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere. Your silly claim that:
    "But since the basic mechanism of greenhouse warming is that the atmosphere warms due to CO2 trapping longwave radiation (leading to overall warming), this suggests the warming of the oceans *cannot* be a consequence of greenhouse warming (since the atmosphere is not warming)."
    only shows that you, like most so-called "skeptics", have not bothered to learn the theory before you declare it refuted. This urgency to declare a theory refuted despite not even understanding it shows that it is not scientific understanding that motivates the rejection of climate science.
  35. The Y-Axis of Evil
    con't on the humor bit, 5714 dollars means about a minimum wage of half a year. so to counter the climate change one would have to do double shifts for half a year and put all the income from the extra job to sustainable growth projects in the house. Then on other half of the year one should install the stuff bought (no way a man can do +16 hours/day continuously), in the rental apartment (ever heard of a minimum wager actually owning a house??) and get sued for not getting a permit from the housing committee of the guarded community. the deniers on the other side of the fence would rip the solar installation some night and get the annoying hyper-active green person growing vegetables on the front yard evicted. (/end humor) Sorry this went way off topic (delete if necessary).
  36. Perspectives of 8 Scientists Attending AGU Fall Meeting
    It is interesting to see the many reactions and responses to Michael's comment. I notice this phenomenon on other climate sites as well. Someone makes an 'ignorant' remark and quickly the conversation is sidetracked away from the context and subject matter of the article itself. It seems clear that many of these posters comment with the express purpose to accomplish this very aim. (many are repeat posters who clearly have been 'informed' and corrected many times before: It is a conundrum- (1) do we attend to these diversionary tactics? (2)do we respond, understanding that the poster may actually be, simply, mis-informed or uninformed with the aim of informing them? (3) Do we respond with the aim of 'speaking to' the open-minded onlookers? Hmmmmm.
  37. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #52
    Thank you KR for the response. You could be 100% sure that I disagree with the Watts et al. crowd arguments and methods (I was some time ago even insulted when commenting at WUWT). I was just worried by the implications of that reference frame issue,because an accurate and precise measurement of sea level rise is key for tracking the both the accumulation of heat in the ocean and ice sheet melting. I guess it would take a whole post to deconstruct this WUWT story...
  38. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Punksta - Although there is a small constant contribution by geothermal heat emanating from deep within the Earth, the oceans are warmed by shortwave radiation (sunlight) entering the surface ocean. Heat flows from the (typically) warmer ocean to the cooler atmosphere above. The rate of this heat loss is determined by the thermal gradient in the thin cool-skin layer at the sea surface. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (predominately carbon dioxide) direct more longwave radiation (heat) back toward the ocean surface and thereby lower the thermal gradient in the cool-skin layer. This reduces the rate of heat loss from the ocean and, over time, they get warmer. See this SkS post: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean.
  39. It's cooling
    curiousd - Do you mean this one? I don't know who generated it... [Source - found by using the SkS search for "graphics" and looking at a few links, primarily SkS Climate Graphics] If so, the various temperature records are simply aligned to a common baseline as stated in the graph, and the dark line is the average (again, as stated in the graph). If you know of a graph with an additional overlaid fit, please give the URL and context, as vague references are less than useful.
  40. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    KR, You don't mention rising CO2 - which means you agree it is not implicated in ocean warming ?
  41. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Dana1982, Let start with the first point. So you don't think greenhouse warming is down to CO2. What then?
  42. It's cooling
    Hi, Maybe this is the best thread here for this question. I found elsewhere on the net a plot of temperature versus year since 1850, attributed to SKS. I have determined that it is an average of 11 data sets...HadCrut, Giss, NOAA, RSS, UAH, NCEPRI, NCEPCFSR,NCEPTCR,ERA-40,ERA-interim. Only on the graph published someplace in SKS, however, is also fitted a red curve to the averaged data with an R squared given. Does anyone know what function this fit is to? Perhaps a best fit logarithm? I don't know how to find the graph on SKS in any of the many threads here, but hopefully someone else will know the answer. Thanks, CuriousD.
  43. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Punksta @71 - everything you said after "However" is wrong.
  44. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Most global warming goes into heating the oceans
    However * greenhouse warming works by warming CO2 in the atmosphere * the atmosphere stopped warming 16 years ago Therefore, warming of the oceans over this period cannot be due to CO2/atmospheric warming. It must be something else - but what ?
  45. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Punksta - The oceans absorb shortwave radiation from the sun, and release it out to space at a rate that is to some extent dependent on overturn rates. Over the last 16 years or so we've seen a rather huge El Nino (pushing heat out to the atmosphere, ~0.2°C or so above the general trend) followed by several La Nina's (absorbing energy from the sun more efficiently, cooling the atmosphere ~0.2°C below the general trend). Really - there are no surprises here. The 2-3% of the thermal mass of the climate represented by the atmosphere is showing some noise due to (primarily) variations in ocean overturning, but the 95% or so that are the oceans are still showing warming.
  46. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Daniel, You have completely misread my post - I explicitly note that the oceans (a far larger heat-sink) are warming. My point is merely that * greenhouse warming works by warming CO2 in the atmosphere * the atmosphere has stopped warming Therefore, warming of the ocean cannot be due to CO2/atmospheric warming.
  47. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Yawn. Punksta spreads FUD ("halt in warming"? Really???) by ignoring the 97.7% of the land surface/oceans/cryosphere (the oceans and the cryosphere) which, inconvenient to his messaging, indelibly show warming, by drilling down to that which shows the least warming over that period, the land surface. In fact, when applying the Foster and Rahmstorf methodology, the global warming trend in each of the major data sets IS statistically significant since _2000_ (yes, even less than 16 years) • http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html • http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html And even further evidence that the warming continues (topical data: whodathunkit?): • http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-lesson-for-monckton-and-co.html Fun fact skeptics like Punksta hate #1: The oceans have been gaining 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of incremental energy PER SECOND since 1961. Unabated. Specifically, the total heat content change from 1961 to 2011 (50 years) is approximately 21 x 1022 joules. That's about 210000000000000000000000 joules (a joule is 1 watt for 1 second; so a 100 watt light bulb will use 100 joules in 1 second). That's a BIG number but somewhat unreal. So how much energy is this? What could it do? What is it in the real world, where we don't routinely look at numbers that big. That is HOW Big...? This is a rate of heating of 133 Terawatts (or 0.261 Watts/m2). 133 Terrawatts is 2 Hiroshima bombs a second. Continually since 1961. Every. Second. Of. Every. Day. For. 50. Years. The reality is, due to the radiative physics of CO2, there is an energy imbalance in the Earth's energy budget. As a result, the Earth system (land surface, oceans and its cryosphere) is still accumulating energy, unabated. "Skeptics" like to focus on the tiny 2.3% of the system, the surface temperature record, and then further focus on just 2% of that (the United States) in an effort to distract. Essentially, it's a game of "LOOK!!! Something shiny!!!" • http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051106.shtml • http://www.skepticalscience.com/Breaking_News_The_Earth_is_Warming_Still_A_LOT.html Fun fact skeptics like Punksta hate #2: That El Nino years, La Nina years and even ENSO-neutral years are all rising in temperature over time (warming). • http://www.skepticalscience.com/john-nielsen-gammon-commentson-on-continued-global-warming.html Basically, Punksta is still playing on the Escalator...except he's trying to go Down the Up Escalator. • http://skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html The world warms; humans are the cause of it. Life sucks for fake-skeptics, as the incontrovertibly inconvenient data and physics are against them. Facts, like tiggers, are wonderful things, for those who have them.
    "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. ~ Voltaire"
  48. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    The simple fact is there has been a 16-year halt in warming, in stark contrast the the 30 years before that. This though is still short in climate time-scales, and other indicators have *not* stopped moving, eg ocean temperatures, arctic melt, CO2 rising faster than ever. But since the basic mechanism of greenhouse warming is that the atmosphere warms due to CO2 trapping longwave radiation (leading to overall warming), this suggests the warming of the oceans *cannot* be a consequence of greenhouse warming (since the atmosphere is not warming). It must be something else - but what ?
  49. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #52
    From Peru - First of all, the GRACE satellites have a gravimetric resolution on the Earths surface of roughly 100km, and their intersatellite distances are measured on very short time frames (many times per orbit), meaning that any long-term drift in reference frame will have essentially no effect. For gravimetric measurements this is a red herring fallacy, as the issue simply won't affect the measures. Secondly, WRT sea surface altimetry, long-term drifts in reference frame might be more of a problem. In which case we can cross-check against tide gauge data, as per Church and White 2011:
    The linear trend from 1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1 and from 1961 to 2009 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year-1. However, there are significant departures from a linear trend. We estimate an acceleration in GMSL by fitting a quadratic to the time series, taking account of the time variable uncertainty estimates. From 1880 to 2009, the acceleration (twice the quadratic coefficient) is 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year−2 (one standard deviation). This estimate is slightly less than but not significantly different from the (one standard deviation) estimate of Church and White (2006) of 0.013 ± 0.003 mm year−2, but still significantly different from zero at the 95% level. From 1900 to 2009, the acceleration is also 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year-2...
    Emphasis added - yes, there is an acceleration of sea level rise, shown by data wholly independent of satellite altimeters. "If this issue is not clarified, it could become a major argument against global warming, perhaps one of the strongest ones." Well, no! There are many independent lines of evidence, all pointing to global warming - as with sea level, with both satellite and tide gauge data sets. The 'skeptics' continue looking for a single issue, a silver bullet, to prove their case - and they continue to be shown to be (mixing metaphors a bit here) making mountains out of trivial molehills.
  50. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Question : I have found on another web site a neat looking plot of temperature versus year going well back in time. It states that this graph is from SKS and consists of 11 different temperature records averaged. If indeed this graph comes from SKS can anyone tell me where to find it here? It would seem that this graph would be on topic for this thread, if indeed that web site was correct. Sorry I cannot be more specific about where I found the graph, I lost those notes. I would keep digging further until I found it again if there is an interest.

Prev  1002  1003  1004  1005  1006  1007  1008  1009  1010  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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