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  1008  1009  1010  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  Next

Comments 50751 to 50800:

  1. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Well done for the rapid response, Dana. The similarity between this incident and the selective quotation of the "Darwin's Eye" passage by evolution deniers is striking.
  2. Dikran Marsupial at 20:42 PM on 14 December 2012
    Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Jack, tests of statistical significance are a useful sanity check in science; the basic idea is that you should not make a claim based on a particular set of observations unless the evidence is statistically significant. I'm sure we would all agree on that. However The claim that global warming is occurring is not based solely on the observed trend in global mean surface temperature, there are many other lines of evidence, such as ocean heat content and others, and a good deal of basic physics. If the only evidence we had of global warming or the greenhouse effect were the GMST trend over the last fifteen years, you would have a point. But it isn't, so your conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the science. A lack of a statistically significant trend does not necessarily mean it isn't warming. I'd be happy to discuss this with your further.
  3. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    I think it's important to make the point very clear to those in denial that, "this leaked draft is not yet AR5".
  4. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Andrew Revkin from the NYT dotEarth blog has linked back to this article with the comment "The Web site Skeptical Science has deconstructed, and largely de-fanged, the idea there's something big here." So thanks Dana. Your comment @3 is on the money.
  5. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Jack, the Realclimate article and the science article are about reconciling the various measurements including ICESat (that is the satellite altimetry referred to). King goes further and from the constraints establishes better estimate for GIA (principle uncertainty in GRACE) to get better mass measurement of this. Since Zwally is a coauthor of the science paper, I would guess that he is happy with the reconciled estimates.
  6. Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
    I just had to whine about it a little more, Steve. :-) Running Milky Way and SETI so that when we hear from the aliens we'll know how to go visit. Box stays plenty busy w/that.
  7. Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
    Doug - There has been a bit of a drought of available work units recently. I've just started getting some after a several week gap. The preparation of new work units is rather laborious and CPDN (as with all science projects) is run on a shoestring. The availability of work is also dependent on the pipeline and scheduling of new experiments. If CPDN looks quiet the best advice is to leave it running and subscribe to one or two other BOINC projects. You can easily turn them off, or throttle them back once CPDN starts shovelling work to you.
  8. Philippe Chantreau at 16:59 PM on 14 December 2012
    Antarctica is gaining ice
    Jack, I'm not sure what your concept is of what kind of website this is and what is expected from commenters. It is a site that is mainly about the published science on a variety of topics that are related. Commenters have countless opportunities to familiarize themselves with the topic of a post by using the site's search engine, looking at recent posts on the thread they consider, or better, looking up the referenced articles on Google Scholar and following the citation trail that will lead to more recent work. The "thing" that you provided was not a peer-reviewed science article. The author of that very same piece has since been involved in a published paper that is way more comprehensive, and is referenced earlier on this thread. Since the piece caught your attention in the 1st place, following the very easy internet trail leading to the paper with Zwally as a co-author should have been part of your normal process of discovery, a process indispensable to one willing to avoid taking sides. I understand that you would want to point out "things" to SkS. However, these things deserve more attention when they are actual peer-reviewed articles. Furthermore, it doesn't hurt to do some basic verification that the "thing" has not already been discussed. All SkS threads from the beginning are accessible. It is less realistic to expect every single OP to be updated with the latest information than it is to expect that a reader will read about 10-20 posts back. For the latest articles in general, refer to Ari Jokimaki's posts, he does a tremendous job.
  9. Philippe Chantreau at 16:33 PM on 14 December 2012
    Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Interesting Jack, but I have some questions: What do the numbers show starting from 1997, or 1999,or 2000, or 1996? Is it significantly different from what they show starting in 1998? If it is, and the other 4 different starting dates give results that are close, shouldn't these results be considered instead of the 1998 result? Are there other 15 years periods in the record that show cooling "trends"? Why pick 1998 as a starting date?
  10. Antarctica is gaining ice
    scaddenp- Thank you for the links. I could only read the Nature abstract as it was behind a paywall. It looks like both the Nature article and the discussion at realclimate are updates to the GRACE methodology, not the ICEsat results. Did I miss that part? Philippe- Like most people reading a website for knowledge, I rely on the actual website for the knowledge, not the 150+ comments to fill holes left in the website. I will peruse the comments, but don't treat them with the same level of respect that I do to the actual webpage on the topic. I'd like to stay on top of the current research, that's why I'm reading this. If I can find things that are more recent, seem reputable, and disagree with SkS in just a few minutes of research, shouldn't I point them out so SkS can include them or rebutt them accordingly? I'm not taking sides, I'm here for enlightenment.
  11. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    67, Jack, If you want to use the best science, then why do you start with an anomalously high El Niño and finish with a period of two consecutive La Niñas? The escalator is going up.
  12. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Just read them, thank you. I fear those sorts of articles give the public serious doubts about the science of AGW. (-intimations of impropriety snipped-)
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Arguing from ignorance and an incomplete understanding of the science, compounded by accusations of impropriety and academic fraud detract from your credibility. If you dispute the content of the linked posts, discuss your concerns there, not here.

    For posts discussing why the PDO is not responsible for the observed warming trend, use the Search function in the upper left portion of any page here for an appropriate place to learn...and then discuss, if need be.

    Again, read the Comments Policy (link adjacent to every Comments Box)...thoroughly. Future comments constructed such as this one will be summarily deleted in their entirety.

  13. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    The leaked text does not contain anything remotely new, yet those in denial somehow distort and exaggerate the facts in their minds into something it is not. Those who deny the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are incredibly desperate, and this latest fiasco by yet another radical and morally bankrupt fake skeptic just reeks of desperation. "Anything but greenhouse gases" is their mantra, and it matters not one iota to them that the other factors they trumpet as being the supposed "last nail in the AGW coffin" are oftentimes not even physically based, run contradictory to each other, are implausible, of little consequence or even simply fabricated. Those in denial are so incredibly scared of the facts and truth and the IPCC's upcoming fifth assessment report, that this is apparently the only way they can deal with their cognitive dissonance and ideology. On another note, so now what does the IPCC do with the conspiracy theorist Mr. Rawls? They likely have more pressing and important matters to deal with than giving the likes of Mr. Rawls the time of day. Those in the denialosphere trumpeting this should be ashamed, but I realize that they know no shame and have no scruples.
  14. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Mod- You are OK using a number that is statistically insignificant as the basis for claiming warming elsewhere. I am being honest about the numbers. On an entry that claims to debunk 15 years with a lack of warming, what would be more relevant that using the relevant data to show what the cited numbers actually indicate? I want to show the best science, not a 'version' of it. If the numbers showed a 0.25 C/decade trend, that would also be worth mentioning, but that's not what the numbers show.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] The point you miss is that the trend which IS statistically significant is the overall warming trend, which continues unabated in the overall Earth system (land/ocean/cryosphere/energy imbalance at the TOA) to this day. Until a change that is statistically significant occurs that shows that the warming trend is no longer occurring.

    In the meantime, the Earth's climate has absorbed 1.5 billion Hiroshima bombs-worth of energy over the past 16 years, all due to that energy imbalance at the TOA that we have caused. Perhaps gaining a more nuanced understanding of the science would be preferable to running off at tangents to the established science?

  15. Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
    Having just ran the HadCru3 numbers for the past 15 years (December 1997 through November 2012), it is correct to state that these numbers show a mild cooling over the last 15 years. At -0.007 C/decade, the cooling is statistically insignificant. However, it is there according to their numbers. Since I downloaded the text files and checked it myself, you are free to do so and see if I am full of it or not.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "the cooling is statistically insignificant"

    Then it is indistinguishable from zero. And thus you confirm that "It's Not Cooling".

    Please cease to create something where nothing exists. You essentially replicate the comment you made earlier, here. This type of behavior on your part constitutes sloganeering (repeating memes already disproved) and makes your comments subject to moderation. Please familiarize yourself thoroughly with this site's Comments Policy before posting further comments.

  16. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    I just looked at the datafiles from GISS, HadCru 3, RSS, & UAH (yes, you can download them yourself and plug them into a spreadsheet and see for yourself). Since everywhere I turn there is a different version, I needed to check for myself. For the last 15 years (December 1997-November 2012), here are the trends: GISS: +0.1 C/decade HadCru 3: -0.008 C/decade RSS: -0.01 C/decade UAH: +0.05 C/decade So, according to the climate records as of December 2012, warming has stopped for all practical purposes since 1998 (a mean warming trend of 0.02 C/Decade is close enough to 0 that only a zealot would argue the point). I also noticed there is a considerable gap forming between the records, if normalized to January 1980. (-intimations of dishonesty snipped-). (In all fairness, RSS and UAH are very close, HadCru 3 is in between those 2 and GISS, which shows the most warming)
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] You knowingly or unknowingly prosecute a meme. A meme based on a lack of understanding of statistical significance. One detailed in this recent blog post here.

    Furthermore, when applying the Foster and Rahmstorf methodology, the global warming trend in each of the major data sets IS statistically significant since 2000.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html

    Please read them for enlightenment.

  17. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Tom: [Rawls] gives two reasons why he was morally compelled... That's nice; endorsement from skeptics that "moral compulsion" is a rationale for lying. It's absolutely true there's a formal case to be made for lying in certain circumstances, even though it does not exculpate perpetrators of wrong-doing. Of course this means skeptics should retract their hysterical, self-righteous screeching over Peter Gleick, if they're to be consistent. Which begs the question, in what way is consistency really the hobgoblin of a small mind?
  18. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    I'm expecting this will kick up a pretty good frenzy among those who will take absolutely any claim they can get the AGW is false without evidence or critical though. Those of us actively engaging in debates on the subject will likely have our hands full dealing with this nonsense (Sigh) Once more unto the breach, dear friends
  19. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    One thing to note is that Rawls signed a confidentiality agreement in order to become an IPCC reviewer. In doing so, he falsely declared that he had relevant expertise in climate science. Now, however, he finds it convenient to release the draft, thereby being in breach of his contract with the IPCC. He gives two reasons why he was morally compelled to do so: 1) The IPCC has indulged in massive "omitted variable fraud" by not discussing the effect of the Sun, and particularly of the strength of the Sun's magnetic field on the Earth's climate by modulating the cosmic ray flux; and 2) Because the IPCC discussed the effect of the cosmic ray flux on the Earth's climate. That's right! Rawl's reason for being in breach of promise is that the IPCC both did, and did not discuss cosmic rays.
  20. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    DSL @2 - true about the same Climategate model, but remember that Climategate 2.0 failed to make any impact because climate realists got out ahead of it and put the information in the correct context. That's what we're trying to do with this post, and would appreciate it if readers would spread the word. Let's get the correct information out there and debunk the myth before it gains any traction.
  21. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    In a way, this is precisely the "climategate" model: gain access to information that is not yet publicly available; sift through looking for useful bits; trumpet those bits out of context, relying on the target audience to buy it hook, line, and sinker without ever reading the original context. By the time AR4 WG1 is out, the meme will be so entrenched in the (alas, not so critical) minds of the target audience, it will take them years to self-correct. Indeed, when AR6 comes out and dismisses GCRs, they'll probably claim it's a fraud because AR5 said (according to their opinion-making intermediaries) it was, in fact, GCRs.
  22. IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
    Why do the arguments being put forth on Watt's site remind me of articles in "The Onion" now?
  23. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Jules, you may have already been there, but I'd go for google scholar (here's a useful search) and skim through the lit reviews and discussion sections. You can get a general feel that way and then ask more specific questions (not that your current questions aren't useful). Those google results will also have references that will direct you toward answers to your more general questions (e.g. warming oceans).
  24. Models are unreliable
    Jack, come on. You ask for precision and then vomit a bunch of hearsay. On models, a hypothetical: you're walking down the street carrying a cake you've spent hours making. You see someone step out of a car 900 yards down the street. The person aims what looks to be a 30-06 in your direction. You see a flash from the muzzle. What do you do? You're arguing to do nothing, because the precise trajectory of the slug is unknown -- the aim of the person may be bad, or you may not be the target, or the bullet may have been inferior, or other conditions might significantly affect the trajectory. You wouldn't actually do nothing, though. The only question is whether you'd drop the cake to roll to safety, or whether you'd try to roll with the cake. Your instinctual modeling would calculate a probable range for each variable, and the resulting range of probable outcomes would be fairly limited, and most of those outcomes would be unpleasant. So it is with climate modeling. The variables are variable, but the range for each is limited. Climate modelers don't choose one run and say, "Here's our prediction." They work through the range of probable scenarios. Solar output, for example, is likely not going to drop or rise beyond beyond certain limits. We know the power of the various GHGs, and their forcing is likely going to be not far from the known power (see, for example, Puckrin et al. 2004). Climate feedbacks aren't going to go beyond certain bounds. Even the range of net cloud feedback--still understudied--is fairly well-established. To put it back in terms of the analogy, it's not like the shooter is wearing a blindfold, or is non-human, or the gun is a toy, or the shooter keeps changing from a couch to a sock to a human to breakfast cereal. It's not like the shooter is working under a different physical model than the target. And it's not like people haven't been shot before. There's plenty of geologic timescale precedence that supports the theorized behavior of atmospheric CO2. Finally, your assumption that we must drop the cake (spend alleged trillions, with the assumption being that these alleged trillions will not re-enter the economy in various ways) is a bad one. We don't have to drop the cake. We just have to be really smart about our moves. We have to have vision, and that is sorely lacking under the current economic and political regime(s).
  25. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Hi SkS- as someone working agriculture I have noticed more and more differences over the decades- this despite 'limited' surface temp increase. Our main effect is jetstream related [curiously 2007 2012 were agriculturally similar]. So what is likely to happen to all that ocean heat? More Arctic melting? Less temp difference between equator and northern waters? More energy dumping into Atlantic storms so wetter UK summers? or is just going to reach some pressure point and blow? Are there any predictions? papers exploring hot seas? I'm off to do agricultural work in the heart of climate vulnerable Bangladesh- cyclone numbers appear to be much the same year on year and where I'm going it floods every year- sometimes twice from spring melts and monsoons [but this increase may be due to poor river management]. So what are the trends for warmer seas? Thanks if you can direct me. Jules
  26. Models are unreliable
    Another useful page on model reliability which provides model prediction, the papers that made it, the data that verifies it. Incomplete models with varies degrees of known and unknown uncertainties are just part of life - you should see my ones which help petroleum companies make multi-million dollar drilling decisions. A model useful if it has skill - able to outperform a naive prediction. The trick is understanding what those uncertainties are and what are robust predictions can be made. The models have no skill at decadal or sub-decadal climate (unless there is a very strong forcing). They have considerable skill in long term trends. You a mathematical model to calculate detailed climate change. You dont need a complicated model to see into the underlying physics and its implication, nor to observe the changes in climate.
  27. Models are unreliable
    Sigh. Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let's review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted: • That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much. • That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool. • That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures. • That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures. • Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles). • That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic. • The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. • They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right. • They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data. • The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO. • The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole. • The expansion of the Hadley cells. • The poleward movement of storm tracks. • The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude. • The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics. • The near constancy of relative humidity on global average. • That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase. Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.
  28. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    I've been watching this site for a while. I get that the climate is changing and to a lesser or greater degree is due to humans and our actions. I've seen a plethora of "we must act now", but no realistic solutions. Technically, according to this article, Monckton could be correct on the temperature change. I see a lot of kvetching and "calls to action" but no legit solutions. Just saying'.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Perhaps you must have overlooked this recent post, still visible at left in the listing of recent posts:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/agu-2012-solving-climate-problem.html

    Additionally, some of the authors over at Skeptical Science have published posts on personal solutions that the everyday person can do:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evidence_That_Demands_a_Response.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=848

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Solutions-by-Rob-Painting.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Solutions-by-Daniel-Bailey.html

    Suggestion: less attitude and less kvetching; better dialogue is engendered with better attitudes and comment construction.

  29. Philippe Chantreau at 10:36 AM on 14 December 2012
    Antarctica is gaining ice
    Jack O'Fall, before commenting on a thread, it is wise to examine a page or 2 preceeding your intended comment. On the previous page, you could have found references to Sasgen(2012), Barletta(2012) and Flament&Remy (2012). You could also have found a comment from a member of the team that reconciliated the data in a paper published in Science, a team that includes both Barletta and Zwally. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.abstract So, as it turns out, not only some recent info is available in this very thread, but SkS is regarded highly enough by researchers at the forefront of the field that they kindly help to stay on top of the current research.
  30. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Zwally paper is a conference presentation highlighting an issue. A full reconciliation of the data sources has now very recently been published here which still finds net ice loss. You can find more discussion from one of the authors here. The important bit in the paper is understanding the uncertainties and errors in the various estimation methods and how to reconcile them. Funnily enough, it is nothing about author bias. (You might like to ask Jay Zwally his opinions on climate change (he is not a skeptic) and whether he thinks King's paper is invalid). I do think the page should be updated with the King numbers. Of some relief to modellers, the new numbers more closely reflect what the models predicted would happen in Antarctica.
  31. Models are unreliable
    Jack... You're making completely erroneous assumptions. Even Ben Santer says that models don't do a great job. That is why they rely on model ensembles and multiple model runs. Santer also says that some models are better than others, but ensembles perform better than even the better models. AND weighting the better models makes the ensembles perform even better. It sounds more to me like you are looking for reasons to dismiss the science rather than honestly attempting to understand the science.
  32. Models are unreliable
    So, if I am to accept the science presented here, I must accept that: 1) We have a comprehensive understanding of all the inputs, feedbacks, timing, and interactions of the global climate, 2) We have defined this in a computer model identically with that understanding, 3) We have no bugs or unintended effects programmed into our computer models (Microsoft is very jealous), 4) We have an absolutely accurate understanding of the current climate, and 5) we have done all of this without opening up the models for public review by those who might disagree with them. If not, we have, at best, an approximation with lots of guesses and estimations that might be full of holes and bugs, yet we used it to make predictions that we trust enough to propose spending Trillions of dollars in response. Of course, at worst, we have crappy code that can cause more harm than good by convincing us of things that we don't know enough about how they came about to doubt. Please forgive me if I am still skeptical of the computer models. I do enough modeling in computers to be dubious of anything you get out of an imperfect model.
  33. Climate sensitivity is low
    Try reading the intermediate or advanced version of the article (or the appropriate chapter in the IPCC report). You will see that there are empirical studies of climate sensitivity. Read deeper into the papers and you will see that noone assumes climate is in equilibrium - the utility of term does not require it. Your comments on cloud feedbacks would have been justified for TAR but they are far better quantified now. Note also that models are doing a pretty good job of estimating temperature trends, even something as primitive as that used by the Broecker in 1975 ("Climatic change; are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" Science, v 189, n 4201, p 460-3, 8 Aug. 1975") which got temp for 2010 better good.
  34. Climate sensitivity is low
    Using a GCM to predict/verify sensitivity is flawed and hubris. We have a lot of known unknowns in the GCMs. They are not established science, but SWAGs. Assuming the climate is ever in equilibrium as the basis for a calculation is absurd. It is never, ever, in equilibrium. If it were, we would not see the changes that have occurred in the past. Until science has a better handle on clouds (and many other second-order feedbacks), any attempts to quantify sensitivity are relying on guessing about past events, but not on understanding why.
  35. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Help! Can someone please straighten out this (possibly) local skeptic? These are comments in "Vote for a Carbon Tax" (from CP) copied into a local paper's blog. http://www.athenstalks.com/vote-carbon-tax?page=1#comment609478 @catman: From the linked article (this article): "Similarly, the measured global surface warming trend over the past 16 years is approximately 0.09 ± 0.13°C per decade according to NASA, as anyone can check for themselves by using the Skeptical Science Temperature Trend Calculator. The surface warming is not statistically significant — again, the uncertainty is larger than the trend, and possible values range from -0.04 to +0.22°C per decade. However, the most likely value is still a positive one, meaning the Earth's surface has most likely warmed 0.09°C per decade, or 0.14°C total for the period of late 1996 thorugh late 2012. Zero warming is one possibility within the range of uncertainty, but it would take a different statistical test to show that there has been no surface warming over the past 16 years, and that test would fail" Am I misinterpreting this? Do these two paragraphs basically say, "we don't have statistical proof of warming, but that doesn't mean it isn't getting warmer"??? "most likely warmed 0.09C" Not even a tenth of a degree, and only "most likely" at that. Hell, I wasn't even denying the idea of temperature increases, but this is making me wonder more about that. When I looked into the data supporting global warming a while back, I came away convinced of two things: average global temperature has risen since 1958; and average global CO2 has risen since 1958. Figuring out which is cause or consequence of the other seemed speculative. Further speculation seemed necessary to affirmatively say that human activity has created warmer climates. This link offers perhaps the most compelling evidence for global warming: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm However, there is still no direct link between human activity and temperature. It is all peripheral: A has increased since time x. B has increased since time x. B is proven to trap heat. Therefore, humans have affected the increase in A. That doesn't add up. Also, one has to enter the debate under the pretense of one specific time period: 1958 - to present. CO2 records prior to 1958, or otherwise prior to "industrialization" are measured using polar ice core air bubbles. This scientist argues that such methods of measurement are inaccurate: http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm Additionally, if you look at year-by-year comparisons of average temperatures and average atmospheric CO2, you will see disproportionate peaks and valleys between the two. That is to say that years with exceptionally high CO2 levels do not always coincide with high-temp years. Year-by-year, it's hard to make the connection. But if you take the averages over the past 50 years you get the matching hockey stick graph. And that's assuming that the polar ice core measurements are true, despite the aforementioned argument that the displacement of water in ice makes the measured levels skewed. Again, I think it's a no-brainer to go with solar, hydro and nuclear (though the last one isn't my favorite). However, creating new taxes will neither solve the problem in time to save the Earth, nor will it actually push anyone to renewable sources. Until fossil fuel sources become so scarce that the cost skyrockets the shift probably won't happen. If these companies get taxed for carbon emmissions, they will just keep on keepin' on and pass the buck to the consumer. Kinda like smokers do with cigarettes.
  36. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    tommm, Figure 1 basically shows global heat content (not completely because we're missing some components, like ocean heat content below 2,000 meters, but we've got most of it). If there's a volcanic eruption, for example, which blocks sunlight, the planet as a whole will accumulate less heat (more is effectively deflected back into space) for a short period of time, until those particulates from the eruption wash out of the atmosphere. So during those timeframes we would expect a dip in global heat content. As for ENSO ocean heat exchanges, I don't know that the data resolution is good enough to see that. Especially since it's a 5-year running average, so it's somewhat smoothed out.
  37. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    I think this new post from Tamino also shows pretty conclusively how ludicrous is the "no warming for 16 years" meme; even when just considering surface temperature.
  38. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Can you adjust this page to take into account the most recent science on this topic? Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet 1992-2008 from ERS and ICESat: Gains exceed losses – Presented by Jay Zwally, NASA Goddard I came to this site to learn more (I'm a mildly informed skeptic, hoping to be better informed, but I'm skeptical of most things), but after 10 minutes of research on this "myth", I am having trouble with your explanations. If the most recent research is showing ice mass gains, wouldn't ignoring that be denial? If the research is flawed, I want to know about the flaws. If it is too new to analyze, then mention that there is ongoing research that raises questions. If the researcher is known to be biased, show that. Or, if the research represents the best science on the subject, change your page to reflect it. (Maybe the skeptics aren't 100% wrong?) But to have a 2 year old page with information that seems out-of-date does not help me learn.
  39. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Thanks. Also, to help me understand the plots better, why would the dip in oceanic heat content in 1990 occur simultaneously for the shallow and deep ocean? Second, would I expect to see heat transfers from the air to the oceans (or the other way around) due to ENSO, or is that too small to be seen on this plot?
  40. 1934 - hottest year on record
    Going to have to update this rebuttal now:
    Global warming is directly linked to only a few weather events and climate trends. One of them, however, is warming itself, which could make 2012 a watershed climate change year in the U.S. More than superstorms, wildfires, and devastating drought, this year’s record-smashing spring and summer heat waves, with their melted airport runways and warped steel rail lines, are more evidence that climate change is real. Last week NOAA announced that 2012 was “likely” to be the warmest year on record in the 48 states, based on temperatures through November. At some point, however, likelihood turns into certainty. Does a warm December push the nation to the point where it is impossible for 2012 to be anything but the warmest year ever recorded in the U.S.? To answer that question Climate Central did the math, and the results are in.
    There is a 99.99999999 percent chance that 2012 will be the hottest year ever recorded in the continental 48 states, based on our analysis of 118 years of temperature records through Dec. 10, 2012.
    [Source]
  41. Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
    Oddly I never seem to get any work units from CPN. Was an early participant, have some completed unit credits from way back when, but nothing new is put in my queue.
  42. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    tommm Also the dips around 1980-83 and 1990-93 correspond to the eruptions of Mt El Chichon in 1982 and Mt Pinatubo in 1992. The data has a pentadal (5 year) smoothing so that spreads out the effect a bit.
  43. Participate in Citizen Science with the new SkS BOINC team
    climateprediction.net is back up. They've had problems with power cuts due to a fire at their local electricity sub-station. http://www.climateprediction.net/news/climatepredictionnet-unscheduled-downtime-fire-local-electricity-substation
  44. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    tommm: From about 1940 to 1970 there was global cooling due to the widespread presence of sunlight-reflecting aerosols in the atmosphere. As such I expect the net energy content of the Earth was decreasing during that time frame. By 1970 increased environmental regulation, combined with the overpowering of the aerosol forcing by greenhouse forcing - and voilà! Warming.
  45. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Hi Folks, Can someone please explain why the sum of the three trends in Figure 1 is not monotonically increasing. For instance, there is a big dip on ocean heat content (0-700m) around 1966-67. Is this noise, or does it imply the energy is being transferred to some reservoir not shown in the plot? Thanks.
  46. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    As Climate Central makes clear...nonetheless the spin will still be entertaining.
  47. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Alpinist - that's for the US only.
  48. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    And then there's this from over at Climate Central....http://www.climatecentral.org/news/book-it-2012-the-hottest-year-on-record-15350 It'll be entertaining to watch the spin.
  49. This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Zero warming is one possibility within the range of uncertainty, but it would take a different statistical test to show that there has been no surface warming over the past 16 years, and that test would fail.
    I don't expect you to do requests, but I have to say a post testing the 'no warming for 16 years' hypothesis would really useful. Deniers play tricks with words, and 'no statistically significant warming' has morphed into 'no warming'. A go to reference to demonstrate that fails would be really useful. Thanks for the R Pielke snr quote. Conflating surface temperatures with global warming is the corollary to 'no warming' and is all the rage amongst deniers at the moment.
  50. citizenschallenge at 01:50 AM on 14 December 2012
    This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.
    Incidentally, How's that Monckton Cure for AIDS doing? Lord Monckton: "I've discovered a cure for HIV!" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Though it sure would be fascinating to see the Lord's email exchanges with the blokes who have financed that fancy looking website. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (sniped ad hominen)
    Moderator Response: TC: Speculations about Christopher Monckton's mental state are, of course, ad hominen, and hence always of topic.

Prev  1008  1009  1010  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  1020  1021  1022  1023  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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