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  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  1032  1033  1034  1035  1036  1037  1038  1039  1040  1041  1042  Next

Comments 51701 to 51750:

  1. WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
    I invited Pielke Jr. to comment here but he has declined. Apparently he prefers to toss insults at SkS from the comfort of his own blog. Several commenters there have done a good job holding his feet to the fire though, so he's clarified his position a bit. Esentially Pielke argues that hurricane power dissipation index (PDI) within the USA has not increased, at least as of 2005 (citing a 2006 paper by Landsea) - I would love to see if that's still true given the high hurricane activity this decade. This despite the fact that Atlantic basin PDI has increased, per Emanuel's work. If both are correct, then despite Atlantic hurricanes becoming more intense, for some reason the average intensity has not increased once they reach the US coast. My response to that would be that if Francis is right and the Arctic sea ice decline is going to cause more blocking events near Greenland and thus more hurricanes turning toward the US coast like Sandy, why should we expect that trend to continue? This is an issue Pielke has not addressed at all. Nevertheless, his argument is that since US PDI has not increased, normalized losses should not have increased either. Thus if his normalization shows no trend, he's gotten the right answer, so his methodology must be right, even though he entirely fails to account for technological improvements. Pielke hasn't made this argument explicitly, but it's what I gather from what little defense he's willing to put forth and what few questions he's willing to answer. And if this is his argument ('I got the answer I expected therefore I'm right'), it's just plain bad science.
  2. Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
    Interesting... (my last post on this topic here:) New Jersey Earthquake 2012: Small Quake Rattles Ringwood Community http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/new-jersey-earthquake-2012_n_2075620.html N.J. - Some residents in northern New Jersey awoke to a small earthquake early Monday. The temblor, with a magnitude of 2.0, struck at 1:19 a.m. and was centered in Ringwood, a community that's still dealing with downed trees and power outages from Sandy.
  3. WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
    The focus on what’s “sexy” at the moment, be it hurricanes, tornadoes, derechoes, or what have you does miss the point. There are a variety of extreme weather events that happen and do not rise to the level of getting a name or a title. There are a variety of metrics to approximate this; declared disasters, billion dollar weather events, forest fire acreage, drought severity, disruptions to the electrical grid, insured losses from catastrophes etc. Some of these have a socio-economic component which is hard to avoid. The observed increase in the amount of precipitation falling in very heavy precipitation has no socio-economic component, forest fire acreage burned can be complex, but it doesn’t have much of socio-economic component, nor do extreme heat events/drought. If Pielke wants to focus on hurricanes, not only is he cherry picking the data, he’s cherry picking the events. Cross posted @ Tamino's...
  4. WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
    Since we all know what Pielke Jr’s agenda really is this is no surprise at all. That it would be published in WSJ is no surprise at all. We all recognize the standard tactic of cherry-picking the data and obfuscation. I wonder why the US experience is the only one that should matter since, after all, we are talking about GLOBAL warming. I wonder what the Texas farmers who have experienced two consecutive growing seasons of drought would have to say about Pielke Jr’s claim that droughts have become less frequent. I am just grateful for SkS, Dana, and all the others who provide a site where science, truth and reason can shine through!
  5. WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
    In Firefox the only two images I can see are the Bloomberg cover and "The 2012 Atlantic...". When I click on those empty spots I get file not found. I tried hard refresh to no avail. Works fine in Safari.
  6. WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
    Hah, I like the 'bazillion-word' comment. This post is a little bit on the long side, but 2700 words is hardly a 'bazillion'. Personally I prefer a bit of long-winded technical detail to a trite one-word retort. For now my default assumption is that Pielke doesn't have an intelligent response to these criticisms of his comments in the WSJ.
  7. WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
    Are you not being a bit to "nice" from the post about Grinsted et al. "Grinsted et al. have identified an important and reliable indicator of landfalling storms in the U.S. southeast, and have found clear (and statistically significant) evidence of increase in activity over time and association with warmer temperatures. As the world continues to warm, expect the trends to continue."
  8. WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
    Wow, what a compelling refutation by Roger Pielke Junior in response to Dana's post(/sarc): "Skeptical Science has written a bazillion-word post "responding" to my WSJ op-ed in which they (a) do not contest a single empirical claim made in the op-ed, and (b) demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what it is a loss-normalization seeks to accomplish." Here Pielke Junior is grossly exaggerating and trying to invert reality. Ironically, he made this baseless statement in a post that included "Technical Thread" in the title. Yet, his blog post consists almost entirely of unsubstantiated statements and no technical dioscussion or analysis whatsoever (and no, the figure use as a prop at the top of his post does not count). If one wants a technical discussion, with some statistical analysis, then go to OpenMind or RealClimate or SkepticalScience-- pretty much anyone's site except Pielke's blog. Heck even the folks at WUWT try and undertake some technical analysis now and again. Roger Pielke Junior seems to think that he is above the fray and that all he has to do is simply assert something and voila, it is true and beyond dispute. That attitude strikes me as being not only arrogant, but the antithesis of how good sacience is done. Just for good measure, Roger refers to SkS as "clueless" in the comments thread. Of course he states that without offering any analysis whatsoever to try and back up his juvenile (and unprofessional) jab. Now Roger will probably take exception to my wording here and feign offense or worse yet, use it as an excuse not to debate the science. But if he does, he will be guilty of holding a double standard and hypocrisy-- he is all too eager to insult and ridicule people on a whim, but then elects to take exception when people criticize him (or his work), even when they have good reason to do so.
  9. WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
    Rather than "42," Pielke's considered answer to climate, hurricanes and everything seems be "a bazillion." That is to say, here's the rejoinder offered by Pielke: Skeptical Science has written a bazillion-word post "responding" to my WSJ op-ed in which they (a) do not contest a single empirical claim made in the op-ed, and (b) demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what it is a loss-normalization seeks to accomplish. There are a few loose ends in that argument, starting with how many zeros are in an even bazillion?
  10. WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
    "Billions of dollars were also saved because local governments had time to minimize the storm's impact on infrastructure." One could make an endless list of savings due to better detection and tracking of storms. For example, think how much has been saved by airlines being able to move their airplanes out of harms way starting late sunday through early monday, while scheduling them to return on tuesday? They managed to keep a tight window because of accurate tracking, minimizing damage to their equipment *and* downtime. One can go on and on with such examples.
  11. littlerobbergirl at 08:35 AM on 6 November 2012
    WSJ, Sandy, and Global Warming - Asking the Right Questions
    Nailed. Yes 'why not better now' is exactly right especially for developed countries; no great population increase, no new shanty towns, little 'natural' coastal sinking, all the counter argument used for somewhere like bangladesh (although even there they now have hurricane shelters and swimmi g lessons for ladies) and still the losses increase The insurance comPanies surely know bettr than any how to assess risk by definition - it was reading a 2007 Lloyds of london report anticipating minimum 1 metre sea level rise this century around uk that started my 'oh shit' phase ...
  12. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #44
    I've just run across this... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/letter_paxman.pdf ...which may be worth sticking on the to-be-debunked list.
  13. The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
    Actually, no. "Erdgas" is not "biogas", that is the next line down in that table and shows a negative number due to it offsetting FF emissions. "Erdgas" is good ol' FF natural gas I've got to be skeptical of that emissions figure and would like to know how they are doing their carbon accounting. If a CCGT running at about ~50% thermal efficiency generates electricity with emissions of about 350 g CO2/kWh, I really cannot see how any sort of CHP plant could manage < 50 g CO2/kWh.
  14. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    "No, but all are interlinked. Each is used to justify the value obtained for the other." Sorry, please show me where the measurement of SLR is dependent on CERES or Argo? Attributing sea level rise requires estimates of the all sources and the errors is involved with doing this is discussed in detail in the original Trenberth paper which I assume you are alluding to. However, the sealevel rise, (which like any measurement has error bars but there is no way to "uncertainty" away the reality) is a fact. To account for it you must consider all the contributors for it. To say the OHC measurement is invalid takes other contributors outside the realms of physical possibility. That is the "sniff test".
  15. The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=320&terms=loading%20%20%20fuel China is following France's example
  16. A Sunburnt Country
    *Entirely* off topic, but at least closely related to Glenn's wonderful recitation of MacKeller's wonderful poem, I hope the mods will allow me this small conceit of a post, if only to lighten the "mood"... As some here may not know, I was married to an Australian, who introduced me to an Aussie singer/songwriter, John Williamson. It was, in the end, the greatest gift that the marriage gave to me. Given the majority of my world-view, from political to cultural, to socio-economically, is largely informed by my being a singer and guitarist, this was a huge turning point for me: John's music 'grabbed my soul' in a way few other singer/songwriters have, outside of my fellow countryman, John Denver. Benefiting from my "graduate seminar" of learning Aussie lingo during the short duration of my marriage, coupled with my insatiable thirst for music that not only conveys a person's soul, but represents the soul of the country that the singer sings from, Williamson has been an invaluable aid to me understanding your "Sunburnt Country." John uses imagery from MacKellar, Banjo Paterson, and Henry Lawson, and a host of other 'true blue' Aussies, all of whom do a masterful job of summing up the Aussie spirit and life force, of which I've been a lifelong fan. In my relatively recent 'role' of scientist, my knowledge of the "aussie glossie' has been of extreme importance, for I view Australia as the country we Americans most identify with, and whose force to do good in this rapidly-changing world is second-to-none. I now incorporate a number of Williamson's songs in my band's act: though some take a bit of 'interpretation' before performance, this one always seems to get 'across,' despite the wide gap in language. Glenn, thank you for the method in which you presented the science, in a lyrical and soulful way. I strive to do the same, in my journey as a musician and a geologist, trying to get folks to wake up. The song that so vividly gets through to folks, the "truth" about your country, was one of the first my countrymen were exposed to, when he performed it for Steve Irwin's memorial in 2006. Let us hope we ALL are not disappearing......
  17. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    Bernard J: "I too appreciate your analogy. I hope you don't mind if I shamelessly plagiarise it in future posts!" Certainly! It amazes me how many people interpret "X not shown to be statistically significant" is the same as saying "X refuted". Must be careful of educating people about probability/statistics, though, would hate to be blamed for putting casinos out of business! :)
  18. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #44
    The urgency implied by the cover will quickly fade. Most TV media have moved on. Global warming is a very distant issue for most voters and sea level rise is still being used by Republicans as a laugh line with their constituents. Those still trying to recover from Sandy will have a nor’easter to deal with Wednesday and Thursday and we all know that no one can do anything about it. Just have to take another hit. We have to live with the sea level we have and just have to accept the sea level rise built into the warming we have created.
  19. The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
    quokka "I presume "natural gas" means bio-gas. " Actually, no. "Erdgas" is not "biogas", that is the next line down in that table and shows a negative number due to it offsetting FF emissions. "Erdgas" is good ol' FF natural gas. I did not go into biogas, although that is an obvious contributor to a renewables portfolio. Here as well, there are challenges: Food production should not be affected. But that is a straw man. 30-yr old technology is used in many places already to convert animal feces into biogas. One just has to multiply that effort. We need to highlight these positive efforts, not talk them down. So where are those nuclear 60 GWe installed and why? (Hint: highlight the positives!) Carbon targets? Good for planning! Not much moves until you set a goal and the rules of the game, such as a price on carbon. Making a start is crucial ... we are waiting for that in the US ...
  20. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Come to think of it, as an exercise I'd like to see Markx apply the same method he's using with climate data to the kilogram. After all, it's arguable that the stability of the world economy and much else depends on the kilogram; an iota of error would be unacceptable. Compared to certainty of the kilogram global warming is just a minor detail-- thinking of the present case ocean heat measurements are derivative of our confidence in the kilogram. Markx, care to give it a whirl?
  21. New research from last week 44/2012
    Fixed, thanks. :)
  22. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    The point is, Markx, that Argo is not calibrated against CERES, which seems to be the feature you're trying to convey in your attempt to show circularity. -Some- floats were discovered to be malfunctioning thanks to having an alternate observation source available, but the data produced by the Argo array does not employ CERES data as its reference standard, which I think is the misperception you're laboring under. In any case if you're bothered with calibration in general then I suppose a kilogram is suspect as well. After all, the kilogram is observation fitted to models, right? And it's only gotten worse as our understanding of physics has improved. 200 years ago a kilogram was very simple; now we know more and a kilogram has become very complicated. Do we know less, or more? Is the kilogram more less useful now, freighted as it?
  23. Arctic sea ice loss in the 1940s was similar to today's
    This thread seemed lonely, so . . . Adventurers return home after historic trip through Northwest Passage Quote: "Since their return home, the office of former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has contacted the group and asked to use some of their photos in Gore's presentations on the effects of climate change. But instead of taking money for the photos, the group asked Gore to compensate them by offsetting the carbon they used on their journey, meaning the trip is effectively carbon neutral."
  24. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    doug_bostrom at 01:50 AM on 6 November, 2012 re: "errors in the Argo data were detected due to mismatching with Ceres TOA data." Hi Doug; I got that information from an article mentioned in a previous post. (-snip-). From NASA – (Titled “Correcting Ocean Cooling”. by Rebecca Lindsey) November 5, 2008 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
    “Our team has been involved for many years in constructing time series of net flux from satellite data, going back to the 1980s,” says Wong. The observations started with a satellite mission called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment and today are being made with Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.... ....From 1993 to 2003, measurements of heat storage in the oceans agreed with satellite observations of net flux. After 2003, however, surface observations suggested that the ocean was losing heat, while satellite measurements of net flux showed the Earth was still slowly gaining energy. This mismatch was a hint that there might be a problem with one of the data sets.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] If you are indeed the same markx posting comments here as at Shaping Tomorrow's World (here, for example), please note that SkS has a Comments Policy forbidding sloganeering and accusations of deception. Moderation has already had to be enacted on your previous comments as a result (Note that similar to STW, all comments placed at SkS are audited for compliance).

    Your referenced source is very shelf-dated. For OHC, Levitus et al 2012 is considered the more reliable source on OHC, as it contains actual data to December 2011, rather than on speculation.

    Discussions of Earth's energy imbalance are more proper on a more appropriate thread (the Search function yields this as a suggestion). Off-topic comments will be removed. Thanks in advance for your compliance in this matter!

    Sloganeering/intimations of impropriety snipped.

  25. New research from last week 44/2012
    The citation information at the end of the abstract of the Brysse et al (2012) paper is for the subsequent Guangliang et al paper.
  26. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Here's what you said about Argo, Markx. This site doesn't rely on an oral tradition; there's a database so it's possible to have retrospective. Markx: "It was interesting to note that the errors in the Argo data were detected due to mismatching with Ceres TOA data." But you were wrong. Were you simply asking a question? No, hardly. Quite the opposite; you were not just saying "I doubt it" but making up stories to justify that doubt. Silly. I suggest you use the search function and look up a fellow who used to appear here, one "Berenyi Peter." He'll show you the way to do a really baroque and quality "I doubt it."
  27. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    markx, various... - One underlying theme that you appear to be overlooking (IMO) is that given multiple measurements (ocean heat content, tidal gauges, satellite TOA radiation and sea altimeter measures, etc.), the combination of multiple measures with their own constraints and overlapping observation times (as with CERES and XBT/ARGO transitions) allows us to refine the accuracy of all measurements. The more data you have, the more accurate and precise your measurements. That's basic math - the signal to noise (S/N) improves relative to the square root of the number of observations. Multiple overlapping instruments also permit calibration across instrument transitions. So yes, we can indeed determine temperatures with hundredths of a degree, even with 1/10 or single digit accuracy thermometers - because we have a lot of data, from many different instruments and modalities.
  28. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Rob Painting at 20:57 PM on 5 November, 2012 "... dredged google..." I confess that is the first place I go these days for information; however both the Loeb paper and the Levitus paper have been on my computer for quite some time. On Levitus the 0.09 degrees C change measured over a 55 year period caught my eye. I had earlier been interested in TOA radiation measurements (Loeb)as they in earlier times were put forward as the proof of role of the greenhouse gases, but unfortunately the degree of precision required is perhaps lacking at this stage. The NASA "correcting Ocean Cooling article I found a few days ago, and searches on TSLR sent me to: http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf Showing the imprecision of current satellite data (Icesat, Grace, Jason..) ... (imprecision of 1+ mm/yr) ... hence the proposed GRASP mission to rectify those problems. All of these topics; Argo, Ceres, TSLR, Jason, Grace, and later GRASP, are interlinked. Rob Painting at 20:57 PM on 5 November, 2012
    Do note, however, that Earth's observed energy imbalance is a logical consequence of the increased Greenhouse Effect. Reduce the rate of loss of heat to space, and the Earth must warm to eventually return to equilibrium. So there is a very obvious physics-based foundation which underpins the observations.
    I have no problems with that theory. But I am interested in how precisely we are measuring all this. If all the basic data has some degree of imprecision, and it seems to, we still have a lot of data to collect.
  29. The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
    @gws Based on life-cycle considerations, it is a low emission source, but still worse than small-scale combined heat&electricity plants burning natural gas ("Erdgas-Blockheizkraftwerk"), as promoted in Germany since about two decades now. I presume "natural gas" means bio-gas. At least in Australia, it normally means fossil gas. Whatever the life cycle emissions are, this is a self limiting technology unless you wish to cover the planet in maize farms. Installing decentralized renewables with a large labor component is quicker and societally more accepted than large central power production that takes a long time to plan and build, and a smaller workforce to operate. You claim this, but it is not necessarily true. There is, for example, considerable resistance to on-shore wind in parts of the UK. It is hard to see this not increasing, simply because of the large land requirements of wind (and other renewables). But in the end, the bottom line is cost regardless of how many people are employed. As for build rates, France managed to displace fossil fuels in electricity generation far faster than any deployment of non-hydro renewables has in any nation. Of course it is very challenging, but that applies to all technologies. Reality says: Huge growth rate in renewables worldwide, near zero growth rate for nuclear. Hmmh There is about 60GWe of new nuclear capacity under construction world wide. There is, as I understand, about 70GWp of PV installed worldwide. Given their respective capacity factors, PV would have to grow by a factor of 5-6 just to generate as much electricity as that new nuclear capacity. Perhaps it will, but it needs to be reality not promises. Meanwhile, industry associations in the UK for nuclear, renewables and CCS have joined forces in a letter to the government calling for specific carbon targets supported by investment in nuclear, renewables and CCS Industry letter calls for decarbonisation target in energy bill Somewhat to my surprise, Greenpeace has supported the letter. (Maybe they didn't read it properly). A step in the right direction and an important development. It doesn't have to be renewables OR nuclear. It can be renewables AND nuclear and we get the job done sooner. And worldwide, that is by far the most likely outcome.
  30. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Looks like my post got lost (not too sure of my maths below, but it's be ballpark correct I think): doug_bostrom at 19:29 PM on 5 November, 2012 "..Markx's Argo error. ..." I didn't think I was in error there, I simply asked a question. The 0 to 700 meter level of the world's oceans have risen 0.18 degrees C in 55 years (early measurements were taken from ships decks using a reversing mercury thermometer calibrated in 10ths of degrees C, by a line ... thanks Rob) And the total 0 to 2000 metre range of the world's oceans has been measured to have risen 0.09 degrees C over 55 years... So therefore the 701 to 2000 meter ocean depth must have risen a measured 0.00415 degrees C in 55 years. Is my maths correct?
    Moderator Response: (Rob P) - No need to even bother checking your math. You are simply repeating a fallacy, and one that was corrected by SkS commenters previously -see comments 72 & 73.

    The precision of the measurements cannot not be determined by taking the warming of the whole 0-2000 meter layer and dividing that into the ocean volume (assuming that is what you've done).

    Following on from Doug Bostrom's comment, here's a simple analogy for readers benefit:

    A University experiment is carried out to determine whether staff/students are gaining or losing weight over time. Regular weighing is carried out and at the end of the experiment it is found that all involved have gained a total of x kilos.

    "Whoa! Wait a moment!" says Markx "How can we be sure? When I take x (the total weight gained) and divide it by the number of people weighed, the number is 0.000x. There is absolutely no way the scales have that sort of precision. How can we be sure that anyone gained any weight at all?"

    Thus the illogicality of your thinking is illustrated such that even the non-technically-minded can understand.

    Also please note that constantly repeating a myth/fallacy is deemed to be sloganeering. This therefore constitutes the first of 3 warnings. Please familiarize yourself with comments policy.
  31. The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
    Oh the memes ... It is, unfortunately, not true that nuclear is a CO2 emissions free technology, aside from its other issues. Uranium mining, and building, maintaining and deconstructing nuclear power plants safely, has a significant CO2 footprint. Image and video hosting by TinyPic Source: http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1157/2011-031-de.pdf Based on life-cycle considerations, it is a low emission source, but still worse than small-scale combined heat&electricity plants burning natural gas ("Erdgas-Blockheizkraftwerk"), as promoted in Germany since about two decades now. Currently, nuclear produces about 6% of global energy consumption, and only as electricity. You can check the source above or calculate on your own how many nuclear plants you have to build to make a serious dent in CO2 emissions, with or without electrifying transportation ... with current nuclear technology (PWRs) you quickly run into resource issues of - building safely, high quality parts fast enough - finding qualified personnel for construction and operation - finding enough uranium - storing waste - preventing proliferation - operating safely under competing water demands. Does France consider this a serious option? I doubt it. They imported electricity from Germany last year when it got too hot in France and cooling demand exceeded availability (a problem all such plants face during heat waves). So no nuclear? The industry's announcements have almost always topped reality. Once they actually achieve what they claim, e.g. build and successfully operate the new generation reactor that will use nuclear waste, we can talk again. So I come back to my original comment: Installing decentralized renewables with a large labor component is quicker and societally more accepted than large central power production that takes a long time to plan and build, and a smaller workforce to operate. Reality says: Huge growth rate in renewables worldwide, near zero growth rate for nuclear. Hmmh.
  32. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Uncertainty is a topic for legitimate discussion. We've seen little of that from you so far. You started with ropes and buckets, and appear to have dredged google in order to throw up research which, you believe, casts doubt on the very obvious warming of the planet. Uncertainty is discussed in the literature, and observationally-based studies do quantify this. It is no great secret. Now if you want to start quantifying this yourself, and/or actually engage in meaningful discussion, then do so. Needless repetition of memes or myths constitutes sloganeering, and may result in future comments being snipped accordingly. Do note, however, that Earth's observed energy imbalance is a logical consequence of the increased Greenhouse Effect. Reduce the rate of loss of heat to space, and the Earth must warm to eventually return to equilibrium. So there is a very obvious physics-based foundation which underpins the observations.
  33. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    Full reference for above post: Nature 413, 508-512 (4 October 2001) | doi:10.1038/35097055; Received 20 February 2001; Accepted 21 August 2001 High frequency of 'super-cyclones' along the Great Barrier Reef over the past 5,000 years. Jonathan Nott & Matthew Hayne http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/full/413508a0.html
  34. Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
    doug_bostrom at 15:41 PM on 5 November, 2012 "..... ever in its region what's the diagnostic of the obedience, the fingerprint of "normal?" ..." Worth thinking about: Here is an Australian report showing we should expect a 'super-cyclone' every 200 to 300 years, not every 1000 as previously suspected. Now, Europeans have only been recording such things in Australia for 200 years or so... so we are not sure when the nest one is due. But when it comes along I am sure we will blame it on AGW. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/full/413508a0.html
    Here we determine the intensity of prehistoric tropical cyclones over the past 5,000 years from ridges of detrital coral and shell deposited above highest tide and terraces that have been eroded into coarse-grained alluvial fan deposits. ...... We infer that the deposits were formed by storms with recurrence intervals of two to three centuries and we show that the cyclones responsible must have been of extreme intensity (central pressures less than 920 hPa). Our estimate of the frequency of such 'super-cyclones' is an order of magnitude higher than that previously estimated (which was once every several millennia..).
  35. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    scaddenp at 19:49 PM on 5 November, 2012 "...So measurement of sea level is dependent on heat measurements?? Sea level has the interlinked tide gauge and satellite measurements..." No, but all are interlinked. Each is used to justify the value obtained for the other. As is pointed out, that does not mean any of them are incorrect. And, on the other hand it does not mean that all, or any of them are entirely correct. We are really still in the very early stages of data collection here, with ocean temperature data being collected in detail and depth only since 2000, and satellite data for both TOA radiation flux and sea level rise needing better technology and better data. This is a perfectly legitimate topic for discussion, and I am surprised you find it heretical; Topic: Just how precisely measured are all these parameters?
  36. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    "But is there a really tight agreement between calculated and TSL, measured OHC and TOA? " So measurement of sea level is dependent on heat measurements?? Sea level has the interlinked tide gauge and satellite measurements. There are many problems in determining heat imbalance from satellite measurements. Argo is quite definitely the best instrument for that but it's short term data. On the other hand, the problems is closing the heat balance would point to MORE heat being stored in the ocean to close with the sea level curve not less.
  37. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Doug, there's an SkS post about Loeb (2012) here: Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline' The Levitus methodology, upon which Levitus (2012) & Nuccitelli (2012) are based, actually shows the smallest warming rate over 2004-2008, for the upper 700 metres of global ocean. This is largely down to differences in how to handle sparse sampling in the datasets. Contrary to Markx's insinuations, uncertainty is like a dagger - it cuts both ways.
  38. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Rereading Markx's last comment I'm moved to amend my last remark (retracting "nothing to do with" and "not the point" 8-P ). It's true that Loeb et al. were seeking to improve CERES results by systematically eliminating errors, using Hansen et al 2005 0.85W/m2 as a benchmark. I did take Markx's first remark on the matter to mean that CERES data is essentially a pure derivative of model output, which it is not. As many of us are probably painfully aware, Hansen's paper reports prediction and observation of the same imbalance. Readers might want to take a look at table 2 of Loeb and decide what the dominant source of error is going to be. Personally I'll put my money on OHC measurements being the least of the problems, way less than other issues w/CERES at this level of precision. I suppose I've already developed an observational bias based on Markx's Argo error. Too twitchy. :-)
  39. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    You apparently still have not read the paper, Markx, or you would not continue missing the entire point of the authors by saying such things as "Are you saying that knowledge of the TOA flux was innate, this was only about ironing out the kinks in the satellite measurements?" which clearly indicates you've got the entire concept of the paper neatly backward. The objective of the authors had nothing to do with improving CERES data. They necessarily explain the evolution of improvements in CERES data by the experiment operators but that's not the point of the paper. Looking beyond your problem with understanding the paper you brought up, what I find surprising is your metaphorical condemnation of calibration via your suspicions over the refinement of CERES data (and apparently any other data you find inconvenient). Apparently you're more comfortable with the idea that instrumentation should be manufactured and deployed in a state of nature, reading just as it did when first assembled regardless of whether the dial pointing to "accurate" was put on its axle pointing reciprocal to its proper direction.
  40. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    doug_bostrom at 17:25 PM on 5 November, 2012 ".... the objective of the paper is not to have CERES data chase model output...." Hi Doug. Forgive me if I misinterpret you here: Where did the knowledge of the TOA flux come from? Are you saying that knowledge of the TOA flux was innate, and this was only about ironing out the kinks in the satellite measurements? And now we have finally got the satellite measures of TOA spot on? They match "the actual"? Utilizing calculated net heat storage of the earth, and estimated or known (from where?) TOA fluxes, it seems we can adjust our satellite measurements. And using our (new-found?) knowledge of the TOA flux we can confirm that it (now) matches the OHC data. (Itself measured to a precision of 3 decimal places over 55 years).
  41. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #2: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    Michael Bloomberg endorsed Obama!?? Yeah, ok. I get it now. The businessweek cover, republicans believing in global warming, that thing on Google News about Disney owning Star Wars... this is all some kind of big, 'Let's freak out the people who have been living like cave men for the past week' gag.
  42. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Excellent sound bytes can be clipped from abstracts, Markx, but it helps to read the entire paper. When you do that you'll find there's a physical basis for adjustments. It's not just a matter of guessing. For example:
    Another positive bias is associated with how the global average solar irradiance is calculated. It is common practice to assume a spherical earth when averaging TOA insolation over the earth’s surface. This gives the well-known So/4 expression for mean solar irradiance, where So is the instantaneous solar irradiance at the TOA. When a more careful calculation is made by assuming the earth is an oblate spheroid instead of a sphere, and the annual cycle in the earth’s declination angle and the earth–sun distance are taken into account, the division factor becomes 4.0034 instead of 4. The spherical earth assumption causes a 1 0.29 W m 22 bias in net TOA flux. Similarly, assuming a spherical earth in determining the global average SW and LW TOA fluxes (by using a latitude weighting in geocentric instead of geodedic coordinates) results in 10.18 and 20.05 W m 22 biases, respectively.
    And:
    After the release of SRBAVG-GEO edition 2D, an error was discovered in the computation of the declination angle and earth–sun distance factor. The angle and factor were computed at 0000 UTC instead of 1200 UTC, which is appropriate for computing the solar incoming in local time. This has no effect on the annual mean insolation but significantly affects the monthly zonal solar incoming fluxes near the poles. This error iscorrected in the final adjusted TOA fluxes and will also be rectified in the next SRBAVG version (edition 3). Adjustments to total solar irradiance associated with the spherical earth assumption are applied zonally to improve the accuracy of incoming solar radiation at each latitude. While these adjustments are applied at the zonal level, the globally averaged correction is the same as in Table 2. Similarly, adjustments in SW TOA fluxes due to near-terminator flux biases are also applied zonally without modifying the global mean. Separate adjustments are made for clear and all-sky TOA fluxes.
    And no, the objective of the paper is not to have CERES data chase model output. Don't be insulting.
  43. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #44
    Wow, I hadn't seen that Bloomberg cover before now (just got electricity back). Powerful statement from one of the 'oracles' of the usual denier crowd.
  44. 2012 SkS News Bulletin #2: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
    Hurricane sandy is the worst hit hurricane so far. People have no electricity,gas and other needed things for their daily chores. Back me up
  45. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    doug_bostrom at 16:46 PM on 5 November, 2012 ".... CERES data is also adjusted, to match modeled TOA expectations....How about a reference? ..." Hi Doug, provided in #81, but here it is again (added detail): Loeb etal 2009 ‘Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth’s Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget’ J. Climate, 22, 748–766
    This study provides a detailed error analysis of TOA fluxes based on the latest generation of Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) gridded monthly mean data products [the monthly TOA/surface averages geostationary (SRBAVG-GEO)] and uses an objective constrainment algorithm to adjust SW and LW TOA fluxes within their range of uncertainty to remove the inconsistency between average global net TOA flux and heat storage in the earth–atmosphere system.... ...The 5-yr global mean CERES net flux from the standard CERES product is 6.5 W m−2, much larger than the best estimate of 0.85 W m−2 based on observed ocean heat content data and model simulations. The major sources of uncertainty in the CERES estimate are from instrument calibration (4.2 W m−2) and the assumed value for total solar irradiance (1 W m−2).
  46. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    That's stale, Markx. You need to stay up to speed lest you mislead people.
  47. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    doug_bostrom at 16:05 PM on 5 November, 2012 "...I'd be interested in seeing a reference for that. Pointer? .." Hi Doug; for the article mentioned in a previous post. From NASA – (Titled “Correcting Ocean Cooling”. by Rebecca Lindsey November 5, 2008 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
    “Our team has been involved for many years in constructing time series of net flux from satellite data, going back to the 1980s,” says Wong. The observations started with a satellite mission called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment and today are being made with Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.... ....From 1993 to 2003, measurements of heat storage in the oceans agreed with satellite observations of net flux. After 2003, however, surface observations suggested that the ocean was losing heat, while satellite measurements of net flux showed the Earth was still slowly gaining energy. This mismatch was a hint that there might be a problem with one of the data sets.
    I'm not on any mission at all. Just asking sensible questions. We have a very small temperature increment of great precision, all 'proven' or at least 'confirmed' by interdependent adjusted measurements. I have no doubt re the skill and integrity of the scientists involved, but have some doubts re the risks of using pyramided data adjustments and calibrations in proving a 'fact'. I trust you can assure me it is all as clear and precise as you report it to be.
  48. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Markx, as your other claim about Argo and CERES proved incorrect, what are we to make of your claim that ...Ceres data is also adjusted, to match modeled TOA expectations. Are you remembering that incorrectly, or is that a rumor you've heard? Or is it real? How about a reference?
  49. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    And here's the relevant passage, which does not reflect Markx's claim about Argo errors being detected by comparison with CERES data. Markx, did you remember reading such a thing yourself, or is it a rumor you've heard?
    To provide a more observation-based representation of changes in net TOA flux during the past decade, the CERES net TOA radiation record is anchored to an estimated Earth heat uptake for July2005June 2010 of 0:580:38 Wm2, by combining the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory/Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Joint In-stitute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (PMEL/JPL/JIMAR;ref. 14; see Methods) Argo-only estimate from 0 to 1,800 m with estimates of smaller heat uptake terms from warming of the deep ocean, land and atmosphere, as well as melting ice. Argo alone samples consistently, persistently, globally, and to a greater depth than previous upper-ocean measurement programs. A comparison of year-to-year changes in CERES net TOA flux during the past decade with the PMEL/JPL/JIMAR estimates of 0700 m and 01,800 m year-to-year ocean heating rates (Fig. 3a) reveals that although thesatellite and ocean in situ interannual variability agree to within observational uncertainty, the error bars and year-to-year variations for upper-ocean heating rates are large earlier in the decade, when much of the ocean in situ data were from XBT measurements,which have poorer sampling than Argo and require large uncertain bias corrections that Argo does not. Consistency between satellite net TOA flux and upper-ocean heating rate variability improves after 2004, when the Argo network provides near-global coverage. Importantly, the CERES net TOA flux observations do not show a sharp decline during the XBT to Argo transition around 20022005. For 20042010, the year-to-year changes in net TOA flux and the PMEL/JPL/JIMAR ocean heating rate track one another with a correlation coefficient of 0.46. During the same period, the correlation coefficients between CERES net TOA flux and 0700 m ocean heating rates from both National Oceanic Data Center (NODC) and Hadley is 0.05. Although we cannot confidently claim that one ocean heat content estimate is preferable to another, the better agreement between the CERES and PMEL/JPL/JIMAR year-to-year changes after 2004 is encouraging. Combining the stable, decadal-length record of changes in net radiation from CERES with the 01,800 m Argo OHCA record and other minor storage terms, we compute Earth's energy imbalance for the period from January 2001December 2010 to be 0:500:43 Wm2
  50. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Whoops, belay that request. Here's what Markx is talking about:
    Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system2. Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.
    Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty

Prev  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  1032  1033  1034  1035  1036  1037  1038  1039  1040  1041  1042  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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