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  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  1057  1058  1059  1060  1061  1062  1063  Next

Comments 52751 to 52800:

  1. How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
    Responding to trunkmonkey from another, inappropriate, thread: Your contention that UV from the atmosphere cannot transfer energy to the ocean is incorrect, as scaddenp noted months ago in the comment immediately above this one. For yet another place to learn how that works, see this RealClimate post.
  2. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Michael Sweet, I acknowledge that a warmer atmosphere recieves less radiation from the ocean but argue that resulting ocean warming should be proportional to atmospheric warming. Bernard J., The warming you discuss is from UV which cannot come from greenhouse gasses.
    Moderator Response: Now you are solidly in the domain of a different post: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats the Ocean. Put further comments on this topic there, not here. Everyone else, respond there, not here. Off topic comments here will be deleted without warning.
  3. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Thanks GrantA0017, and thanks to everyone who congratulated us on the paper, which we're very excited about.
  4. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    DSL: Your link to Puckrin et al is broken.
  5. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    SOP for denialist sophistry is to request "empirical proof". Asking for the unobtainable as though "proof" or the statement of a "100% fact" can somehow falsified the generally accepted state of scientific understanding. To the lay-public or for those who watch Hannity this bridge too far appears to be both logical and reasonable; it is neither.
  6. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Trunkmonkey. You say that "there is no mechanism for greenhouse gasses to warm the oceans". Have you ever waded into a shallow lagoon or lake early on a summer morning, and then again in the mid afternoon? If so, did you observe a difference? If so, what caused that difference? And if there was a cause for that difference, can you infer how the actions of 'greenhouse' gases might replicate that effect?
  7. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    I'm very sorry about that I accidentally commented that but back to the point. I really liked the points you made and how you got to several different ideas in just one post and went into deep ideas about all of them. All in all I really liked you post, thank you for the time you put into it.
  8. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    I really enjoyed your post. I really liked how you put in graphs and pictures and helped explain them really well after you talked about them. I really liked all the points you made
  9. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Trunkmonkey, In your previous comment on this thread you said "The problem is there is no mechanism for greenhouse gasses to warm the oceans". In the comments DB linked you discussed the mechanism. I will summarize for you: The ocean absorbs energy from the sun and is warmer than the air. Energy is transferred from the ocean to the cold air. AGW warms the air. Less energy is transferred from the ocean to the warmer air. The ocean warms since it retains more energy. If you wish to argue the mechanism is incorrect this is the wrong thread to post to. Claiming the mechanism does not exist when you know it does is not making an argument in good faith.
  10. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    SA Dean, watch it with the "proponents of AGW." No scientist I know is a proponent of AGW. All of them accept the theory of AGW, but none want it to happen. Further to Michael's comment, you're never going to get 100% certainty on anything. The question, then, becomes "how much certainty do you need to act?" There is an answer to that question, because you manage to overcome uncertainty and act in myriad ways daily. As far as the past and complex systems go, even though the patterns within the system are written in the Earth, we don't actually need paleo studies or the Vostok record to support the theory of AGW. All we need is direct measurement of the theorized effect. We have that--at surface and from space. See Puckrin et al. (2004), for one example. That energy is building up in the system is almost 100% certain. Where that energy is going is now the task at hand. The complexity of that circulation is daunting, but it doesn't wipe away the fact that the energy is going to continue to build up and continue to be circulated. If we're off a few percentage points with regards to the amounts going into the oceans, ice mass loss, and tropospheric temp, well we'll get better. We have gotten better. CMIP5 is better. AR5 will discuss this improvement next year.
  11. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    There is some interesting philosophy here: 1. At what level do we consider the level of evidence and related confidence high enough to speak of a "fact" 2. What level of "certainty" about a consequence (e.g. warming and its impact) is needed for acting on it? The answer to 1. could be given based on historical developments in different fields of science, I guess. While SADean seems to prefer a somewhat extreme (?) level of confidence, the consensus among climate scientists justifies speaking of "fact" IMHO. The answer to 2. varies with your ideology and value system. In most legal systems the bar can be very high, in (scientific) Risk Management it can be much lower. I have yet to see a skeptic intelligently commenting on either 1. or 2. The whole purpose of their actions appears to be to avoid such answers. Okay, back to the actual thread topic ... very helpful handout, thanks!
  12. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    SA Dean, Thank you forproviding examples that we can discuss. There is no scientific disagreement in the interpretation of the Vostok record. At that time, temperature began to rise, then CO2 rose as a feedback. The increasing CO2 caused more temperature increase. Today the situation is different. Humans are increasing CO2. The temperature is rising as a result of the CO2 pollution. People who tell you this is not understood are misleading you. Please provide your sources of information. Are they blogs or scientific sources? Why do you believe blogs that conflict with well known scientific findings? Weather is complex but the basics are well understood. In 1894 Arhennius calculated by hand a climate sensitivity of 4.5C. The currently accepted range is 2.0-4.5C. The argument that weather is too complex is an argument from ignorance coming from deniers who deliberatly do not try to understand the science. Ask scientists who study climate what is understood, not denier blogs. Darwin's theory was widely accepted immediately. Newton was recognized as a great scientist by his peers. Where do you find these wild claims? If you want to know with 100% certainty you will have to consult a psychic. In science nothing is considered 100%. If you wnat to understand the science I suggest you read more on this blog. The 2007 IPCC report is your best base until the new IPCC report comes out. My impression is that you have been reading a lot of denier blogs. I suggest you begin over as much as you can. You have a lot to unlearn. The science of climate change is well understood.
  13. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    Thank you all for the responses Firstly, let me clarify and admit that in the context of this blog I had a different definition of the word “misinformation” in mind. I was under the impression that misinformation was defined as: False, or inaccurate information that is spread without the intention to deceive with disinformation being defined as the same but with the motive to mislead. These definitions contradict the major Dictionary definitions that state: “false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive “. Bearing this contradictory definition in mind, I see why my comment gave the wrong message. Now in response to your comments, I agree that proponents of AGW do not intentionally attempt to deceive society. I honestly believe that scientists in climate science sincerely believe in what the data is telling them. This applies to scientists on both sides of the debate. However, I feel that conclusions based on results are somewhat subjective. Lets look at the most popular climate change example of the time-series trend between CO2 and temperature from the Vostok record. I think there are very few who would actually disagree that there wasn’t a strong correlation between the two variables. Where the disagreement comes in, is what is the relation and causation between the two variables? I now take a complexity thinking approach to the following problem based on Cilliers, P. (1998) Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems, London: Routledge. The take home message from this book is that complex systems cannot be studied using the traditional analytical method (breaking the system up into component parts to study) because it neglects the nearly infinite, dynamical, non-linear interactions with other components of the system. Cilliers mentions many other characteristics for a complex system such as uncertainty, feedback loops, open systems that cause boundary problems etc. The Earth and nested within that, its climate are complex systems. By its very nature, it is impossible to definitively understand the entire workings of the system with certainty. However, science provides humanity with the best possible obtainable knowledge about the system. But it is not perfect. We have seen time and time again how theories that were once considered fact were shown to be erroneous as new scientific information came to light. Look at the history of the atom. Going to YubeDubes comments about Peer Review and Journals. Consensus definitely doesn’t mean fact. In order to get an article published in a well-respected journal, the conclusions need to be within well-defined parameters of the consensual agreement. Most often, the consensus is right but two major scientists on which our society is based were known for going strongly against the consensus. Newton and Darwin. As at our current and best knowledge state, they were right and yet they were ridiculed. All this being said, I am not saying that AGW is not occurring. As stated in my first comment, I am actually a very firm believer of it and I am acting on it in my personal capacity. What I am criticizing is how AGW is considered FACT. The science does show overwhelming evidence that AGW is occurring and that it is the most probable cause of accelerated climate change. However, this does not mean that this is actually the case. Tying this in with the complexity thinking argument and in response to Kevin C. a) Is it warming? ….. Most certainly. No one could argue that b) Why is it warming? And c) what will happen in the future? … Can you really provide an answer with 100% certainty? If so, then I retract my entire argument. More likely, based on all your acquired knowledge, the majority of the convincing evidence you have been exposed to suggest the most likely cause of warming being AGW. The same is true for me, which is why I am a proponent. However this does not make us right. It just means that we are more likely to be right. Looking at the other side of the debate, I do not deny that there is a more manufactured state of scientific backing. I am merely suggesting that not all arguments from the “skeptic” side are implausible just because some are out-rightly invented. And although it is unlikely based on the scientific evidence, the skeptics may still be right, even though their methods may be questionable. I hope this clarifies my initial comment to a certain degree. I ask you kindly to respond to this comment, after having hopefully better explained my thinking.
  14. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    @DB My prior comments about the "skin layer" are consistent with the comment above.Warming the top angstrom of the layer would decrease the efficiency of conduction from below, but it would increase the radiative efficiency at the surface.
  15. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    Let me be the first to say congratulations to John Cook for being a part of this publication.
  16. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    I suggest we not pile it on. If SA Dean has an integrity, s/he will respond. I second YubeDude's request for evidence of scientists providing misinformation to the public.
  17. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    From Peru@32, I don't know the statistics, but I guess the examples of extremely rude, offensive, swearing language you are pointing to, would be extremely rare. Lubos Motl, by the very nature of his language, is so repulsive that no one should take him seriously, so his readership is likely marginal. As Mike Mann once said, rebutting the talk at that kind of level is like: "Stepping into the mudhole to wrestle pigs. Pigs would love you to start wrestling but you cannot afford to waste your energy doing it". And I agree. Posting Nuccitelli et al. (2012) paper over there does not make sense to me. Better leave the pigs alone, do not create illusion in their minds that someone seriously listen to them. I agree it's worth talking to people like president Václav Klaus, but that must go through some different channels, not through Lubos' blog.
  18. Jerry Mitrovica: Current Sea Level Rise is Anomalous. We've Seen Nothing Like it for the Last 10,000 Years
    Agnostic@20,
    Metrovica’s analysis predicts sea level rise of 6-8 metres by 2100
    I wonder where he said it, becuase that would be an extraordinary claim. In the video, he just said that previous analysis of Eonian maximum SL was 4-6m but he revised it upwards to be 6-8m on average based on his research. He did not say anything about the timeframe in the future when such average would be achieved or I have missed this important detail.
  19. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Dale - "My question: what can cause the oceans to keep warming (as shown in the 2002-2008 line in the table in the article) when the accumulated heat sources decreased? See the SkS post linked to at #30 by the moderator Dan Bailey. Most readers seem to be able understand that greenhouse gases slow the loss of heat from the atmosphere - well they slow the loss of heat from the ocean too. Given that solar radiation has undergone a decline since the 1960's, I'm genuinely interested if you have ever thought about how the oceans have continued to warm throughout this interval, despite this fall in solar output? There are other considerations, of course, but the greenhouse gas-induced warming of the ocean is the Big Kahuna of global warming.
  20. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    SA Dean: I am curious as to the details of the point you are implying... "highlight the misinformation that scientists on both sides of the debate are portraying to the public." On what I will call the pro AGW side of the argument, who are the scientist and what is their misinformation? "strongly criticize the manner in which science is being employed." Doesn't the scientific method really only work one way and aren't objective metrics immune to subjective manipulation especially within the peer review community? "[...]preconceived condition. In doing so, conclusions and messages are teased out of the results, which align with the desired goal." Any submission to a respect journal that attempted this would get hammered and reputations would be tarnished. Gerlich-Tscheuschner 2009 learned this out the hard way. Though I would agree with you that there are a number of attempts to sway the debate as you've mentioned, my disagreement is that I don't see them on the pro AGW side of the ledger.
  21. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    SA Dean: From a lay persons viewpoint it certainly looks as though there is a debate with scientific arguments on both sides. However, let me suggest a possibility: That that appearance is manufactured by one side, and that the actual state of scientific knowledge is very different to the perceived state. If that were the case, then in order to create the appearance of uncertainty, it would be necessary to create objections and uncertainties which sound scientifically plausible to the lay person. If the core elements of the scientific case were well founded in overwhelming evidence, then the falsity of those objections would be obvious to anyone who had sufficiently grounded themselves in the science and in particular in the underlying evidence, but may be completely opaque to anyone who had not. As far as I can tell, there are two approaches an interested person can use to determine whether this is the case: 1. Scrupulously check every claim by the scientific sources (i.e. not NGOs, think tanks or media) on each side to determine the chain of evidence on which it is based. If one side turns out to consistently making unfounded arguments, that is suggestive. 2. Sufficiently familiarise yourself with the science to be able to check the fundamental claims. This is surprisingly simple, as there are only three claims relevant to public policy: a) Is it warming? b) Why is it warming? and c) What will happen in the future? These questions are surprisingly easy to answer: I've posted 60 lines of code in a previous post which can be used to address the first two. The third in much simpler than it was 25 years ago when Hansen was making his statement to congress; thanks to the experiment we have been doing on our atmosphere, you can now get a rough answer with as little as 40 further lines of code. When I apply each of these two methods, they both point the same way. On this basis, I think that you characterization of the situation is not a realistic reflection of the reality.
  22. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    SA Dean, Can you provide anything to make us credit your comment as anything more than a rather-less-than-novel tone-trolling attempt at thread hijacking? Yours in anticipation...
  23. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    SA Dean It would be helpful if you gave even a single example of scientists spreading misinformation. You are just putting up a denier talking point. If you provide some specific examples of scientists providing misinformation we can begin to discuss your issue. If you cannot provide specific examples you are just hand waving. The issue in the AGW debate is that there is only one side with data to support their position. Your claim that the true result is somewhere the data and the deniers is unsupported.
  24. A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
    This practical guide to refuting misinformation appears to be a very helpful tool. By refuting misinformation, a cohesive society can be developed that can dedicate their combined efforts into finding a solution for a problem rather than debating it. HOWEVER, there is no benefit in refuting misinformation only to introduce new misinformation. The purpose of this comment is not to take a particular stance in the Great Climate Change Debate but rather to highlight the misinformation that scientists and politicians on both sides of the debate are portraying to the public. I cannot overstate the value and necessity of science in such a critical time of potential concern but I strongly criticize the manner in which science is being employed. Scientific studies surrounding climate change, in a globally publicized topic of interest, are initialized trying to provide evidence for a preconceived condition. In doing so, conclusions and messages are teased out of the results, which align with the desired goal. These conclusions are then used in an attempt to disprove the opposing side’s conclusions and are treated as fact. The element that concerns me most in this debate is the mutual exclusivity of the opposing sides. I am a firm believer that anthropogenic activities are contributing to climate change but I take the conclusions from both sides of the debate with bitter caution. I believe the results from studies on both sides of the debate provide important information but it is the intensity and absolution of the conclusions that defray the public. Skepticism, like misinformation is a relative term depending on which side of any debate you stand for. “Climate Myths” versus “what the science really says…” ? This is only leading to a different version of misinformation Therefore, in my opinion, this debate consists of: • Society that believes in human-induced climate change • Society that does not believe in human-induced climate change • Society that doesn’t care • And science that is being used inappropriately as a decision swaying tool. The Great Climate Change Debate highlights just how little humanity really understands about the Earth and its environmental processes. I fear that regardless of the real influence of climate change, if science continues to be portrayed in the current manner within the debate, society’s confidence in the discipline of science will be severely weakened.
  25. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    I don’t know who trunkmonkey is , but here you can found perhaps one of the most extreme bloggers in the ”climate skeptical” community. In the link there an agrresive attack against Kevin Trenberth, who is called among other things a “hardcore Stalinist” and a then insulted in a way that is so offensive that I cannot quote it without being snipped (read the blog post if your stomach is strong enough). What is more shocking is that this blogger, Lubos Motl, is a superstring theory quantum physicist(perhaps the most advanced area in the physics community), yet he cannot understand the elementary thermodynamics of planetary climate. I suspect that the explanation for the paradox of having people that are scientifically educated yet deny the evidence is ideology, since he believes that the climate consensus is a a “worldwide communist conspiracy” against capitalism and the free market. Maybe he had a trauma with the Stalinist regime decades ago, because he is Czech. What is more sad is that he is not alone in his beliefs. Czech Republic president Václav Klaus believes in this , and had even said things like calling environmentalists "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, market economy and prosperity" and even "Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences" along with other "isms" such as communism, feminism, and liberalism”. Not to mention some sectors of the US Republican Party... I have two questions: 1) How widespread are in the physics community this kind of ideas? I used to believe the physics community one of the more liberal and progressive among the scientific community 2) Maybe this skeptical science team paper could be used at Lubos Motl blog to show how wrong he is about the Kevin Trenberth’s “missing heat”(I think a paper will have a zero effect on himself, but maybe it could wake up true skepticism among his readers)
  26. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Further to Dale's post at #24:
    ...there hasn't been much movement either way in global surface temps (basically flat since 2003)...
    ignores the fact that 9 years is far too short an interval in which to distinguish signal from noise, even when there is underlying warming occurring. This point has been raised so many times before that raising it again deserves a hundred bucks in the naughty jar. Others have already addressed the relative sinking of heat energy into the oceans versus the atmosphere but it's probably worth repeating that it's entirely possible to have overall heating of the planet even when solar irradiance is constant, if the usual exist of thermal energy is restricted as happens with the increasing concentration of 'greenhouse' gases, and especially when taking into consideration the fact that it takes decades for equilibrium to be reached in the context of historic carbon emissions, no matter small variations in TSI. I'm surprised that anyone who's read SkS for more than a week is surprised by this.
  27. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    The problem is there is no mechanism for greenhouse gasses to warm the oceans. Oceans can warm the atmosphere, but the atmosphere has not been warming. One can argue that a warmer atmosphere would reduce radiative cooling of the oceans, but this would be proportional, and the graph shows ocean warming way out of proportion to the atmosphere. Granting Levitus for the sake of argument,this appears a lagging ocean effect of whatever caused the unusual atmospheric warming between the seventies and the millenium.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Ah, no. You must've missed this post then: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean

    Which is odd, considering that you placed comments on it here and here. Please do try to be more internally consistent.

    Continued belief in mystical cycles and "lags" lacking physical mechanisms while disregarding and ignoring actual physical mechanisms (that unusual warming effect is largely the increases in CO2 while other forcings were neutral/negative) is simply practicing climastrology.

  28. citizenschallenge at 15:38 PM on 12 October 2012
    Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    It was funny coming across my comment. What a difference a couple years makes. I found every word interesting, or should I say compelling, this time around. We live and learn. ~ ~ ~ Incidentally, here's an interesting recent talk about the history of ocean temperature observations: 135 Years of Global Ocean Warming - UCTV's Perspectives on Ocean Science "Join Dean Roemmich, Scripps physical oceanographer and study co-author, as he describes how warm our oceans are getting, where all that heat is going, and how this knowledge will help scientists better understand the earth's climate."
  29. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    chriskoz - A small point of disagreement, at least in emphasis. Solar energy is the only significant heat source, as anything else (geothermal energy, waste heat from our industrial use) is 2 or 3 orders of magnitude smaller. Changes in solar energy, on the other hand, are tiny - an order of magnitude smaller than anthropogenic greenhouse forcing changes over the last 150 years. Therefore when attributing causes of global warming over that period, solar changes simply are not in the ballpark for consideration. Dale - As dana1981 pointed out, the oceans (representing ~93% of the thermal mass of the climate) have continued to warm over the period you mentioned. The atmosphere represents only ~2.3% of the climate thermal mass, and any variations in the efficiency of which the oceans absorb energy will show much larger temperature variations in the atmosphere. There certainly have been variations in radiative imbalance over the last decade - ENSO, aerosol loads, etc. - but given that ocean heat content (OHC) continues to rise, even those are fairly small change regarding ongoing climate trends. To quote Galileo, or at least something attributed to him: "Eppur si muove" - And yet it moves. Global atmospheric temperatures represent but 1/40 of the climate energy, albeit a portion we pay considerable attention to.
  30. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    I further elaborate the response to Dale@24. Dale asks:
    What can cause the oceans to keep warming (as shown in the 2002-2008 line in the table in the article) when the accumulated heat sources decreased? Presumably, because we had the deepest solar minimum (as shown in http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/) at that time.
    Note that solar energy is not the only heat source. it'd variations (shown as TSI changes on the quoted page) resulted in some -0.23Wm-2 radiative forcing from 2000 on. The other heat sources (or more precisely radiative forcings): GHG, land use, albedo from aerosols, did not change much or slightly increased (CO2). As I said above, the total radiative imbalance from all sources is estimated to be 0.5Wm-2, so the drop in TSI did not result negative forcing: the earth as a whole was still gathering heat in the last decade. The strong hiatus (LaNina) esp in the end of last decade, resulted in the larger than average radiative imbalance in the last row on Table1. And that makes sense, because that table is a measure of heat imbalance. The more heat goes into ocean, the more radiative imbalance we have because the surface temperature (not the deep ocean) must rise to allow GHG to dissipate the enegry into space. You can also see from the last row of Table1, that hiatus has largest influence on planetary energy shifts than TSI variations. Again, makes sense and confirmed by others.
  31. Jerry Mitrovica: Current Sea Level Rise is Anomalous. We've Seen Nothing Like it for the Last 10,000 Years
    dr2chase, to add to KR's points, research the Laurentide, Scandinavian and British Ice Sheets, all present at the Last Glacial Maximum, along with other hefty mid-latitude ice caps in the Alps, Patagonia and elsewhere. The extent of many of these has kept geomorphologists busy for decades (early work was 19th Century), with estimates of thickness (e.g.research on nunataks), available ice volumes have become better understood in recent decades. These can be compared to the palaeo sea level record of water volume locked up in all ice sheets, as the water has few other places to go! So we have some pretty good knowledge of the size and shape of individual large ice sheets in past times. It was the big mid-latitude sheets that were most vulnerable to rapid change under pre-Industrial forcing, but modern forcing places the Antarctic (esp. WAIS) and Greenland into the "vulnerable" category. But... It's a much more complicated question to determine how fast the sheets might melt under a given forcing, as there are issues of feedbacks, dynamical responses, surface elevation changes, moisture availability amongst many other things. You can't simply look at the "coastline", at least in part because significant ice margins were on land! That's where some modelling comes in, to give insight into key processes, constrained by the geomorphological, sea level evidence and appropriate dating of each. Events like Meltwater Pulse 1A happened, but the processes driving that rapid sea level rise are not necessarily straightforward. Something like it may not happen to Greenland or Antarctica (the glaciology may not be favourable), but as yet it can't be easily ruled out.
  32. citizenschallenge at 12:09 PM on 12 October 2012
    Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Congratulations, Dana Nuccitelli, Robert Way, Rob Painting, John Cook and last but certainly not least John Church, You folks continue to impress and educate. Dana's quick reply to Dale's (@24) question was welcome since, as they say, it was "an excellent question" and I'd been chewing on it hoping you would reply. The reminder of Rob's "The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall" and the further links at the bottom of that post were great. Rob's "Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again" - "Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again" - "Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean" (happened to have reread that one a couple days ago) Ari's "Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle" Doug's "Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us" Are all cued up and ready for a rereading, but I wanted to stop back in again and say thanks for getting all this important information out there. Considering the steady degeneration of the contrarian-skeptic's dialogue into infantile rantings and emotionalizing (see the SkepticForum for examples) - you must be having a positive impact. Keep it up. By the way Daniel B. thanks for that link to "Global ocean currents 1994-2002" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tRiZG-yR24&NR=1 I hadn't seen that video before, beautiful and awesome !
  33. Jerry Mitrovica: Current Sea Level Rise is Anomalous. We've Seen Nothing Like it for the Last 10,000 Years
    I largely agree with Dr Mitrovica’s analysis of the effects of ice sheet melting and gravity on sea level but it does provoke questions. I note that he leaves to the very end of his lecture, a prediction making Hansen’s prediction on sea level rise look conservative. Hansen warns that present average global temperature is only a few tenths of a degree below the Eamian maximum when sea level was 5-6 metres above existing levels. Metrovica’s analysis predicts sea level rise of 6-8 metres by 2100 making both Hansen’s prediction and my own (4 metres) look somewhat conservative. I also agree with his conclusion that both USA coasts are very likely to prove particularly vulnerable to sea level rise caused attributable to ice loss from the WAIS but my view is that GIS will also contribute to rising sea levels on the east coast of the USA and that major cities and infrastructure on and near that coast will be inundated as a result.
  34. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Thanks Dana.
  35. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Dale @24 - it's a matter of more heat being shifted to the deeper oceans during 'hiatus decades'. See this post by Rob Painting on the subject.
  36. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Probably a silly question, but one I have all the same. According to GISSTemp there hasn't been much movement either way in global surface temps (basically flat since 2003). We also know that from 2005-2010 we saw the deepest solar minimum in satellite records. My question: what can cause the oceans to keep warming (as shown in the 2002-2008 line in the table in the article) when the accumulated heat sources decreased? Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
  37. Jerry Mitrovica: Current Sea Level Rise is Anomalous. We've Seen Nothing Like it for the Last 10,000 Years
    dr2chase - You might also research geological records of ice sheet extent; there is a lot of data available on extents, although the thickness of the ice sheets is still a point of discussion.
  38. Philippe Chantreau at 09:26 AM on 12 October 2012
    Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Congrats on the publication! Good to see that the SkS team not keeps up with the science but even adds to it.
  39. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    From Peru @21 - a pre-published version is linked in the post where it says Nuccitelli et al. (2012).
  40. Jerry Mitrovica: Current Sea Level Rise is Anomalous. We've Seen Nothing Like it for the Last 10,000 Years
    dr2chase - As I indicated, I would expect more information as isostatic and gravitational effects are disentangled with regional sea level proxies. That should include the possibility of determining mass distributions in both glacial and interglacial periods, depending on the number and certainty of those sea level proxies. I am looking forward to those papers.
  41. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Is there somewhere a pre-published version of the paper? (most physics papers are pre-published in Arxiv)
  42. Jerry Mitrovica: Current Sea Level Rise is Anomalous. We've Seen Nothing Like it for the Last 10,000 Years
    KR@16, yes, that's the state of the ice now. But in the paleoclimate record, what was the state of the ice just before sea level started rising multiple meters per century?
  43. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    chriskoz @19 - 0.62 is just the conversion factor between J/yr and W/m2. For the radiative imbalance see Table 1 in the paper and post. Our results are in the same ballpark as Hansen and a number of previous radiative imbalance studies. In the ballpark of 0.5 W/m2, depending on exactly what timeframe is considered.
  44. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    Dana@17, That number (Ftoa = 0.62Wm-2) coincides with the best estimate of the TOA radiative imbalance (I remember Jim Hansen said it was 0.5Wm-2). Looks like those numbers mean the same, at least to me. Can it be considered some confirmation, that TOA flux calculated from OHC changes (by large the main heat sink on the planet) and from radiative imbalance fall into the same ballpark?
  45. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    "SkS being an outlet of the League of Evil Scientists." Wha??? Where's my sticker, then?...;) I tend to think yours, and others, opinions are correct. If (snort..."if"...) Watts resorts to that, I see it as just more rhetorical rope with which to hang himself. I do 'sense a disturbance' in the (bloggers') Force that suggests the tide is truly turning towards science. It might be wishful thinking, however...
  46. Jerry Mitrovica: Current Sea Level Rise is Anomalous. We've Seen Nothing Like it for the Last 10,000 Years
    dr2chase - See the USGS reference on this topic. Potential (m) / Location 64.80 / East Antarctic ice sheet 8.06 / West Antarctic ice sheet 0.46 / Antarctic Peninsula 6.55 / Greenland 0.45 / All other ice caps, ice fields, and valley glaciers 80.32m Total In other words, Greenland and Antarctica are the primary repositories of land ice, and the source of past multi-meter changes in sea level. I expect that Mitrovica and company will be putting out a number of papers on specific attributions based upon relative sea level change fingerprints in the near future.
  47. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    DMCarey @15 - to convert from J to W/m2 you first get the change in energy over time (i.e. Joules per year converted to Joules per second = Watts), then divide by the surface area of the Earth to get W/m2. There's a formula in the paper (click the Nuccitelli et al. 2012 links in the above post for a free copy). Ftoa = 0.62[d(OHC)/dt] Where OHC is in Joules per year and Ftoa (top of the atmosphere flux) is in W/m2. Converting years to seconds and dividing by the Earth's surface area yields a convenient factor of 0.62.
  48. Jerry Mitrovica: Current Sea Level Rise is Anomalous. We've Seen Nothing Like it for the Last 10,000 Years
    AndrewDoddsUk@5, Would be lovely to know what ice was available to melt when we had meters-per-century rise. That's one part of the puzzle I'm unclear on; was this large chunks of the northern ice caps running off into the ocean? (that is, would the max rate be proportional to the length of the glacier faces onto the oceans?) Did sea level rise trigger some large positive feedback? Was it just plain *melt*? (wouldn't that require an extraordinary amount of heat delivered to white ice?)
  49. The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
    funglestrumpet notes: The more of those ugly wind turbines we have peppering our once beautiful landscape Others have pointed that wind turbines are a fair sight more attractive than, say, coal mines, but I would suggest most of the fixtures of modern fossil-fuel civilization are also unpleasant compared to wind farms. At the city where I live (Ottawa, Ontario), our old-school shopping centres near the city centre (Rideau Centre & St Laurent centre) are hideous concrete blocks. The building where I work is a squat metal box. The main highway through town (provincial highway 417) is a long strip of pavement marring the landscape. How are wind farms any uglier than most of the modern accountrements of affluence?
  50. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
    #9 MarkR - thanks, see it now...

Prev  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  1057  1058  1059  1060  1061  1062  1063  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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