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  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  1090  1091  1092  Next

Comments 54201 to 54250:

  1. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sean, " The examples chosen as cherry-picking are not really cherry picking, they just look like assertions to me..." That really is an asinine comment. There is no reason why a cherry pick cannot be presented via an assertion. For example, from our very own Bob Carter, parroted ably by a poor apology for an anthropologist on an adjacent blog: "The planet hasn't warmed since 2001" That is both a (false) assertion and simultaneously a cherry pick. Attempting to redefine what a cherry pick is won't work on this blog.
  2. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    dhogaza@38: in reading otherr stuff Leif's posted, along with the occasional brickbat aimed at the IPCC, I have begun to come to the understanding that your comment above ends up at: "Here's my hypothesis - Leif's a skeptic who thinks climate science is pretty much crap and so full of errors as to be something to ignore. However, he can't quite bring himself to deny the fruits of his own research ..." Ah....a *really* focused denier," perhaps?
  3. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    @Dale #31 - I am not a climate scientist, but I read what I can. In the short term (meaning, this may have started already) there is some belief (results from models, interpretation of recent weather patterns) that it leads to slower, loopier Rossby waves. These are the waves in the jet stream that separate temperate air from arctic air. Slower Rossby waves mean that whatever weather we have, will "stick" more often; if it's hot, it will stay hot for longer, and if it's cold, it will stay cold for longer, if it's raining, it will rain for more days. Loopy waves mean that we might get unusual cold spells in the south, and warm spells in the north. I first read about this at Early Warning. Note that some of the recent weather extremes we've seen -- extended cold snaps, extended drought, extended rain and flooding -- are all consistent with this hypothesis, and they're also pretty darn expensive. A disappearing ice cap prompts quite a few medium-term worries. #1, it's strong evidence that our climate models are overconservative. #2, it's a huge climate input that is not included in models, and it's an input that is superficially in the warming direction (reduced polar albedo). #3, there's a fear that arctic methane will be released by a warming environment, and this will lead to additional warming. All these things lead to #4, that we may have completely botched our predictions about how quickly the Greenland ice cap may flow into the ocean, and that sea level may rise more quickly, and that we may see other effects from an infusion of fresh water into the North Atlantic.
  4. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    "I'm embarrassed to say, but before your post I had not run into/noticed any reference to Leif; by looking at his CV, his data compilation, and reading through his measured, stridently *non* ad-hom responses on WUWT, I am *impressed.* I also notice that, unlike many other posts at WUWT, where someone with verifiably-good chops, viz. climate science/associated fields, chime into to 'conversations,' Tony usually can't resist sticking his smarmy, ad-homm-my comments in....dead *silence* from him on this one. I have a hypothesis: when Watts knows he's *w-w-w-way* out of his league (I know, I know, 'doesn't take much'...) he at least has the smarts to STFU." Here's my hypothesis - Leif's a skeptic who thinks climate science is pretty much crap and so full of errors as to be something to ignore. However, he can't quite bring himself to deny the fruits of his own research ... You'll find him often saying stuff like "even though the consensus as represented by the IPCC is totally wrong, don't make yourself foolish by claiming that changes in TSI have caused recent warming, because TSI hasn't really changed significantly as my own research shows". (that's a paraphrase based on his general position.) He's one of the few posters there who are skeptical and have any credibility and his bottom-line conclusion doesn't differ much from Watts' even though he tries to set people straight on one specific area of denialist beliefs. Watts puts up with the latter because Leif is "reliable" on the big picture, IMO.
  5. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    Geoff, you've seen the gold standard for dilettante critique of Lewandowsky. Your "contribution" doesn't overlap with that space at all, has instead been concentrated on chronological trivia. You say you understand how social scientists work? Ok, by that I take it you're claiming you have a grasp of some branch of social science at the PhD level, even if you've not actually produced a dissertation. That's not impossible but we have only your word for it. Why not show how you're capable of working at the level of a social scientist? Produce a critique of Lewandowsky's work at an academic level, a comment that might be suitable for publication, something relying on formally established alternatives to the methods chosen by Lewandowsky and employing those to show what's wrong with with his work. Don't skip anything, don't imply "trust me," don't leave anything to our imaginations. Failing that, recognize that you don't understand how social scientists work, consider instead being suitably humble and circumspect.
  6. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Dana @ 4 The problem is that the general public, on whom the politicians depend for votes, do not know that a body of opinion exists that "Soon and Briggs are not worth taking seriously." So when they see an article such as the one referred to, they have no reason not to believe it, and, therefore, the less reason the politicians feel the need for action. Let's face it, if politicians were going to act responsibly of their own accord, they would have done so by now and we would not even be facing ice-free Arctic summers.
  7. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Something is missing from the cryo sciences if the range of prediction is so great. Since we have never had a polar ocean that was ice free, hence never really could study it well. We may have nifty models of ocean heat retention that may help us model - but there are too many loose cannon tipping points: - Strong polar storms (slush makers), - Methane release (how fast?), - Strange new biomasses in the ocean (with seasons of constant sun, what can we predict?), - Coal dust aerosol-fed albedo changes (how dark will it go?) - Oil drill spill risk (just what would a sheen of crude do to ice formation?) - 17,000 Russian casks of high level radioactive waste suddenly uncovered (any studies done for an enclosed ocean?) - a few undersea earthquakes (means open water tsunamis). Lots of questions left.
  8. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sean Lamb - " The examples chosen as cherry-picking are not really cherry picking, they just look like assertions to me..." Just for clarity, quoting from the ever-popular Wiki on the Cherry Picking fallacy:
    ...the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.
    So yes - arguments that we haven't seen warming in insignificantly short time periods, or at a single temperature station, or that a particular glacier is actually growing - these are all cherry-picking, ignoring the full body of evidence in favor of a tiny subset that matches desired conclusions. In other words, those arguments are fallacies.
  9. Philippe Chantreau at 01:35 AM on 10 September 2012
    A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    SL, John Cook knows very well what cherry-picking is, you're the one who does not seem to understand: the people arguing that "it hasn't warmed since [insert whatever date here] cherry pick a part of the temperature record too short to indicate any kind of trend. It is entirely cherry picking: isolating a period over which the natural variation is much greater than the trend, and over which the natural variation happens to go slightly down. Some on this site have picked periods as short as 6 years to try to make that argument. Strangely enough, the same people often argue that 30 years of satellite records is not enough to detect a real trend in Arctic se ice and that natural variation may very well be the cause of the observed trend there. That's one way you can identify fake skeptics. As for your personal example, the way it is worded can allow you to disguise it as something else than the usual non sequitur, which goes "it has happened for other reasons before so it is happening for other reasons now." The disguise was so transparent that John Cook saw right through it. Nonetheless, to honor the carefully crafted wording of your specific argument, let's examine it as you have it worded: it has happened for other reasons before so we can't be sure that it's not happening again for other reasons now. I'm not sure about a latin name for it, but the argument is flawed and has no place in a rational scientific discussion. Let's imagine that a patient shows up in the ED with wheezing, a cough, enlarged lower extrenmities, who confesses she hasn't taken her "water pills" lately because she ran out and they're too expensive. You could argue that she's had coughing and wheezing before because of common colds and decide not to treat for congestive heart failure because a common cold can't be ruled out this time. That would be utterly stupid but justified according to your reasoning. In fact, even after obtaining lab results showing an elevated BNP and an echo showing enlargement with reduced ejection fraction, you could still argue the same thing, since it can not be absolutely ruled out that she's not coughing because of a common cold. The reasoning is profoundly flawed.
  10. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    @ mercl #29: I too am proud to be called an "alarmist." In a very real sense, all SkS authors are "alarmists." Many historical figures, including Paul Revere, were alarmists.
  11. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    @ Bernard J #33: Not only is Dale prone to shifting the goal posts, he simultaneously manages to meander all over the field. As such, the "ostrich" label cannot be applied to Dale because an Ostrich cannot keep its head buried in the sand and at the same time meander all over.
  12. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eric@65: "...I support much of CATO's stand on personal freedom and will not disassociate with them..." Well, there we go. I was reading along with this and one wag stated something to the effect this 'thread would be meaningless.' Au contraire. That statement, coupled with yours, is *perfect* for supporting John Cook's original thesis of this post, and you could not have done a better job of typifying, both "knee jerk" PNS, and the stand of every CATO admirer I've *ever* run into. at least you have the good graces to acknowledge that Pat Michaels doesn't know his....from an ozone hole in the air! At least that puts you ahead of the majority of CATOians I've had the pleasure to "discus" this topic with. As always, I learn as much or more from the comments in a post as I do from the post.
  13. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Also, Carrick's finding of one paper that gives a most likely value of 2C rather than 3C (even if the authors themselves had not declared that the value is probably too low) doesn't contradict Lloyd's statement that "Multiple lines of evidence support the usual Charney sensitivity estimate of 3.0° C". Multiple lins of evidence do support this, even if Carrick can cherrypick a small number of papers that suggest it's lower. His effort does fit in with the observations of the original post though ...
    Moderator Response: [DB] All parties: please take further discussion of climate sensitivity to the appropriate thread. Thank you all.
  14. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Carrick: "Lloyd Flack: Multiple lines of evidence support the usual Charney sensitivity estimate of 3.0° C. Not really, cloud sensitivity is all over the place and a chief source of uncertainty in equilibrium CS. Reference." Not really, really. The paper referenced by James Annan includes 3C sensitivity in its 95% confidence interval. While it's true the most likely value computed in the paper is 2C, the authors have this to say about their own work: "The estimate of S presented here is likely to be underestimated because the net forcing of the other indirect effects are likely to be negative (Forster et al., 2007)." If they're correct about their own work, we end up back in the 3C ballpark. Their estimate also has a nice tail to the right which isn't really comforting for those of us who, say, wouldn't feel comfortable playing russian roulette even if the revolver has say 30 or 40 chambers rather than 6 ...
  15. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Dale at #31. You're not trying to shift the goal posts, are you?
  16. Dikran Marsupial at 22:30 PM on 9 September 2012
    Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Dale, the key problem is the albedo effect. With the ice no longer reflecting sunlight back into space, it will warm the darker sea water underneath and the earth will warm even faster as a result. I suspect this will be felt most in the long run (centennial scale) as increasing sea levels due to more rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet. In the short term, it is thought possible that it will affect the jetstream, changing the distribution of weather patterns. In the medium term, more rapid increase in GMST.
  17. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    What climate impact will a summer ice-free Arctic bring to the World?
  18. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    I've said similar elsewhere but for the record, and based on the trend in ice volume, I figure that there's a 75% chance of an essentially ice-free summer between 2017 and 2020 and a 95% chance by 2025. If next year's minima continue on the same trend as the last few years, I'd up those percentages to 90% and 99% respectively.
  19. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    An Ice-free arctic seems very much to me to be a matter of how you define it. For me, it will be when an average sailor can cruise over the geographic North Pole without an iceberg in sight. Given that every single guess or prediction for arctic ice-melt has proven to be way too conservative, then I have no trouble believing that it could happen by 2015. Incidentally, I really don't mind being called an alarmist. An ice-free arctic ocean will be a very alarming situation. The responsible thing to do is ring the alarms.
  20. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, Please provide references to the peer reviewed literature to support your wild claims. Papers older than 2007 should reference the IPCC report. Your hand waving claims concerning feedback and the current catastrophic ice loss in the Arctic only illustrate your denial. On another thread (why did you post the same junk on two threads at the same time?) a poster referenced the water vapor feedback which I notice you have ignored. In 1894 Arrhenius did these calculations by hand. You still have not caught up with him. I suggest you read this seminal work. Obviously he understood something you have missed completely. Since you have such a concern about models: Arrhenius predicted over 100 years ago a climate sensitivity of 4.5C. This prediction remains solidly in the high probability range of climate sensitivity. Your 1C is way outside the range. What does that say about your predictions?
  21. Dikran Marsupial at 20:10 PM on 9 September 2012
    Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    agnostic, my statistical model suggested that an ice free Arctic was unlikely to occur before about 2027. Having said which I suspect this years minimum sea ice extent will fall below the credible region of my model (suggesting that my model is probably falsified as being too optimistic).
  22. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Agnostic, Unfortunately data from the future is not yet available. The ice is collapsing as we speak. What do we know? We know that in 2007 the IPCC estimated 50-100 years before ice free in the Arctic. The current estimates are 2-40 years. If that doesn't make your blood run cold what will?
  23. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Lloyd Flack:
    Multiple lines of evidence support the usual Charney sensitivity estimate of 3.0° C.
    Not really, cloud sensitivity is all over the place and a chief source of uncertainty in equilibrium CS. Reference. ( -Snip-).
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Yes, really. Charney sensitivity is climate sensitivity, not cloud sensitivity. Thus you set up a strawman argument via goalpost shift and cherry-pick.

    Inflammatory tone snipped.

  24. AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    #143 doug_bostrom at 06:29 AM on 9 September, 2012
    Spot-on, Geoff, you're exactly correct...
    But I do trust social scientists, and I do understand how they work. That’s the basis of my criticisms of this paper.
  25. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    adrian smits @15, There is open water north of 80 degrees right now. Arctic sea ice extent
  26. Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
    CBDunkerson thank you for the thorough reply.
  27. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    All very interesting but … do we know when the Arctic will be sea-ice free in summer? By 2020? By 2030? Informed views anyone?
  28. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Gack
  29. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    What an enjoyable post and threads....
  30. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    @ 15 Adrian Smits We have records going back more than 50 years: Temperatures North of 80 degree North Unfortunately for your claim they show warming, not cooling. As pointed out above, that warming is limited as long as the polar ice cap remains. However, since other data shows the icecap is melting (getting thinner), you'll really have to provide something more than your opinion to show that it won't ever completely melt.
  31. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    "Micah, sorry, my fault. I brought up the politics. It's better for me to stay on the sensitivity thread instead." It's good that you did, because it fits with the claim that right-wing politics is a good predictor of denialism. We know your arguments regarding sensitivity are bollocks, it's good to know why you hold on to your views despite an overwhelming amount of science. If you're right, you're not just Galileo ... you're Galileo, Einstein, Bohr, Darwin and others rolled into one.
  32. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    I was a little amused to see this under examples of "Magnifying dissenters and non-experts" (emphasis mine) "Nils-Axel Mörner,"... "and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing." ... not even trying?
  33. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eric, you seem to forget that when we estimate the temperature sensitivity we are not looking at a process and projecting it forward in time. Rather we are looking at equilibrium points. If we make this disturbance in the heat balance, how much does the temperature have to change to reestablish equality of heat input and output. We can split the temperature sensitivity into four components. The first is the direct effect of the non precipitating greenhouse gases being introduced. The next is the effect of the feedback from changes in precipitating greenhouse gases, water vapor on Earth). The next is other atmospheric feedbacks, primarily clouds. The final one is non atmospheric feedbacks, primarily albedo changes and release from or absorption by natural reservoirs of greenhouse gases. The Charney sensitivity is the product of the first three and the Earth System sensitivity is the product of all four. Let's do a ballpark estimate of the sensitivity. The estimates from complex models will not be greatly different from these.. Now the direct effect of adding CO2 is a straightforward matter of spectral chemistry and radiative physics. It is agreed to be 1.2° C for a doubling of CO2. Given how much water vapor in the atmosphere changes as a result of temperature changes it is again straightforward to calculate its effect. The difficulty is that water vapour is not well mixed in the atmosphere. Still on average we will have the specific humidity increasing to keep the relative humidity roughly constant. Measurements can be and are taken of the changes in concentration that temperature changes bring. This effect is roughly a doubling. This already brings the sensitivity up to 2.4° C for a doubling of CO2, within the usually accepted range of estimates for the Charney sensitivity. Other atmospheric feedbacks is the difficult one. It is composed of circulation changes and cloud changes. The latter look like the big ones and they are composed both of positive feedbacks from trapping head and negative feedbacks from reflecting it back into space. Most estimates from models come up with a small positive net feedbacks but there is a large range including small negative or larger positive net feedbacks. Multiple lines of evidence support the usual Charney sensitivity estimate of 3.0° C. For this to be wrong you either need the effect of water vapour to be greatly in error of you need a large negative feedback from clouds. Do you have any evidence of either of these? For evidence of the water vapour feedback being wrong you need to point to different estimates of that effect with sound justifications for those effects. These need to be calculations from empirical evidence of the water vapour changes. For a large negative feedback from clouds, again evidence is needed. It is hard to estimate the vale of the non atmospheric feedbacks but there is no doubt about their sign. Paleoclimatic evidence support a doubling but since we are starting from a smaller ice cover than the transition out of glacials this is probably a bit high. But there is no way that the albedo changes will be anything but a positive feedback. And as for the release of greenhouse gases from permafrost etc. it's impossible for them to be negative. So evidence please that some of the estimates of these components are greatly in error.
  34. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Dagold, try this one: [Source]
  35. It's cooling
    I'm not sure if this is the correct thread for these questions. I'm interested in why the rate of warming in the Northern Hemisphere is faster than the rate of warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Is it due to the following factors: a. The greater proportion of land to water surface in the North. b. The fast-spinning ring of air over the Arctic which affects the jet stream that helps drive the movement of winter storms. c. The localised effect of positive feedbacks such as Arctic amplification. Are these factors correct? Are there any other factors influencing this phenomenon?
  36. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    @Sphaerica (14), the end-run is interesting from a science perspective certainly.... but we need political action, and that's going to be driven not so much by longterm climate sensitivity but by projections the average person can understand. For A1Fi, IPCC projected in AR4 a likely temperature range at the end of the century. My common sense says that temp range at that date assumed lots more cryosphere albedo in mid-century than it appears we are really going to have. With it removed, (and together with all the other feedbacks we've learned about too) IPCC's upper boundary for A1Fi at the end of the century should go up, yes?
  37. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Micah, sorry, my fault. I brought up the politics. It's better for me to stay on the sensitivity thread instead. In the big picture threads like this don't matter. There are thousands of links into skepsci and there won't be any to this thread (they would link to John's original article). It's almost completely inconsequential.
  38. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    @mikeh1: On the other hand, Eric is entertaining us with a never-ending version of the Dance of the Climate Ostrich.
  39. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    Love this article! I noted Dr. Moore's tendency toward Gish Gallop in a lengthy serial review of his book I wrote last year. I don't have the science chops the author, but found the Moore diatribe around global warming to be easy for even a semi-literate bloke like myself to take apart. he unfortunately has cultivated a following up here in Western Canada as a "sensible environmentalist", which means he has some Envrionmental credibility due to his PhD in Ecology and his Greenpeace roots, but he is sensible enough to say whatever his funding industry likes to hear. Moore's autobiography is an interesting read, part because of the tales of adventure on the sea from the early days of Greenpeace, and partly as a long game of "find the logical fallacy" as he tries to argue that the Envrionment is doing OK, and we should worry more about jobs.
  40. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    timothyh @ 51 says "it is important to rebut the denialists" That is true up to a point. The problem is that in the blog format that is favoured by climate science sites, the deniers get to frame the debate. Look at this thread. Eric (skeptic) has diverted it into a off-topic discussion of his right-wing views - his "climate science" which he believes is so "sophisticated" compared to poptech is really the same old tripe that you can read over at the models thread but stated more politely. The debate is asymmetric - WUWT simply dump posts or ban posters they find challenging - yet climate science sites provide a platform for the denier trolls. My point is that there needs to be more focus on outreach. The Conversation has an objective of doing that but it is effectively nullified by complete lack of moderation. It is like explaining evolution by debating creationism - seriously - is that the best way to do it? That seems to me to fly in the face of John Cook's warnings in The Debunking Handbook.
    Response: [JC] Note that the Debunking Handbook doesn't say "don't engage misinformation", on the contrary. What it does say is when you engage misinformation, put the emphasis on the core facts you wish to communicate, rather than the myth. Practical applications of this are simple practices like avoiding using the myth as the headline of your debunking. In fact, in an educational setting, it's been shown that directly refuting myths is more effective in reducing the influence of misinformation than simply teaching the facts. The lesson from the Debunking Handbook is that we should debunk myths, but do it right.
  41. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    re" 65 Do you support CATO's longtime paid support of the rights of tobacco companies to kill children slowly?
  42. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    excuse this somewhat off topic- but it does have to do with global temp and ice melt!: I simply have been unable to find a graph of temp. records going back to 400,000 BC (a la Vostock) which include the last century of warming to present date (the 'hockey stick)- can only find graphs that have us still below 'Holocene Climactic Optimum'. I need this for a presentation to demonstrate how close we are (a la Hansen's 2C warning) to the Eemian maximum. Anyone?
  43. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Adrian's remark is in keeping with "Because the freezing point of sea water at MSLP is -2°C, global warming is falsified."
  44. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Michael, my claim is fairly narrow: that the use of paleo evidence should point to a lower sensitivity considering the uncertainties (underestimated dust, ignoring the positive feedback of benign interglacial weather with lower latent heat flux). I do not claim that there are not new positive feedbacks that will raise S that were not part (or not a major part) of the G to IG transition. As for your question which is how does albedo change now compare to albedo change from G to IG in order for S to be similar. The answer is it is not comparable. First of all, earth-averaged albedo can vary week to week to cause 0.1C or more of warming or cooling in GAT, so random fluctuations in cloud albedo overwhelms surface changes like snow and ice loss in the short term. Over the long term the albedo evidence is mixed. One problem is the influence of decadal cycles. Here's an older paper showing a long term decline followed by a short term rise: Changes in Earth’s Reflectance over the Past Two Decades I'm sure there are more recent articles but I don't have one handy. But it does not appear that the melting snow and ice has much of an effect on albedo.
  45. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    Eric, So if you discount all the feedbacks the climate sensitivity would only be 1C. You have hit the nail right on the head! Everyone knows this, why didn't you suggest it sooner? Unfortunately, there are copius positive feedbacks and much less negative ones. The final climate sensitivity including feedbacks is estimated to be 3C for the short term and 6C for the long term. Too bad for all those people in 200 years! You must include the feedbacks. As for a lack of ice feedbacks, please provide me a calculation of the feedback due to the current loss of snow cover in the northern hemisphere (see the global snow lab at Rutgers for data) and the albeido response for the loss of Arctic sea ice. The sea ice alone has been estimated as equal to 20 years of CO2 emissions. The snow loss is comparable. Deniers make such absurd arguments. Are you really completely uninformed about the snow and ice loss you so easily dismiss? Please read up on the background information so your claims become more realistic.
  46. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Sph@10:So, because of your suggestion: -My learning curve got a bit more steep, and; -I've set myself to studying Leif's work. I'm embarrassed to say, but before your post I had not run into/noticed any reference to Leif; by looking at his CV, his data compilation, and reading through his measured, stridently *non* ad-hom responses on WUWT, I am *impressed.* I also notice that, unlike many other posts at WUWT, where someone with verifiably-good chops, viz. climate science/associated fields, chime into to 'conversations,' Tony usually can't resist sticking his smarmy, ad-homm-my comments in....dead *silence* from him on this one. I have a hypothesis: when Watts knows he's *w-w-w-way* out of his league (I know, I know, 'doesn't take much'...) he at least has the smarts to STFU. Lastly, to adrian smits: *Really?* Have you ~read~ any receent temperature graphs? Now, off to do some heavy reading about solar stuff.....
  47. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sphaerica, regarding my "knee-jerk science rejection", I pointed out in comment two that the 3% properly applies to rejections of GHE. After essentially being asked what I reject, I said high sensitivity was one example. I accept some and reject some of this attribution. I accept Arctic amplification, chuck101, but it is over-represented in the sensitivity analysis which assumes similar albedo changes from glacial to present as from present to double CO2. I accept the fact that the atmosphere is a commons, but I have issues with some cost estimates (some time I will look for a suitable thread). I accept this challenge for the right with the important caveat that I support much of CATO's stand on personal freedom and will not disassociate with them except to confirm that CATO employee Pat Michaels is an editorialist, not a scientist In short I am as "knee jerk" as one would expect coming from a libertarian mindset, but not as knee jerk as some (e.g. poptech), so that is a good thing.
  48. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Adrian, In ninth grade science we teach the students that a phase change occurs at a constant temperature. The temperature north of 80 will be approximately 1C until all the ice melts. When the energy increases the ice melts faster but the temperature stays the same. Then it will increase in temperature. Until all the ice is gone the sign of a phase change is the ice is getting thinner. Hey presto! The ice is getting thinner as expected.
  49. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    15, Adrian Smits, Keep telling yourself that.
  50. A detailed look at climate sensitivity
    That's a good idea. I found ref 59: Schneider_etal_climate_sensitivity.pdf

Prev  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  1090  1091  1092  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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