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  1165  1166  1167  1168  1169  1170  1171  1172  1173  1174  1175  1176  1177  1178  1179  1180  Next

Comments 58601 to 58650:

  1. The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
    Typo alert "preceeding" should be "preceding".
  2. Newcomers, Start Here
    curiousd @208, the short of it is that that persons geology is indeed out of date. Specifically, he used rather inexact proxies in the form of biological markers and stomata in fossil leaves to calculate both CO2 levels and temperatures. On top of that, he ignores the fact that geological strata going that far back typically have resolutions of around 5 - 10 million years. In other words, using typical strata it would be impossible to distinguish geologically between the Holocene, and the Last Glacial Maximum. More recently, a number of high resolution strata have been found which enable a more detailed examination of the record. The situation in 2006 was summarized by Dana Royer (PDF). Since then, even the few exceptions to no glaciation without low CO2 found by Royer have been found, with higher resolution data, to not be exceptions (although in some cases the interpretation of the data is still in dispute). Richard Alley gave an excellent presentation of the current information at the 2009 Fall meeting of the AGU.
  3. Newcomers, Start Here
    Hi, curiousd-- Check out this SkS article and post any further questions or comments there. The short of it: the sun was much less active during that period.
  4. Newcomers, Start Here
    I have been teaching an elementary Physics of Environment college course for many years and agree that the scientific case for AGW is overwhelming. But one of the more apparently effective global warming skeptic internet posts can be found at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html This person claims that "The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm." Has anyone else here looked at this? Maybe this guy's geology is out of date? I am not a geologist and I don't have expertise in the area of ancient temperatures versus CO2 levels.
  5. Bert from Eltham at 13:15 PM on 28 May 2012
    Bob Carter's Financial Post Gish Gallop of Scientific Denial
    [snip]
    Moderator Response: [KC] Please no accusations of deception, whatever the source. The rest of your comment may have overstepped the ad-hominem criterion, although a more experienced moderator may overrule me on that.
  6. Bob Lacatena at 11:37 AM on 28 May 2012
    Dead Ahead: Less Rainfall for Drought-Sensitive Southern Hemisphere Regions?
    9, Steve Case, Your argument has been proven to be invalid. Regardless of what you believe or want to believe, the facts in this case seem clear.
  7. Dead Ahead: Less Rainfall for Drought-Sensitive Southern Hemisphere Regions?
    "I know what the catechism is, I just don't believe it" Then you had better try harder in presenting us with some credible evidence why you don't (aside from ideology), rather presenting in effect disinformation.
  8. Dead Ahead: Less Rainfall for Drought-Sensitive Southern Hemisphere Regions?
    Steve Case @9, let me remind you that the hypothesis you were testing was:
    'Theoretical climate models have shown that global warming could push storm tracks southward "and away from the mainlands of southern Africa, South America and Australia"'.
    Regardless of whether you believe it or not, there was no justification for using data which is dominated by northern, monsoonal rainfalls when testing a hypothesis about a shift of the prevailing westerlies further south.
  9. Dead Ahead: Less Rainfall for Drought-Sensitive Southern Hemisphere Regions?
    Scaddenp #8 Yes, I know what the catechism is, I just don't believe it.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Please review the comments policy. Subtle efforts to violate it are still efforts to violate it.
  10. Dead Ahead: Less Rainfall for Drought-Sensitive Southern Hemisphere Regions?
    Steve, I would also note that you know about prediction of wet getting wetter and dry getting drier, because you were informed about it here. Did this slip your mind when you decided to show rainfall for all of Australia?
  11. Dead Ahead: Less Rainfall for Drought-Sensitive Southern Hemisphere Regions?
    Steve Case @4, coming as I do from Australia, and in particular from Queensland where most rain falls during the summer months, I cannot help noticing that not all of Australia is "the semi-arid winter rainfall regions of ...Australia", and have to wonder why you plotted rainfall for the whole of Australia rather than just for the relevant region. The relevant region is, of course, Southern Australia, particularly South Western Australia, which is not influenced by the complicating factor of ENSO: As noted, in South Eastern Australia, the picture is complicated by ENSO oscillations. In particular, heaving flooding over the last two summer/spring seasons in Victoria related to the most recent La Nina have resulted in a slight positive trend, although there is still a clear decline over the last 30 years: However, the declining trend is clear in Winter: and Autumn: Of course, South Eastern Australia is not semi-arid, so technically does not come under the prediction in the paper. Given that monsoons are predicted to increase in strength with increased warming, and that averaging across monsoonal,and winter rainfall regions precipitation is predicted to increase; I again have to wonder why you are quoting an area which includes monsoonal rainfall as a counter example to a claim about semi-arid areas with predominantly winter rainfall. All images from the Bureau of Meteorology, where you can play around with the graphing tool to get a more detailed picture.
  12. If you want them to remember, tell a story
    "From race car mechanic to geologist?? I'll bet THAT'S a good story in itself!" jimpsey and funglestrumpet, if only you knew! To not crud up the comments section too badly, email me and I'll be happy to tell you how I went from "cars to karst" (I'm STEALING that) and how it was all by accident. Literally...:P)
  13. Dead Ahead: Less Rainfall for Drought-Sensitive Southern Hemisphere Regions?
    Steve see here for how to do hyperlinks. As to rainfall total map of Australia, you will note the prediction is for the north to get a lot wetter. I dont think this is inconsistent. In a warming world, you should get more rainfall, but this is expected to be much heavier in many existing wet regions while many dry regions get drier.
  14. Dead Ahead: Less Rainfall for Drought-Sensitive Southern Hemisphere Regions?
    I don't know why my links don't work, here's the one for the data: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/rain03.txt and the web page: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/rain.shtml
  15. Dead Ahead: Less Rainfall for Drought-Sensitive Southern Hemisphere Regions?
    The article says: Theoretical climate models have shown that global warming could push storm tracks southward "and away from the mainlands of ...Australia," said Stager. "The same also appears to be true for the semi-arid winter rainfall regions of ...Australia ... "When it comes to climate change, there's more to consider than warming alone," he said. "In places like these, increasing drought could bring far-reaching challenges." After a very short Google search I found this page and the data. And a few minutes to plot it out I get: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/rain03.txt Why should I believe that "Global Warming" is going to lead to Australian drought when the last 100 years of rising temperatures appears to have done the opposite? In fact, the trend shows a little acceleration.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed formatting issues.
  16. Daniel Bailey at 06:04 AM on 28 May 2012
    Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
    "there is something very child-like about the way Climate Scientists believe almost anything they are told - so longs as it's scary enough!"
    Actually, there is something very child-like about the way deniers like Justin disbelieve almost anything they are told (told, because they refuse to do the hard work and learn about things for themselves) - because it's "too scary" and therefore cannot be true!
    Moderator Response: TC: We now have seven responses to Justin's comments. Any further responses prior to his responding to these comments will be deleted based on the "no dogpiling" clause of the comments policy. I request that those who have already responded to Justin not respond to remarks by Justin directed specifically at other people, should he respond, on the same basis. Thank you.
  17. Stephen Baines at 03:34 AM on 28 May 2012
    Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
    Justin You state. "...something very child-like about the way Climate Scientists believe almost anything they are told - so longs as it's scary enough!" This makes no sense on the face of it. If the level of "scary" was all the climate scientists pay attention to, why do they discount runaway greenhouse to venus conditions, or 25m sea-level rise before 2100? Why do they put an upper limit on effects of a doubling of CO2 at all? Why do they still discuss contentious issues like the effect of warming on hurricane and tornado frequency and intensity? Or the effect of clouds as feedbacks? The irony is that the scenario you are implicitly promoting is far scarier to me than any scenario proposed by mainstream climate science. It presupposes that we as a society (that you and I belong to) cannot assess and respond rationally to future threats. Such cynicism dooms us to suffer the consequences of such threats, no matter what they be. It presumes, since no one can be trusted, the world will be fine no matter what anyone tells you. You also brought up the WMD debacle. You could not have chosen a more different case to climate science. The WMD issues was one that, by it's very nature, involved very little hard evidence, a lot of conjecture based on past events and a short time line set in part by political contingencies. Climate science, by contrast, has accumulated a ocean of direct measurements and theoretical understanding over 150 years, and contues to do so on a daily basis. Ignoring that evidence on the principle that noone can be trusted and all will be fine is just as childlike, in my view, as believing that everything that is scary is true.
  18. Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
    Perhaps Justin has a point. 'Heat-seeking missiles' could just a means for 'scientists' at 'the Pentagon' to get rich at public expense. As if this is really the 'heat signature' of an engine that such technology exploits: -- source Or this could be a necessary counter-measure: -- source And it's not just the Pentagon. Even the Australian Air Force is in on it.
  19. Glenn Tamblyn at 20:33 PM on 27 May 2012
    Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
    Gavin's final comment on his post is interesting: "Analyses of the CMIP5 models will provide some insight here since the historical simulations have been extended to 2012 (including the last solar minimum), and have updated aerosol emissions. Watch this space." So instead of just extrapolating from 2003 with CMIP3, it will now be modelled out to 2012 with CMIP5. Watch that space.
  20. Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
    Justin, I suspect you're just passing through and won't actually respond to any of the comments here. If so, too bad. Nevertheless, you give us a good chance to do follow-up on the video for the sake of the general public stopping by SkS. Thank you. Essentially, the video is saying that the basic science of so-called "greenhouse gases" has been independently tested by organizations that have no reason to take a side in the climate "debate." Indeed, they were testing the science when there was no debate. Why should we believe the Pentagon? Because their air-to-air missiles are pretty effective pieces of engineering, engineering that had to overcome interference from atmospheric CO2. Of course, in general, if you don't have the time, energy, means, or training to come to an understanding of the science yourself, it's not a terrible idea to trust large, successful institutions that are preparing for events decades from now. Insurance companies and the US armed services, without much fanfare, are both gearing up for a warmer Earth.
  21. Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
    Justin: Accept it [climate science] because the Pentagon thinks it is true? No. Reject it [climate science] because is a socialist plot? Well, is the Pentagon normally considered a source of socialist thinking? It the Pentagon in on "the hoax"? Do we assume that climate science is wrong because the Pentagon thinks it is right? You may think so, but I accept the science on climate and human-induced warming, and if I agreed with that because I agreed with the commo/pinko/anti-capitalist "agenda", then I would certainly be surprised to hear that the Pentagon agreed with me.... ...so perhaps the fact that the Pentagon shares some of my views is because we share some connection to reality, rather than we've been drinking the same Kool-aid... Please wait while I remove my tin-foil hat...
  22. Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
    Justin, Alley is asking us to believe the basic atmospheric physics behind anthropogenic global warming because it's long-established science. He's just giving the history behind that science because it might make climate ostriches more able to pull their heads out of the sand to know that these scientific principles were discovered by the military during defense research. Your rejection of the science based on a rather silly attack on the Pentagon demonstrates that it will take a lot to get some ostriches to pull their heads out.
  23. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    SRJ: Just a brief comment to supplemet Sphaerica's comments. You said "[is] Modtran is too simple to this? , and the answer is "yes". Modtran does radiation calculations. The atmospheric temperature profile responds to the entire energy transfer, of which radiation is only a part - an important part, but only a part. To complete the energy transfer, you need to look at - vertical transfer of thermal energy - vertical transfer of "latent heat" (condensation/evaporation, related to vapour transport) - horizontal transfer of the same (because you're only looking at one point in the atmosphere, not the global total) The key statement of Sphaerica's is "the convective transport of heat and moisture not only upward, but also poleward." Motran is not a climate model, is is a radiative transfer model. Only one part of a climate model.
  24. Bob Lacatena at 11:31 AM on 27 May 2012
    Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
    Justin, Perhaps you should actually listen to the video and comment on what it says, rather than what you'd like to rant about. When you're done doing that, actually go study the science and understand the sound basis for it. Deniers will continue to dismiss the claims put forward by anyone not because of how they are put forward, but because they cannot overcome the core (child-like) reflex that causes their brains to malfunction and to reject evidence and logic in favor of conspiracy theories and any bizarre idea that points somewhere else, anywhere but towards real climate science.
  25. Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
    Is he being serious? Is Richard Alley asking us to believe in stuff because the Pentagon says its true? The Pentagon? Since when has the Pentagon or any other military organisations in the world, given us the truth? Have he forgotten about Iraq's WMD? How can anyone write a book or a blog based on this type of infantile story-telling? A lot of people believe in UFOs, including the US military. It doesn't mean it has any sound basis in science. We deniers will continue to dismiss the claims put forward by people like Richard Alley because there is something very child-like about the way Climate Scientists believe almost anything they are told - so longs as it's scary enough!
  26. Dead Ahead: Less Rainfall for Drought-Sensitive Southern Hemisphere Regions?
    bath_ed @2, I am no expert, but my understanding is that semi-arid regions still retain soil, ie, fine grained dirt including some humus, which can be the basis of agriculture with more water. Even then, many semi-arid soils are poor quality, and will quickly become exhausted with ordinary agricultural practices. In contrast, in truly arid areas, the dirt often consists of coarse sands, or is salty, or covered in rocks; and will require substantial preparation to be suitable for agriculture. Consequently, I would expect expansion of the Intertropical Convergence Zone into the Sahel would give an immediate boost to agriculture, but expansion into the Sahara would not.
  27. Dead Ahead: Less Rainfall for Drought-Sensitive Southern Hemisphere Regions?
    A minor nitpick but it is Verlorenvlei (often also spelt Verlorevlei) not Lake Verlorenvlei. Vlei is an Afrikaans word derived from the Dutch vallei (valley) with a meaning that has shifted to mean a marsh, lake or other wetland, and is widely used in (South African) English. I'm not sure about lack of soils for irrigation - I believed that many arid and semi-arid lands provided good crops if provided with artificial irrigation.
  28. Bob Lacatena at 04:35 AM on 27 May 2012
    The human fingerprint in the seasons
    SRJ, Actually, I'll backpedal a little, in that the basic argument that winter will see more nighttime warming, and that is due to at least in part to radiative effects, is true. But... 1) All warming, regardless of cause, will invoke a strong, positive water vapor effect which will demonstrate this effect. 2) Any effects are complicated by everything else going on (as I already stated). 3) The implementation of Modtran you are using is ill-suited to this in particular because it is not simulating night-time, or an entire day or month or season. It is not a "climate model." It is a simple calculation that says, at some moment in time, given certain conditions, what will the radiative profile look like. [In fact, I'm now wondering what "time of day" that particular program is using -- I assume noon -- because that obviously is a factor as well. I'm surprised it's not another parameter to be selected.] The main point you should take away from this is that Modtran is absolutely the wrong tool for the job in this case (as far as I can tell).
  29. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    # 174 Sphaerica Thank you for the response. But if it is as you say that increased winter warming is not a direct result of radiative effects, then I think the opening section of this article is too simplifying. But I guess that is how it is to avoid it being to technical. I think I will have to read Arrhenius' article to get a better understanding of this.
  30. Arctic Winter Analysis
    Now how did the embedding of the images go... Took one section of the Modis Rapid Response site (in between Beaufort Sea and East Siberian Sea) and enhanced contrast as to see if the different thicknesses of ice could show up, as the melt progresses the ice turns a bit grey (albedo decreases) so this method could give some indication of the health of the icepack...: judgement: not very healthy.
  31. Dead Ahead: Less Rainfall for Drought-Sensitive Southern Hemisphere Regions?
    OTOH, the expansion of Hadley cells as the evaporation in the tropical oceans increases could make the rainy season of tropics occur more widely and for a longer period. But as this expansion would occur on locations that are currently deserts there would be no more soils for irrigation. Speedy check on the map would indicate that movement of 1200km (~width of the subtropical desert belt) would be required to continue farming on these locations. In the Northern Hemisphere things could change quicker as the polar cell will be destroyed by the abolition of Arctic ice at least in summer. And is the Hadley circulation constrained by the tilt of the Earth, so it cannot expand so much? Some sort of simple model might be enough to answer this question, as these are large-scale structures of the atmosphere that are shifting locations.
  32. Philippe Chantreau at 15:35 PM on 26 May 2012
    Mars is warming
    Thank you Tom, this is the point I was trying to convey in post #11 up there a few years ago. Intellectual bankruptcy is the word indeed.
  33. Mars is warming
    I'm a bit bored, so I've decided to actually show the "big beautifol really obvious ice caps" Duncan claims to have seen in the 70's. First from the Mariner missions in 1969: The two images where taken be separate craft on flybys, within six days of each other in 1969. Then from the Viking program in 1980: Viking even produced a mosaic map of Mars, showing the massive polar ice caps that existed just 30 years ago: If you think I am laughing at the intellectual bankruptcy of deniers like Nahle who try to flog this dead horse, you are right.
  34. Mars is warming
    Scott Duncan #28: "pathetic small and mostly non-existent ice caps." This is really big news, or at least it was in 2003: Mars is melting Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. "It's late spring at the south pole of Mars," says planetary scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it." The south pole is indeed more dynamic: The coincidence of aphelion with northern summer solstice means that the climate in the northern hemisphere is more temperate than in the southern hemisphere. In the south, summers are hot and quick, winters long and cold. Seasons! Who'd have thought that?
  35. Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
    You can find the full list of the "How to talk to an ostrich" videos here: http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/main-video/how-to-talk-to-an-ostrich It is only one of the resources associated with Richard Alley's book, Earth the Operator's Manual, and associated PBS series. Other interesting resources are the ETOM "heroes"; and a series of articles about the issues related to global warming.
  36. Mars is warming
    Well, let's look at the photos, or images at least: Mars, 1873: Mars, 2007: So from 1873 to 2007, Mar's NH polar cap has approximately the same size, while its SH polar cap has greatly expanded. But what about images like this: According to AGW denier, Nasif Nahle, this is a ...
    "Sequence of photos illustrating the Global Warming on Mars. Observe how Mars' Polar Caps have been melting since 1990, the same phenomenon has been occurring on Earth."
    Except, when I look at the pictures, I see the large expansion of the SH polar cap from 1995-2001, followed by its contraction. I also see the initial contraction of the NH polar cap, followed by its expansion, after which it is hard to say what it does because it is hidden behind the limb of the planet. Clearly, the polar caps of Mars are very dynamic. The rapidity with which they change their extent can be seen in this montage showing the NH cap over a period of six months: As we know, by 2001,it had already regained its lost extent, and no doubt lost it again before regaining it in 2007. AGW deniers, like Nahle, are attempting to portray images of seasonal variation as proof of global warming on Mars. But if you look at all the evidence, its easy to see through their parlour trick.
  37. Scott Duncan at 07:48 AM on 26 May 2012
    Mars is warming
    Interesting thread people. But one slight problem - I have been watching Mars since a young lad in the Apollo moon landings. Look at the photos of Mars in the 1970's - big beautifol really obvious ice caps. Now look at Mars - pathetic small and mostly non-existent ice caps. Why? [snip]
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Off-topic gish gallop snipped. Please familiarise yourself with the comments policy. SkS is for scientific discussion, not rhetorical debate. Data and references to scientific litterature that support your assertions are always much more convincing than anecdotal evidence.
  38. Bob Lacatena at 06:27 AM on 26 May 2012
    The human fingerprint in the seasons
    173, SRJ, I think there are a number of things you are doing wrong... for example, I think you should start by balancing your scenarios with the outgoing, top of atmosphere radiation equal to an appropriate, incoming (solar) annual/daily average. But right there you run into a big problem, because the daily average for the planet (239 W/m2) varies dramatically by latitude and season. More importantly, there are many, many hugely important factors that are not modeled in pure radiative transfer (such as convection, clouds, water vapor, and albedo changes due to changes in snow and ice). The largest is the convective transport of heat and moisture not only upward, but also poleward. A noticeable increase in temperature/heat at the equator will translate into additional (and further) transport of heat/moisture north and south, in addition to radiative warming at those locations. The point is... increased winter warming is not a direct result of purely radiative effects of increased greenhouse gases. It is instead a result of the multiple confounding factors in climate, and one that is predicted by (a) complex climate models that simulate those factors and (b) paleo-studies that find such differences in past climate change events.
  39. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    IMO there are two additional characteristics of scientific denialism which do not necessarily fit in the characteristics described here in the OP or over at Denialism blog: Misrepresentation: Denialists tend to misrepresent - whether ignorantly, inadvertently, or intentionally - the scientific literature as well as the statements and positions of scientists, scientific bodies, and other advocates (individuals or groups) supporting the mainstream/consensus position. Such misrepresentations are made in the service of almost every other characteristic of denialism, which is why I would promote them to a separate characteristic. Examples: - misrepresentation of the content of the hacked UEA-CRU emails is undertaken to reinforce the accusations of conspiracy/hoax/what-have-you - misrepresentation of credentials is used by denialists to reinforce their acceptance of fake experts (e.g. Monckton's claims regarding the House of Lords or the Nobel prize) - cherry-picked papers are often misrepresented as stating some conclusion not related to, or out of line from, or even in diametric opposition to, what they actually say (e.g. the recent paper regarding Medieval Climate Anomaly at Antarctic sites, Monckton on Greenland ice, Forbes magazine's blowing Spencer & Braswell 2011 out of proportion) - the misrepresentation of climate science's basis being solely dependent on models is a necessity for setting up impossible expectations/shifting goalposts, as is the misrepresentation of historical denialism (e.g. claims that "skeptics" have never denied warming, or that CO2 causes warming, or the like) - most obviously, misrepresentations are often crucial components of typical logical fallacies such as ad hominem arguments, appeals to emotion, false equivalencies, and straw men arguments - related to my other suggested characteristic, below, the continuous use of misrepresentation creates an environment in which denialist claims can be accepted with undue credulity. Credulity: Denialists tend to accept - and propagate - with unseeming credulousness claims made against the body of mainstream climate science, or against scientists or advocates espousing mainstream climate science, or even against the physics underpinning mainstream climate science. Such credulity extends to accepting claims made on the basis of poor physics (e.g the typical crank claim that the atmospheric heat-trapping effect violates the laws of thermodynamics or other stuff routinely discussed @ Science of Doom), poor statistics (e.g. the material routinely debunked by Tamino), long-ago-refuted or dismissed material (e.g. claims that the heat-trapping effect of CO2 is saturated) or even self-contradicting sets of claims (as documented elsewhere here on Skeptical Science. As with misrepresentation, credulity is such a key component of other characteristics of denialism that IMO it deserves to be a characteristic of its own. Also, suffice to say, the credulity required to engage in denialism puts paid to the self-identification of denialists and contrarians as reasonable skeptics. Examples: - Many claims of conspiracy (such as suggesting peer review == theocracy, or claiming the resignation of the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing over Spencer & Braswell 2011 was evidence of the IPCC 'clique' at work) require a rather credulous mindset - indeed, accepting the existence of a vast conspiracy comprising thousands of scientists across the world, the IPCC, every major scientific academy and almost every major scientific organization requires a very credulous mindset - I submit that it takes a great deal of credulity to accept the likes of Anthony Watts, Christopher Monckton, or Fred Singer, as superior authorities to the IPCC, the NAS, and notable climate scientists - Since most cherry-picking is obvious once the cherry-picked source or information is examined on its own terms or in reference to the literature, some degree of credulity is required to accept cherry-picked claims without further investigation (which is what the cherry-pickers are hoping for, of course) - Accepting that climate science must meet unachievable hurdles of evidentiary support before informing policy, compelling action, or being accepted as "real" science, when compared to the evidentiary support it actually has or compared to the evidentiary support for other scientific disciplines which inform policy-making or personal/societal action, again, requires credulity - Creduility required to accept fallacious logical arguments? Check - With regards to the additional characteristic suggested above, denialist credulity in climate science allows the unquestioned acceptance of various misrepresentations, however blatant.
  40. Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
    Note from the first graphic showed by Tom @11, there is not a significant divergence between GISS-ER and Lyman (2010). I prefer looking at the trends rather than the graphs, because as Tisdale and Evans showed, improper baselining can lead to a very wrong conclusion when relying solely on graphs, or just on one piece of data, i.e. Levitus 0-700m.
  41. Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
    Muoncounter, the "large departure" is a feature of the 0-2000 m data, only of the 0-700 m data. It is, as you note, a short term feature and probably related to the hiatus which follows it, and which Dana discusses in the OP. As to sliding the model observations across to match it - the 0-700 m data and 0-750 meters model predictions do have a common baseline which is displayed in the graph. Therefore it would be incorrect, IMO, to readjust the model prediction to show a better fit. The divergence between the 0-750 m model data, and 0-700 observed data is a genuine divergence in need of explanation. Much of that explanation has, of course, been provided by Meehl et al.
  42. Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
    Tom, Your curve-sliding exercise is nice, but why not take this tack? What is the origin of the large departure of data from models which appears to occur in 2001-2002? This short-term 'event' is clearly not a part of the models. If the model runs are offset to include it, they're back in better alignment with the data. It is a lot like saying that we cannot predict the date and severity of an explosive eruption. We know they will happen, just not where and when - and so they cannot be expected to occur on schedule in a forecasting model.
  43. The human fingerprint in the seasons
    I have tried to use Modtran to illustrate the fact that winters should warm more than summers. But I cannot get it right. Here is how I do it: - first I calculate the intensity of outgoing long wave radiation I_out for an atmosphere without CO2 for "Localilty" choosen as "Mid lattitude summer". - Then I increase the CO2 concentration to 1000 ppm and adjust the offset for T_ground until I_out matches the value without CO2, since that means the steady state is reached once again. For "Mid lattitude summer" I get the offset for Tground to 9.25 K. Doing the same for "Mid Lattitude Winter" I get the offset to be 8.02 K. That means more warming in summer than in winter. Can anyone explain what I am doing wrong and how to correctly illustrate the effect that increasing GHG's leads to winters warming more than summers using Modtran? Is the problem that Modtran is too simple to this?
  44. Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
    Ah, I think From Peru@12 and Tom@13 have nailed it! I was also seeing FP's shocking divergence, but FP correctly observes that for energy imbalance we are only interested in the gradient. Which Tom then shows by offsetting the 0-2000m curve in #13.
  45. Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
    From Peru @12, I see that Bob Tisdale does in fact have the updated graph, which is no being displayed at Real Climate as well: Again, I do not see a "shocking divergence" in the curves. Consider solely the 0-2000 m data, to eliminate any issues with the divergence. Below I have placed a copy of that data so as to overlay the whole ocean model prediction: As you can see, when so overlaid, there is little divergence between them. The trend of the OHC data will be very similar the model prediction, something we already knew from the data cited by Dana. The large apparent divergence in the graph is simply the product of a small divergence in slope carried forward for a significant period. By comparing the prediction and data over just the interval 2000-2010 while using a baseline from 1975-1989, we effectively add each divergence from 1982 (the baseline midpoint) to 2000 to the divergence over the period from 2000-2010, thus exaggerating it. If we wanted to compare the trend over the entire period, we should baseline the observed data over the entire period as well. If we to do so, much of the separation between prediction and observation would disappear. This is because the observed 0-2000 m OHC would follow a steeper slope than the 0-700 m OHC from the baseline period: So far as I can see, once we use a correct base lining, the divergence issues become the minor issues discussed already by Dana. Of course, Tisdale will continue to use incorrect baselines, and not discuss the full range of observational data sets and model results because, quite frankly, he can't afford to allow his blind men to access more than just a trunk, or a leg, or a tail, lest they realize recognize the elephant of global warming in the data.
    Moderator Response: TC: HTML edited to show correct first image.
  46. hengistmcstone at 17:05 PM on 25 May 2012
    Skeptical Science now an Android app
    Hi, the link on the right to the Nokia App just takes me to Nokia 'this product is no longer available'. I was wondering if that was a glitch or whether it has been withdrawn? Any chance its being revised and will become available again? Just bought a Nokia.
  47. Asteroid Miner at 15:32 PM on 25 May 2012
    The True Cost of Coal Power
    http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html Coal contains: (snip) and all of the decay products of uranium, (snip), Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, (snip), Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable ores. We should be able to get (snip). Unburned Coal and crude oil also contain (snip). We could get all of our uranium and thorium from coal ashes and cinders. The carbon content of coal ranges from 96% down to 25%, the remainder being rock of various kinds. If you are an underground coal miner, you may be in violation of the rules for radiation workers. The uranium decay chain includes the radioactive gas (snip), which you are breathing. Radon decays in about a day into polonium, the super-poison. Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning in days, not years because Chinese industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic. Yes, that (snip) is getting into the air you breathe, the water you drink and the soil your food grows in. So are all of those other heavy metal poisons. Your health would be a lot better without coal. Benzene is also found in petroleum. If you have cancer, check for benzene in your past. See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html or http://clearnuclear.blogspot.com in case the ORNL site does not work.
    Moderator Response: TC: All instances of all capitals snipped. Use of all capitals for emphasis violates the comments policy. Future violations may result in the entire post being snipped. It is highly recommended that you read and comply with the comments policy. Your follow on post has also been deleted for being off topic. You are welcome to argue your case, but find thread discussing the issues you wish to address to do so.
  48. Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
    Tom Curtis @10 said: "the graph you showed shows a 0-2000 m GISS-ER predicted OHC that is well within error of the 0-2000 m OHC observed by Levitus et al." Hmmm, what I see is a shocking divergence in the curves. I will try to guess an explanation, but is just that: a guess. Using just the (infamously inaccurate)"eyecrometer" there it seems that a good portion of that divergence is not a difference in the slope of the line (i.e. the warming rate), but in absolute value (i.e. total OHC anomaly) so that the two "diverging lines" are actually close to parallel. Do you have the values of the slopes of that lines? And if the warming rates are close, why the difference maybe a too "warm starting point"? "Consequently, I am unsure why you call it "ugly", nor why you think fake "skeptics" would like to use it. Tom Curtis, they already have.
  49. Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
    Further to my comment @8, here are the updated and original graphs showing the GISS-ER predictions and extension using the same baseline as the chart produced by From Peru @4: Updated: Original: Clearly the model extension in the chart reproduced by From Peru matches the original rather than the updated version.
  50. Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
    From Peru @9, with one important quibble, I agree with all that you say. However, the graph you showed shows a 0-2000 m GISS-ER predicted OHC that is well within error of the 0-2000 m OHC observed by Levitus et al. Consequently, I am unsure why you call it "ugly", nor why you think fake "skeptics" would like to use it. I suspect in the updated chart, the the predicted change in OHC will exceed the observed, but unfortunately do not have an updated graph to directly confirm it. That said, Dana extensively discusses this issue in the original post. He surveys a variety of observational estimates, most showing change in OHC of around 0.5 W/m^2, which compares to the 0.6 W/m^2 (GISS-EH)or 0.7 W/m^2 (GISS-ER). Given the differences in volume and time periods involved, it is difficult to assess if, and to what extent either model is in error, all though GISS-EH appears to do quite well. The important quibble is that, by changing the temperature of the Earth's surface, oceanic oscillations will change the radiative balance through changes in cloud cover and humidity (and other feedbacks). Specifically, if climate forcings have a positive feedback compatible with IPCC predicted climate sensitivities, decreasing global temperatures will result in a lower reduction in OLR than would otherwise be the case. In contrast, if feedbacks are negative, decreasing global temperatures will result in a larger reduction in OLR than can be accounted for by temperature differences alone. In the former case, a transition from El Nino to La Nina conditions will result in a reduction in the expected TOA energy imbalance.

Prev  1165  1166  1167  1168  1169  1170  1171  1172  1173  1174  1175  1176  1177  1178  1179  1180  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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