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  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  Next

Comments 61451 to 61500:

  1. New research from last week 10/2012
    There goes Canadian superiority in ice-hockey... My son will be most disappointed...
  2. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    Ironically the current level of poverty is precisely what's giving us a bit of extra time to deal with the issue of climate change. If the billion or so people living in conditions of extreme poverty were actually energy-demanding consumers things would probably be out of control already. Cold comfort to them though. Regarding the prevalence of libertarian views among deniers, one needs to look no further than the inhabitants of Nova's blog. It's all fiat money conspiracy and free market nonsense.
  3. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    I disagree as well, jatufin. It's not a planet. Ron Paul enthusiasts do share some of the same policy positions as some on the "far" left (is "near" the "right" place to be, then?). However, the reasons for those positions are diametrically opposed. Real world socialism encounters environmentalism in the same way that religious conservatives do: it's the right thing to do, but life under capitalism limits choice. It's an easier choice for university professors (including the academic left) and managerial class folk, but capitalism doesn't result in a class structure comprised of an overwhelmingly large middle class (regardless of typical middle class representations of the world). Most of the consuming world is made of people who live day to day, week to week, or month to month, hoping for a break, accepting their lot in life, or fighting to get the rest of their compensation (the working left). These people are not operating on a level field. Their representatives are not operating on a level field. The core mechanism of capitalism works to concentrate economic power (real power) into the hands of the few, and economy trumps democracy all day long. Economy trumps all, no matter the mode. Environmentalism is simply the higher-order realization that most economic modes (capitalism very much so) are short-sighted with regards to the relationship between resources and economic growth. Environmentalism is the alternator to the engine of economy. Take it away, and your engine runs with a little less drag, but then all you have left is a battery. Those in the trenches of class warfare don't have much time to think about the charge left in the battery. The owners of the means of production certainly do, as do the managerial classes whose comfortable lives are ensured by continued protection of property owners' interests. Yet, when faced with the scientific revelation that the battery is running out of charge, these folk go into denial (well, publicly anyway). Why? Why would an information manager like Jeff Condon seek to limit or cast doubt on the information that his ethics "chip" has access to? That is the bizarre condition of those on the economic right in the managerial classes, but it is a condition that they share with the religious right: living one's life according to the interests of one's master(s) allows a kind of freedom--the freedom to act with absolute certainty that one is doing the right thing and that it will always be (always will have been) the right thing. Quite different from the OS of the dialectal left, for whom life is a series of shifting probabilities, shifting as the evidence is compiled each minute, each day. If you want the mid-left on environmentalism, here's a shot. I'd like to get Ian to do a guest post on AGW and the left.
  4. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    John Brookes@10, For anyone really interested in reductions of global CO2 emissions, solving the poverty issue is your main, and most problematic hurdle. China and India know that the fastest way to bring their people out of poverty is to build coal power plants as fast as they can. And that is why they are doing so. No matter what the west does, China and India will soon surpass the west in CO2 output per capita. "Leading the way" makes for a nice, costly symbolic gesture, but if you can't get India and China on board, the results will be difficult to measure. Poverty in Africa and Asia is not a result of attempts to limit CO2 emissions. It is because they don't have access to cheap power, yet. 20% of the world's population has no electricity. These areas have little access to clean water and very poor agriculture. How do you solve that without increasing CO2 output? How do you get China and India to stop increasing CO2 output?
  5. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    A particular annoying theme of climate "skeptics" is their faux concern for the poor. They argue that any attempts to limit CO2 emissions will condemn the poor of Africa and Asia to eternal poverty. I have a suspicion that there are much more relevant reasons for poverty than attempts to limit CO2 emissions.
  6. Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
    Regarding the cold winter/low solar activity link: deniers liked to explain the cold 09/10 and 10/11 winters by pointing to the low solar activity. Then we had an extremely mild autumn in Europe, and that was explained by the more active sun. The severe January/February cold blast put the solar activity/cold winter theory in a sea of trouble. Of course, that does not prevent deniers from using the more active sun as the sole explanation for the extremely mild spring conditions, with March temperatures being more like May and smashing temperature records every day.
  7. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    Chris it is Graham Stringer. In fact he was the only one that gave Phil Jones a hard time when he was interviewed by the committee.
  8. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    Paul D which of the Labour party representative on the Committee is a "Skeptic"... Andrew Miller, Pamela Nash, Graham Stringer or Jonathan Reynolds?
  9. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    Agreed with jatufin that there those on the left that either don't believe in AGW or struggle to support green policies when it comes to creating/protecting jobs. Examples: 1. Some major unions in the UK support the expansion of major CO2 producing industries, especially the expansion of airports, which would also lead to increasing CO2 emissions in other industries. I also don't see them complaining about the growing success of the UK car industry, especially petrol guzzling Landrover. 2. The organiser of the local 'occupy' campaign doesn't believe in AGW. 3. The Labour party representative on the UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee is a Skeptic. In fact on the same committee there are probably more Conservatives that agree with AGW. 4. I also recently came across a lefty that was attacking the owner of a UK green electricity company for being capitalist because they were making electricity prices go up. Admittedly he could have been a troll with completely opposing views, pretending to be a lefty. But I have seen other mixed up views from those that are transfixed by left political ideology. All to often, like the right, if something doesn't fit their world view, then they suspect a conspiracy.
  10. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    Bill, there is a low-level wackaloon I run into regularly who peddles Lindzen, Spencer, Ernst Beck & G & T (despite the fact that they are not all mutually compatible), and who claims to vote Socialist--ie., New Democrat--in Canada. Other than that claim, though, he sounds pretty much like a Tory.
  11. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    jatufin @4; Hmmm, I know a reasonable number of solid old Lefties in Australia, and yet I know none who believe what you suggest they ought to. But I thought I ought to test it out, so I just went along to the Communist Party of Australia's website, and, lo and behold, the headline is 'Floods reveal twin scourge: Climate change and neo-liberalism'. No. 1 in the list of books they're selling? 'Hot Earth - the case for planning and regulation to deal with the climate crisis.' The Socialist Party of Australia's website yields 'Climate change: Dithering in Durban':"Once again, a United Nations-sponsored climate change conference has completely failed to address the issue of global warming." The International Socialists decry the Carbon Tax as a hand-out to major polluters and urge their followers to "get involved to demand real action on climate change." And no urban Australian who has ever rallied for anything even vaguely green can have failed to be exposed to the earnest young hawkers of the Democratic Socialist Party's Green Left Weekly, so further research not required there, methinks. So, as far as the, if you'll allow me, mainstream 'extreme left' goes in Australia - and, I suspect, much of the Western World - I'm still far from convinced of the whole 'so far Left they're Right' thing. I'm still putting up Alexander Cockburn. Any other names, readers?
  12. Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
    Paul, I think the important thing to consider for a start is the difference in incoming solar radiation between solar max and solar min. It really isn't that great, and as you note the conditions in some parts of Europe were bitter this winter, yet the sun has been quite active. Also, it is important to record that the period 1980-82 was a solar max, yet the 1981-82 winter featured some very severe weather either side of Christmas, with temperatures down to double-figure minima and some historic snowfalls such as the Great Blizzard of January 9, 1982.
  13. Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
    John, One of the favourite discussion topics of BBC Look North's weatherman Paul Hudson (who is a physicist) is the influence of solar activity on climate. There does seem to be a link between low solar activity and cold winters in Europe (eg. the very cold winters during the LIA) and Paul's view appears to be that this may have been responsible for some of our recent cold winters. I don't think the solar mechanism could have explained the very cold winter across much of Europe this year. It's also pretty obvious even to me as a biologist that removing most of the ice from the Arctic is bound to have knock-on effects on climate. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the possible "solar" influence and how it might interact with the effect you've described here. Paul
  14. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    Bill @2: Plenty of deniers in far left also. Environmental issues threaten their Marxist-Leninist vision of heavy industry heaven of the working class. Rare breed those old school communists nowadays, but there are some. Ideological map is sphere, as a planet. On the far side they all meet :)
  15. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    Interesting article Dana, My reflections to Fig3: The coal price on this figure maybe a little out of date. The recent prices on quality AU coal commodity market can be found see here. They've been volatile for last couple years but current 10¢/kg is a decent average. Given anthracite coal energy density and recovery efficiency of 32MJ/kg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density I've calculated the maximum 3kWh/kg, therefore the cost to produce your coal electricity at peak performance is only 3¢/kWh. On your graph is looks some 6¢: twice higher. That indicates the average coal power plant efficiency of ~50%, so the useful energy density from coal is only 1.5kWh/kg. On the other hand, the carbon tax in AU is initially set to AUD23/t (C; not CO2) which is ~US2.4¢/kg. Comparing that figure to my 1.5kWh/kg above, I deduce the coal plants in AU will be paying 2.4/1.5 == 1.6¢/kWh for their CO2 pollution. That is some 2 times less than even MMN11 external cost estimate on your figure. Less conservative external cost estimate by E11 looks more than 10 times as much as AU carbon tax. Conclusion: AU carbon tax is cheap: it is far from covering even the most conservative external estimates. Did anyone make calculation like that for other externals? For example how is EPA taxing PM2.5 pollution, given PM2.5 cost estimate?
  16. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
    @Scaddenp, I think you need to reevaluate why I offered that link. Skeptical Science asked, "Have you come across any climate denier memes during the past six months that do not show up on the SkS list of climate myths? If so, what are they and where did you first see them?" And so I provided one that I had not seen before. I originally saw it pop it up on a thread over at Scientific American. After perusing the myths list and not seeing it I thought it deserved some mention. If we truly want to lead people over to what the science actually says I think a little courtesy at the start of conversation may well be more productive than coming down on somebody with the rhetorical hatchet. And yes, I understand that about 95% of the people on the net who ask "honest" questions are really disingenuous ideologues. Let us remember though that we are writing for that other 5% and most importantly the lurkers. Thank you for the link. @DSL, I did go over to the original article, but it is behind a paywall and I am nowhere near any kind of a expert to pronounce a judgment on it. I can say that comparing what CO2 Science says and what the abstract says I can see one problem already. In the abstract I found this "records of this type from one site alone cannot be used to determine the extent of ice involved."
    Moderator Response: [JH] I concur that your response to question I had posed was appropriate. Having said that, what, in your opinion, is the new denier meme contained in the paper you have cited.
  17. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    I've often wondered just how many Deniers aren't also Free Market™ Zealots? I can only offer Alexander Cockburn as the one anomaly that I can think of - the exception that proves the rule? In my experience the FM™Z figure runs damn-close to 100% among anti-'C'AGW commenters, commentators, and 'think'tanks, too.
  18. Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
    Central, E and Southern Europe certainly had a severe blast this winter, but it was more like the classic pattern of cold air draining SW around the Siberian/Scandanavian High, AKA "Siberian Blast" (all UK tabloids) or "the Beast from the East" (snow-rampers on UK weather forums).
  19. Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
    Dana -very informative article - thanks I think there's a typo about halfway down where you wrote "And of course, Spencer's argument that CO2 emissions will result in 'immense human suffering' is entirely without basis." Did you mean to say CO2 "limits" instead of "emissions" in that sentence.
    Response:

    [dana1981] Yes, thanks.  Corrected.

  20. Doug Hutcheson at 14:54 PM on 14 March 2012
    Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
    what happens when we have an ice free arctic
    All the energy currently consumed by melting ice will have to go somewhere. The atmosphere has a limited capacity to absorb energy, so will it go to heating the ocean? Will a warmer Arctic basin lead to the ocean releasing more CO2 than it absorbs? Will the spectre of the clathrate bomb come back to haunt us? These and more thrilling questions will be answered in our next episode of "Earth: The Human Waste Dump".
  21. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    From a commment above, there's a new 'butwhatabout' - the effect of shipping. Here's a PDF that lays out the influence (basically about the same as aircraft and 20% of the value of land transport). The SO2 reduction is offset by the CO2 production - and one of the articles gave it summary of neutral but not benign. AEA GHG Emissions from Shipping 2008 (3.5meg PDF) The one curiosity (no link available) is the link to the GCR cloud-cover issue. Based on satellite observation, the marginal increase in ocean cloud cover in the second half of the 20th century was so small it could be ascribed to increases in shipping (sorry, no link).
  22. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Dale @31 wrote:- "I'd be careful using a few days data to compare against cycle predictions." I don't. I've been following it daily for about six years. hth.
  23. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    The solar flare series of early-mid March has produced a Forbush decrease on the order of 10% at Oulu for several days. This fits Dragic's detectability criteria and should thus result in decreased cloud formation. If the Svensmarkers are to have any credibility going forward, this is their moment in the sun. Where I sit, its still pretty cloudy.
  24. Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Great Stink of London
    Terrific article, thank you. I've often used this analogy, am glad to see somebody making a splash (sorry) in such a comprehensive and entertaining way. London with its deep history is a wonderful microcosm for examining emergent effects, what needs to happen when people are packed together in their multitudes.
  25. Sceptical Wombat at 12:10 PM on 14 March 2012
    Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
    It may have been relatively balmy in Wales this year but Italy certainly got plenty of snow (in Rome for instance) and ice (in the Venetian Lagoon for instance). It will be interesting (in the Chinese sense of the word I suspect) to see what happens when we have an ice free arctic.
  26. James Hansen's Motivation
    I accept all that Hansen says. I just don't get the scientists who understand what Hansen understands and yet can play down the probable outcome and what it might mean, in practice, for their descendants. It says it all that the first line of Nasa's mission statement was deleted, never to appear again: "To understand and protect the home planet".
  27. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
    modus operandi for CO2"Science" seems to be to misrepresenting science. Have a look at Eldrett et al 2009 (an update with temperature data). "However, the relatively warm summer temperatures at that time mean that continental ice on East Greenland was probably restricted to alpine outlet glaciers" Not exactly the conclusion that the misinformers take. Still want to go there for information? How much misinformation would we have to demonstrate before you stopped visiting them.
    Moderator Response: [JH] the questions you posed are a tad "over the top." Please keep it civil when addressing another commentator.
  28. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    I find figure 1, with the blue bars for La Niña years, enlightening. If WMO also used another colour for El Niño years, that would be useful too. I would hazard a guess that there would be fewer outliers among the remaining pink bars. Of course, it would not be as precise as FR11 but could be useful for basic communication.
  29. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Since the flux of Galactic Cosmic Rays arriving on Earth is modulated by Solar variation its measured values should be correlated the measured values of Total Solar Irradiation. In a regression the high colinearaty of these effects will make it difficult to disentangle them. Adding cosmic ray flux as well as solar irradiation should have little effect on the temperature predictions but will lead to the parameter estimates for them being less precise than they would if only one was used. Foster & Rahmsdorf did check the exogenous variables that they used for colinearity and found that this was not going to be a problem. Adding variables that are highly colinear with variables that are already being used, while it will allways improve the fit to the data, can lead to a poorer predictor when you extrapolate the data. Be careful when adding variables.
  30. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Dale, if I have an idea that gravity operates upwards instead of downwards, does it mean my idea actually has any merit?? Or do you think that every idea, however ludicrous or however much contradicted by the evidence, deserves equal standing in perpetuity? Svensmark has an idea that GCRs affect climate, and as many others have already pointed out to you, the evidence is quite spectacularly not in his favour. His idea has no merit based on quite a few lines of evidence either in recent history or in palaeoclimate. However, the impact of CO2, ENSO, and solar is not only an "idea" ("theory" is more apt), their impacts are well verified and quantified as being the strongest forcings outside occasional volcanic impacts, and Foster and Rahmstorf also show how they account for nearly all the year-to-year variability in climate.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] As has been amply demonstrated, by you and others earlier on this thread, GCR's are pointedly not a driver of climate change and thus have no bearing on the OP. Interested parties, please take GCR's to a more appropriate thread. Thanks!

  31. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Dana @43 Saying GCR's are flat for the past 60 years is pretty misleading. It fluctuates by 20% in direct opposition to SSN's. It would be better to say "the trend is flat". And I'm not saying it may have a big effect, like I said above, a minuscule effect. In the big picture it's good to be researching the full effects of all forcings, even if they are statistically ineffective. If we have a baseline for all forcings at least then we can clearly know if one of those forcings changes. So whilst you guys may scoff at research such as CERN Cloud and Svensmark, I applaud it and welcome it. More knowledge means better decisions. Such as this article, if we had better knowledge of what the sun and ENSO will do over the next two years, maybe then the predictions being made in this thread could actually be considered serious rather than simply guesstimates.
  32. ‘Storm of the Century’ to become ‘Storm of the Decade’
    Adding to Bernard's comment - engineering design and costs are based on century extremes. They do not allow for changes to those extremes, until the event occurs (a disaster is the penalty). The key to the extreme-event consequence with AGW is the combination of speed and extent at which those extremes have, and will, change. It's basically the Achilles' Heel of the "adaptation" theory. If you need to understand why the century-rule won't be abandoned ... go talk to the cost engineer.
  33. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Kevin - yes my solar coefficient is probably a bit off. I agree the GCR-warming theory is pretty well dead at this point. Svensmark is far from the only researcher looking at this, and many other studies have found a very small if any GCR-cloud link. On top of that, as has been noted, GCR flux on Earth has been flat for the past 60 years, and was particularly high during some of the hottest years on record, when the hypothetical GCR effect should have been causing cooling. If anything it's a very small effect, and can't account for any of the warming over the past 60 years.
  34. Lindzen's London Illusions
    jzk @68 You could have warned me about the aweful music at the start of the second clip! Listening to the actual seminar (links @67), I can add to the comment @66. P13-14 uses graphs that stop in 1984 likely because as Lindzen says "No one's done this (analysis) in 20 years." Maybe he should have asked why nobody has. P35-36 He makes no mention of presenting a shuffled-up series of years. He perhaps mutters "decadal" as the final 4 are shown. There is no mention of winter trends or lack of trends, just "huge fluctuations." He says "And they're kinda random," (Ah ha, but is he referring to the fluctuations or the presented graphs?) However his main point is that there is physics at work here in the Arctic "...which is completely lost when you take annual mean temperatures." He is here entirely dismissive of any Arctic trend being anything to do with AGW, thus the throw-in 1922 report. I would add for jzk's benefit - the audience is never appraised that they are not being shown a time sequence of graphs while 'lack of summer trend' & an all-random fluctuating winter is proposed. That is plain sneeky. P15 was introduced with the words "But here's something that'll give you a little perspective on it." and after explaining the graph "Put in perspective of you regular experience." Perhaps most telling is a message from his 'take-away' from this section. "Say at least, so far, I mean if some day I see there are changes 20 times what I've seen so far, that would be certainly remarkable. But nothing so far looks that way." This refers to the global average temperature fluctuations so 20 times 0.5-0.7 deg C = 10 - 14 deg C!!!! Richard Lindzen - an alleged climatologist who doubts that anything short of 'Snowball Earth' or a 'Steam-Soaked Sphere' is worthy of remark.
  35. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    @Dale "GCR's are just one of a heap of forcings on climate." Nitpicky of me but I think you mean GCR's may be just one of a heap of forcings on climate. Since you acknowledge that Svensmark's theory is "just another unproven claim".
  36. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
    Actually, Trent1492, that's a link to an analysis from a couple of paid misinformers: Craig Idso and Keith Sherwood. Perhaps you could provide your own analysis of the Eldrett et al. 2007 article that I'm betting Idso and Sherwood grossly misread.
  37. New research from last week 10/2012
    @Composer99 Is it ever. I'm currently on a placement in Ottawa and the skating season on the Canal was abysmal this year. Lasted I believe around 5 weeks until it had to close during Winterlude
  38. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
    I got a new one that I have not seen before: The Tenacity of Greenland Ice.
  39. New research from last week 10/2012
    Someone is actually trying to make the case that double cropping causes an increase in temperature? Could it be that double cropping is suitable in places that have longer growing seasons, and hence higher daily temperatures? I would love to read this entire paper, but it seems only the abstract is available...
  40. Lindzen's London Illusions
    Sphaerica@69, My comment was that Lindzen made no claim about there being "no trend" in the Arctic. His claim was that summer temperatures are not changing, but winter temperatures are quite variable. What does that have to do with the point you are making?
  41. Lindzen's London Illusions
    68, jzk, You seem to have missed this point from the article above:
    ...many studies have examined this issue and found that there is a complex seasonality in the Arctic in how heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean throughout the year...
    I'm sure that at least one factor is the heat of fusion, the fact that no matter how warm the air in the Arctic might get, a lot of that summer energy is going to go into melting the ice instead of heating the atmosphere. This will naturally to some extent moderate summer temperatures. Lord help us when the ice melts soon enough that that cannot be the case.
  42. Lindzen's London Illusions
    MA Rodger@66, Going through each year of the Arctic daily mean temperatures seems to bolster Lindzen's point that the summer temperatures are not changing while there is great variability in the winter temperatures. I could find no mention of a trend in the Arctic other than the introductory sentence, so I am not sure what difference it makes in which order the graphs are presented in his talk. The discussion of the Arctic happens at about 20:00 in the second part of the talk. Maybe you could point to where he says that there is no trend?
  43. New research from last week 10/2012
    Given the importance of outdoor skating to Ottawa via the Rideau Canal skateway, the shortening of the Canadian skating season is definitely a big minus economically and culturally.
  44. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Robert & cynicus @38 & 39 Please read this sentence again: "it's all just a part of the general mix of forcings". GCR's are just one of a heap of forcings on climate. This article itself highlights another three, two of which bounce up and down too. GCR's don't have to explain the warming of the last decades. Isn't a famous SkS line to "look at the whole picture"?
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "Isn't a famous SkS line to "look at the whole picture"?"

    Indeed.  When looking at the whole picture of drivers of climate change, the observer will note that GCR flux is but a fleck in the corner of the picture.

  45. Lindzen's London Illusions
    Lindzen's London Illusions the videos. Note: The first part at least has been altered and a note added to mention the alleged screw-up, but I'm not aware that any further corrections have been made to remove the other errors. Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRAzbfqydoY Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz_EYi2U3Wg Q&A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69kmPGDh1Gs
  46. New research from last week 10/2012
    Indeed. I found the decadal rate of increase in mean temperature (.6 C) to be rather eye-popping.
  47. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    I've just noticed that the solar coefficient here is 0.7 - was that read off the graph in the F&R paper? If so, then it's a touch high. Tamino gave a corrected version of the figure here, but the most precise source is the rates.txt file:
    meivolcsolartau
    giss0.079103-2.3693680.0613220.017092
    se.giss0.0146340.4778190.0309610.001591
    Following on from Tom's question on uncertainties, I've started looking at this, but there is a problem. I'm probably wrong, but I think Tamino may have plotted 4-sigma uncertainties on the coefficients by mistake, rather than 2-sigma. I've posted a question on his blog. The largest uncertainty is in the solar coefficient. Assuming the version in the table above is correct, it has a 95% chance of it lying between 0.030 and 0.092. ENSO plays a bigger role but is much better determined.
  48. Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
    Dale, as Robert Murphy points out there are usually multiple lines of independent evidence for a given theory and they all need to agree or, if they disagree, at least need to be explained why they disagree. There are the known properties of GHG's and their rapid increases, there are the direct GCR measurements and there are the paleoclimate records that disagree with the theory of GCR's moderating climate for a large part. For the GCR theory to be true all the lines of evidence against the GCR theory need to be explained which is very difficult. Preponderance of evidence shows it's very unlikely that changes in GCR are the source of late 20th century warming.
  49. It's not bad
    mohyla103, I'm afraid you are still arguing based on incomplete information, which is never a good idea. As an illustration with regard to that 49% average, can you answer the following questions : What is the maximum percentage possible ? When does that maximum occur ? How much of that maximum is contributed by glacier-melt ?
  50. Lindzen's London Illusions
    A bit of a Johnny-come-lately comment. I was prompted by a comment over on a RealClimate thread that said that Lindzen was now backtracking on the "significant warming" of the past century & now being dismissive of it. It occurred to me I had noticed that but not picked up on it. So I revisited the presentation & comment (also) here as this post is considering the London seminar in toto. pdf of seminar here P13-14 Lindzen goes all Winston Smith & presents temperatures 1851-1984. P35-36 Lindzen does a conjuring trick by shuffling the deck. The sequence of Artic temperatures he presents his audience is (filling in the gaps from here ) 2004, 2009, 1958, 2000, 1968, 1978, 1988, 1990. (His assertion that there is no trend is debunked by this post but I don't see mention of his sneeky shuffling trick.) And finally, the real unscientific stuff. P15 & his thin red line. (The 93rd Highlanders will be spinning in their graves!) Comparing Boston's weather with global climate is saying that variations in global mean temp of +/-4 deg C is not a problem (still "nomal") and +/-20 deg C would not be unprecidented. (Hope my F -> C convertion is correct.) In this I see Lindzen's membership of the Global Village Idiot Club having been upgraded to Full Life Membership.

Prev  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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