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  1267  1268  1269  1270  1271  1272  1273  1274  1275  1276  1277  1278  1279  1280  1281  1282  Next

Comments 63701 to 63750:

  1. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    Anthony Watts an IPCC expert reviewer? Of what? The chapter on carbon dioxide snow? Oi! Dikran, thanks for the explanation.
  2. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    Fascinating developments indeed. It is important to note this is getting nasty. Heartland's Joe Bast is keeping busy hassling many online publishers, including harassment of a 71 year old veteran activities, it is interesting to see at that Col. Gary Wamsley is also being harassed by one “Dave Burton” who is passing himself off as “IPCC AR5 WG1 FOD (First Order Draft) Expert Reviewer” and “Member, NC Sea Level Rise Impact Study Advisory Committee”. This from a guy who has one self published paper sea level rise and a long post promoting climategate on his site, and with 41 hits so far for cut and paste comments appears to be a ‘paid by the post’ blogger for Heartland. Anthony Watts of WUWT has also claimed to have been accepted as an Expert Reviewer on AR5 WG1 FOD. One is left to wonder how many other climate science denier Heartland supporters have been similarly admitted by the IPCC, and to hope the IPCC displays the same courage as Peter Gleick in blowing the whistle on these folks.
  3. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    33 Rob : thank you! 26 neil and after As I understand it, Loeb et al 2012 estimate a change in heat content, that can also be described as an energy imbalance. Their words (my bold) : We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0,50±0,43 Wm2 Combining the stable, decadal-length record of changes in net radiation from CERES with the 0-1,800 m Argo OHCA record and other minor storage terms, we compute Earth's energy imbalance for the period from January 2001-December 2010 to be 0,50±0,43 Wm2 This quantity is basically the amount of energy received from space (Sun) that have not been reemitted to space (outgoing thermal radiation), and that have in consequence heated the system (mainly the ocean) or melt the ice. I would say this is equivalent to the integral of all forcings (natural+anthropogenic) on the period plus an hypothetic short term variability in cloud cover (for example, if for any reason there is more/less cloud-cover at the end of the period compared to the beginning, this would create the equivalent of a forcing in the short period analyzed, because more/less entering short wave is reflected to space). The "pipe-line" means in my mind that as far as forcing have not changed substantially, the process continue permanently (and the more we add radiative agents in the atmosphere, the higher the imbalance). It may also means that part of the heat content accumulated in the ocean 2001-2010 will be transferred to the surface, either in a fast (year-to-decade) warming rate for surface layers (ENSO-like variability) either in a slow warming rate for the deeper layers of the system (century-scaled THC). Is it the way you understand these data?
  4. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Chris G @16: I present as exhibit A the following sequence of events: On June 22nd, 2011 Monckton said of Ross Garnaut's opinions:
    "...that again is a fascist point of view that you merely accept authority without question. Heil Hitler, on we go."
    Later he apologized saying:
    "Let me begin with an unreserved apology. In a recent lecture, I should not have described the opinions of Professor Ross Garnaut, the Australian Government’s climate economist, as 'fascist'. I apologise humbly."
    But later still he qualified that apology by saying:
    " I apologised because even the slightest suggestion that one of his opinions was a fascist opinion is, these days, regarded as intolerable in circles other than the particular circle to which I addressed it. And it shouldn't have gone out from there, but somehow it did. And of course, in those circumstances the only thing to do..."
    Now this is very simple. The difference between what Monckton purported to do in the first instance, and what he later claims he did is this: In the first instance, he appears to apologize for his saying things that were offensive. His later qualification makes it plain that he is apologizing for it becoming known that he made offensive remarks. On the very best interpretation, he is apologizing for the offense but not the offensiveness of the remarks, ie, he is apologizing that his remarks caused offense because they became known, but not apologizing for the remarks being offensive, for as he claims, whether or not they are offensive is purely a matter of convention, differing among different groups. Assume, for the moment, the best interpretation. In that case the claim to apologize "unreservedly" is a bald faced lie. If you qualify unreservedly, you qualify without reservation, and the claim that his remarks are not offensive per se, but only offensive by perception among some groups is certainly a reservation. So large a reservation as, IMO, to make the apology meaningless. What is more, Monckton is not entitled to this generous interpretation of his remarks. If you are sorry for something, you try not to do it again, but shortly after his damning admission of the reservations in his "unreserved apology" he said on a public platform:
    "What we have here is naked, left-wing, political interference in the right of somebody who is invited to your country to speak freely at various venues all round the country. Now when you get that sort of behaviour, let us remember where that sort of behaviour last happened. It happened in the 1930s in Central and Western Europe in a country called Germany. That kind of breaking up of meetings, silencing of opponents, for prevention of free speech, that is a hallmark of -- and I am proud to use the word loud and clear -- fascism! And that is what your ABC now represents."
    So, far from being regretful of suggesting somebody was a fascist, he now identifies an entire organization as a fascist organization. And if he had no regrets about calling people fascists, then he cannot have sincerely apologized for it. At most, to the extent that his apology was genuine, it was an expression of regret over the inconvenience of being found out. And just so that we are fully aware of the true moral depths of this loathsome man, having riled the crowd up against the ABC, and having specifically mentioned by name an ABC reporter who he knew to be in the crowd, saying that she had asked "... deliberately offensive questions", with the consequence that that ABC reporter was jostled and jeered by the crowd, and possibly would have had worse if not for a few honourable people.
  5. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    #21 ... and your source (presumably written by you) contains no actual calculations of the gravitational forces involved, nor a physical explanation of how the tiny and incredibly gradual changes in force are supposed to materially affect a living creature, let alone how these incredibly gradual changes in the distribution of Earth's gravity would cause a rapid extinction event. Therefore I relegate it to pure crackpottery, and will stick with better explanations for extinction events that rely on actual geological and palaeontological evidence, thanks.
  6. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Chris G @16, Monckton is far from "self-deluding" and "can be explained by incompetence" type of person. The other characterisation of your: "evil and skilled liar", does fit him much better. Because Monckton's been reminded many times about his mistakes (sometimes very gross and childish as Tom has shown us here) but he never publicly admitted them nor apologised for them. He continues to attack everyone who disagrees with him and even threaten others with court actions. About the phenomenon of some crowds (i.e. WUWT) who follow and cherish him: this is really not that strange. We had even stranger cases in history, when the entire nations have been following charismatic speakers, regardless of their objective credibility and their morale. I think Monckton likes such modus operandi, because he did even sees his opponents as such, e.g.: here. But in the case of prof Garnaut, he made an exception to his rules and apologized later on.
  7. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    229 - Charlie A How does
    I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication
    leave the impression that he wrote anything that "have been made public"?
  8. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    The headpost by Dana1981 ends with " *SkS note: Heartland could easily prove the strategy document is a fake by releasing the email which they claim contained the released documents." Peter Gleick has stated that the strategy document was not part of the e-mail package from Heartland. Perhaps that note should be updated to " *SkS note: Heartland could easily prove the strategy document is a fake by proving that they did not mail or slip under Gleick's door the strategy memo". It should be noted that, for several days now, there has been speculation based upon writing style that Gleick is the author of the stategy memo. This speculation preceded the admission by Gleick that he obtained the other documents under false pretenses. It should be noted that Peter Gleick did not explicitly say that he did not write the strategy memo, although his carefully worded admission leaves that impression.
  9. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
    "Should the SkS Comment Policy be amended to explicitly prohibit the hi-jacking of a comment thread by an individual commenator?" I don't think any policy change is required. I've missed the context in which this question came up, but I regard it as a plea for formalisation, for bureaucratic rules. Perhaps this question is asked in response to those who complain about their posts being moderated, but this is not a problem that can be addressed by 'fairness' any more than it can be addressed by formalisation. The trolls, contrarians and others whose actions appear deliberate and disruptive promote, as a central philosophy, the idea that they are victims - of science, of the left, of anyone whose world view does not conform to their ideology - hence the propaganda war forced on us by a variety of people in denial. No scientist wanted this war, but now we're in it, I don't think any 'policy' can address the symptoms of this pernicious disease. They will not go away, and nor will their complaints - in fact, the more successful SkS becomes, the more vitriolic and abusive will be the criticism. I believe the only way forward is to remain flexible, eschewing the need for more explicit prohibition through policy as I find SkS already does a good and conscientious job. As others have commented, sometimes the diversion is worthy, and sometimes not. Without applying 'one size fits all' rules that merely restrict the adaptability of the forum, I think that SkS should continue to treat each case on its own merits, treating each post individually without dogma or favouritism.
  10. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    @Staten-John 21 - read it and rejected it. It's not a general explanation; it's a KTX proposition. It's a late-arrival crypto-extinction study that respects neither the geological movements of the Upper Cretaceous nor the elephant already in the room called the Chixulub Impact.
  11. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    With Tom on that one. The pigeon-hole DK reference holds up; but the 'great' pro-pollutionists like Skinner, Idso, and Moncton, first and foremost believe in themselves. Truth v lies is malleable and adjustable - the priority trumps the value of bland truth. Skinner's UHI/Unstoppables; Idso's Petition/Fertilizer; Moncton's Presentation, Lomborg's Cost/Benefits ... every debate and word-joust has the road sign "Caution, Slippery Ahead". If you're looking for ones who actually believe in their case - turn right at the corner of McIntyre & McKitrick; head down Barton Street to where it turns into Inhoffe Blvd; and head straight to Christie&Spencer Circle. It's just past Lintzen's Curiosity Shop. If it's a contest for artificial supports - how about Moncton's need to be a Lord, versus Lintzen's need for the "of MIT" title?
  12. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Aye Stephen, that's what I was alluding to. Address the audience, Monckton will never admit defeat. Hah, can we call him the Black Knight? He is a Lord after all. I suppose that leaves someone here as galloping around with coconuts.
  13. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Neil - As I stated earlier, I can't locate a full copy of the Matthews & Weaver paper, so have to rely on commentary at Real Climate. The imaginary scenario proposed by the authors is utterly pointless in my opinion. Greenhouse gas emissions will not drop to zero, and one has to include the effects of aerosols dropping out of the atmosphere if one wants to realize committed climate. Aerosols will drop out of the atmosphere within weeks in such a scenario leading to abrupt warming, whereas draw-down will take some time - assuming the terrestrial carbon sinks behave as anticipated. "Please note, my outlines above are not some wacky opinion that I've concocted. They are the results of performing these experiments with state-of-the-art earth system models, as you will find in the literature I referred to. Actually there have been a few peer-reviewed papers surfacing lately about the summer Arctic sea ice loss not being irreversible - if the Earth undergoes sufficient cooling. That seems an extraordinarily unlikely scenario too. Obviously someone considered it was worthwhile wasting supercomputer time.
  14. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    @JP40,scaddenp The theory that you dismiss will eventually be accepted. If you read the PDF and have basic knowledge about physics, geology and paleontology, you will understand why. Do you also believe that one of the references cited: 'Plate tectonic may control geomagnetic reversal frequency' is also "silly?" This reference provides strong support for the GTME, i.e., it supports the linkage between the movement of continental plates and the Earth's core. BTW, your understanding of the theory is faulty based on the comments you made. I would suggest you study angular momentum, particularly the conservation of angular momentum.
  15. The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
    Minor quibble:
    "Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature"
    In the context of the (intro) paragraph, that sentence refers to variance. Also, the same language ('dominant influence') is reflected in the first paragraph of the conclusions, which again is about variance. There are less ambiguous quotes connecting ENSO to long-term trends just prior to and within the conclusions of the paper.
    "The strength of the time lagged relationship between ENSO and GTTA, as demonstrated here, suggests that variation in the poorly modeled ENSO may account for the deficit and may be the cause of a large part of the observed warming since the midtwentieth century."
    and
    "Finally, this study has shown that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to variability and perhaps recent trends in global temperature,..."
    http://www.auscsc.org.au/images/PDF/influenceofenso.pdf
  16. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Dana, Oh, I think I see. I read Monckton's reply at WUWT, where he claimed you (although he seems to be confused as to your name) had called him a liar. I gave it a half-hearted look to see where you had said that, failed to find it, and simply guessed that you had gotten fed up and short of temper at some point. It appears that Monckton misrepresents again; you said he was mistaken, he claimed you had called him a liar. Have to admit it was a bit disheartening to see the crowd congratulating Monckton on his defeat of Cook when it wasn't even John he was engaged with. If that represents the average person, it doesn't bode well. Tom, yeah, I know. But, a lot of people believe what he tells them, and that means he is an either extremely evil and skilled liar, or he is self-deluding. What's the saying, something about not attributing to evil what can be explained by incompetence, but don't rule out evil.
  17. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    If I were to guess, it would be that 1) he believes the conspiracy stuff, 2) he also believes in his ideological correctness and 3) he believes in himself (i.e., he's arrogant). In him "the ends justify the means" and "D-K effect" bleed together to some degree. He may actually believe that his reinterpretations of the science are more correct. That doesn't excuse him though. It's still negligent. In any case, it all makes impossible to have a real substantive conversation with the man about much of anything. Any attempt to engage him really comes down to an attempt to address his audience.
  18. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Chris G @12 and dana1981 @13, while it may be true for some of his claims, in general I disagree.
  19. Global Warming and Cold Winters
    Copie @ 172, a couple of comments:
    One does not have to be a scientist to be able to observe weather or climate.
    So, without doing any science - like keeping accurate records of weather over a long time and a large fraction of the globe - how exactly does one observe global climate?
    As anyone who makes their living from nature can tell you, weather and climate constantly changes, sometimes for the better and sometimes not.
    As anyone who has studied the phenomena closely can tell you, changes in climate happen for a reason. It is not some arbitrary weather god rolling the dice to come up with the Next Climate Trend: it is observable, measurable influences called forcings that invoke such changes.
    And as for all this stupid stuff about co2 being our ruination! As any student can tell you, co2 is one of lifes essentials, as important as oxygen. Generally, the more the better.
    A quick Google search turned up this information:
    "On the average, there is about 10-20 mg. of arsenic in the human body"
    The human body has evolved to accommodate this level of asenic. Would you also say of it "Generally,the more the better"? Trace gasses in the atmosphere can be as powerful as trace elements in the human body, with severe adverse effects resulting from upsetting the 'natural' balance. What are you attacking here: the science, or the threat to your comfortable lifestyle? I'm guessing it is not the science, because you are happy to accept the word of "any student" and scientists start out being students (in fact, they never stop studying until they retire, I guess).
  20. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    I think Monckton almost certainly believes what he's saying. Most denialists do. It's more of a Dunning-Kruger problem than a dishonesty problem, except to the extent that denial causes a person to be dishonest with himself.
  21. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    It struck me that it is possible that Monckton actually believes what he is saying. I suspect that stretches credulity for many here, but keep it in mind. It might make for more effective tactics.
  22. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    @muoncounter, Gleick's deception produced that "anti-science curriculum" you use to legitimize his deception. The dog is chasing it's own tail.
  23. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    neil - Please note that your scenarios assume that CO2 emissions cease. Do you actually expect that to happen? An interesting Gedankenexperiment - but really, not realistic. Given the ~40-50% of emissions absorbed by the oceans per year (~2+ppm), there would be a half-life of ~40 years on the over equilibrium CO2 for just the simplest absorption case. If you look at current literature (such as Archer et al 2009), which show that CO2 drawdown is a combination of several processes, some with geological extent, it's actually tens of thousands of years for the last 25-30% of CO2 to be absorbed. During which time the "warming in the pipeline" will occur. You present a rather rosy view. I think the science, the literature, do not support that.
  24. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Muoncounter @109, while I agree that we have "made the MWP vanish" in terms of relative forcings, that is not germane to the issue of the total forcings in the MWP. Of those forcings, the three main components are the solar forcing, the volcanic forcing and the GHG forcing. Despite first glance appearances in the figure you reproduce, GHG forcings are significant relative to other forcings in the MWP as a comparison of the scales of the y-axis will show. It should be noted that just prior to 1000 AD, GHG forcings fall to approximately LIA levels again, although that is not shown by Crowely 2000. My purpose in quoting Swingedouw et al 2010 was to rebut Camburn's contention that Crowley was so obsolete that it can be ignored. That a 2010 study uses Crowley's figures for solar forcing just emphasizes that point. For course Swingedouw et al use Amman et al 2007 for volcanic forcings, but the pattern is still very similar, although with less volcanism in the MWP. I have to admit I am puzzled as to your reason for pointing out that Crowley's reconstruction of TSI depends on isotope data. Prior to 1600 and reliable sunspot counts, what else could it be based on?
  25. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    What a mess. The spin-o-rama drama dances out of control. Meanwhile, off in a quiet corner, the planet just keeps on warming. Revkin sells. That's what he's good for. The whole climate scene is just a mass of exchange value for him. He'll milk it until the false dichotomy becomes obvious to even the most unobservant, and then he'll move on to milk some other alleged debate.
  26. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    PS: Please note, my outlines above are not some wacky opinion that I've concocted. They are the results of performing these experiments with state-of-the-art earth system models, as you will find in the literature I referred to.
  27. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html It appears Peter Gleick is at the center of the documents ocming out. I feel bad that it turned out this way. Heartland has guaranteed they will be agressive about whoever is at the center of this. It will be interesting to see how the story turns out.
  28. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    @Rob Painting The article is available at the link I provided above, with the title: Committed climate warming. The article discusses exactly the point I made (Quote below). There is great value to this thought experiment. If there is a large committed warming from past emissions, it implies future warming is inevitable. However, for GHG forcing, this is not the case. (Lets leave aerosols aside for now and just think about carbon, there might be a case to made for aerosols). With due respect, I understand the concept and implications of TOA imbalance. Here is the point: 1) stop emissions [so as to consider an ideal case of 'committed warming from past emissions']. 2) CO2 is sucked up by the ocean, reducing the TOA imbalance over time. In the meantime any remaining TOA imbalance causes warming. However the ocean is absorbing, not releasing heat. The amount of heat uptake by the deep ocean almost exactly balances the warming due to the remaining (but disappearing) TOA imbalance. Thus the surface does not warm any further; rather surface temperatures remain constant for hunders to thousands of years. As I said before, of course as long as there is a TOA imbalance the climate system as a whole will warm, but this occurs in the deep ocean, not at the surface. Please recognize that this is a key concept behind why the "cumulative carbon emissions" methodologies work. If you can, I encourage you to read the peer-review papers which discuss these concepts at some length. Damon Mathews is an author of several. In addition to the "committed warming" paper, see also the 2009 Nature paper "The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions" Quote from Mathews and Weaver (2010) " We argue that the notion of unavoidable warming owing to inertia in the climate system is based on an incorrect interpretation of climate science. Stable atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would lead to continued warming, but if carbon dioxide emissions could be eliminated entirely, temperatures would quickly stabilize or even decrease over time. "
  29. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    How Revkin overreacts: Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. ... That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family). Who are the real deceivers here? Gleick? or those sponsoring fake research and preparing an anti-science curriculum for high schools?
  30. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    Peter Gleik has admitted that he obtained some of the documents fraudulently from Heartland. He claims that the other document, apparently the one that Heartland has identified as being fake landed on his doorstep in the mail. People on other blogs, several days agonoted simalarities between the writing style of the strategy document and posts and comments by Peter Gleik. He appears to deny this on his vauguely worded admission. See DotEarth: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/
  31. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Rosco, The rotational rate is actually very import. It is only when the rotational rate is sufficiently fast that it is sensible to divide the solar radiation by 4 to get the average solar radiation. In the case of the moon, the day side has a temperature of 390K, which is indeed a lot higher then the black body temperature you'll get by averaging the solar radiation. This should not be surprising: since the lunar day is actually 30 days long, of course you can't assume that the incoming solar radiation of 1368W/m2 is evenly distributed on the surface, and proceed to use 301W/m^2 to calculate the equivalent temperature. The fact that the model doesn't give you the right temperature doesn't mean that the physics behind the model (i.e. the theory) is wrong, but rather it means you are applying it incorrectly because some simplifying assumptions doesn't hold. For earth the rotation is sufficiently fast that it is sensible, as a simple model, to assume the incoming solar radiation is evenly distributed on the surface. The fact that the earth never approach 87 degrees is because the earth is rotating relatively fast, and therefore no point on the surface will be exposed to 1368W/m^2 long enough for the temperature to rise to that level. Again, the discrepancy is because you are applying the model incorrectly, not because the physics is wrong.
  32. Global Warming and Cold Winters
    Copie - and what about those that died in heatwaves? What bit about "Global" is so hard to understand? Would the term Anthropogenic Climate Change help you understand what is going on? If you are here to beat a drum without being interested in understanding what is happening in the world, then there is no point in further discussion. Otherwise, you could try seeing what the science actually says.
  33. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    As unfortunate it is to hear that Peter was the "Heartland Insider," that topic is not pertinent to this thread, and it might not be helpful predicting - and perhaps thus precipitating - a contrarian "flood" where the discussion is not relevant.
  34. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    When you read in-depth posts like this and watch the many videos exposing Monckton’s gross misinformation, it also puts the spotlight on the blog site WUWT and the Alex Jones Show because they eagerly host Monckton as a climate commentator. They repeatedly give him a public megaphone to trumpet his bunkum. May they continue to do so because it’s then easy for the rationalising public to see just how hollow the whole climate “skeptic” argument really is. I look forward to reading the other posts in this series.
  35. Global Warming and Cold Winters
    Copie, You are apparently unaware that carbon emissions from many eastern European countries have already declined significantly. But never fear, summer will soon be here and that should prove to you that global warming is real.
  36. Global Warming and Cold Winters
    Yes, Copie, it's true that it is difficult to convince some who walk out their doors and find the weather very cold. Some wouldn't even be convinced by people who live far north of them, such as people in Svalbard. While eastern Europe was in the grip of intense cold, those people were walking out their doors to find rain and temperatures 5-7C above normal for weeks. We can compare local stories all day long, but this is a poor substitute for gathering data from thermometers and satellites. You point out one of the big hurdles in the way of getting something done about the problem. Most people don't have the time, energy, training, means, and/or motivation to look at the science. Instead, they rely on their experience and maybe the local weatherman. I talk with young, well-educated people from all over the globe on a daily basis about the climate situation, and few of them understand the basics of the theory, let alone all of the mechanisms of change that will operate on a rapidly warming planet.
  37. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Set phasers on obliterate.
  38. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
    Hijacking is for loosers.
  39. Global Warming and Cold Winters
    You will struggle to convince the families of the 600 odd people in Easter Europe who have died over the past few weeks from extreme cold that this is just another sign of global warming! Try explaining to them that you are scientists who reccomend that they stop using their gas heaters or wood burning fires.
  40. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Gleick admits he is Heartland Insider, claims he did not fake memo http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html Shields up! I predict a flood of deniers here any time now.
  41. Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    A huge cheer to the work done on this topic. Using a Douglass paper in support of the sensitivity issue ... smooth ... and very cold. The radar went off over the Met Office confirmation quote. A comment section on the CBC website (Canada); an article about serious concerns in the science community over government muzzling; that exact phrase was in a comment without source. Maybe it was ripped off the JoNova slogsite in early February. Or it's another Goebbels wannabe. One of the best SKS originals. All thumbs go up.
  42. Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
    Glenn Tamblyn 15 wrote: "there is a basic premise in your thinking that may not be obvious. That our societies will always be able to respond to these threats even though the threats are fundamentally likely to undermine the capacity of our societies." There's no such underlying premise. There's probably multiple stages of triage for the Hot Planet. The comment was about exit and the place line. Quite the opposite, it's your Malthusian 'No Blade of Grass' hyberbole chalked with examples that have proven to be hollow. There's less famine now, less violence now, higher standards of living with a population explosion, and the pulse of famine has slowed to a stop in China. It's scare-mongering when the outcomes are diametrically opposed to the forecast. And the big reason for that is technology; hint- read the 1972 Club of Rome report. - they also missed the technology factor.
  43. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Observation shows the "effective" temperature of the Earth in response to the solar radiation is ~255 K or minus 18 degrees C. Observation also shows that this temperature exists about 5 km above the Earth's surface and does not reflect in any shape or form the "surface temperature". No matter what arguments one can enter into a theory has to be able to explain indisputable observed facts and there is at least one that no-one can argue with - the surface heating on the Moon by the solar radiation alone and the fact that the Earth is much cooler.
  44. Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
    I can't help but think that 'Elsa' is simply a troll. The name might be sweetly female, but the contrast between (feigned?) ignorance and a preparedness to delve into non-basic science is ringing alarm bells. I suspect that engaging her would be akin to engaging a mini-Monckton, or indeed a tar baby.
  45. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Sorry - accidently double posted when I added a sentence - delete first one if you like.
  46. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    No matter what models are used there is a simple fact that shows one "Inconvenient Truth" that needs to be dealt with in order to justify any sort of radiation trap. There are two planets orbiting the Sun. Both are subject to similar solar radiation. The Moon's surface temperature reaches ~ 396 K during the lunar day. This temperature agrees with theoretical calculations using 0.12 albedo and ~1368 W/sq m solar radiation. The long lunar day has nothing to do with it - the temperature is reached rapidly and cannot increase above the "blackbody" temperature no matter how long it is illuminated. The Earth's surface, according to the IPCC, receives ~51% of the Solar constant during the day. This amount of solar energy equates to a "blackbody" temperature of 331 K or ~ 58 degrees C and this is about the highest temperature recorded on Earth. Of course there is the ~20 % absorbed by the atmosphere which also causes heating. This demonstrates that the atmosphere actually reduces the surface temperature - if it was being radiatively heated by "greenhouse gases" it would be much hotter. The Moon's daytime temperature proves it is not correct to use a quarter of the insolation to assert that there is insufficient solar energy to explain Earth's temperatures. If you apply this to the Moon you get a result using - 1368 / 4 (1 - 0.12) = ~301W/sq m. 301 W/sq m gives - via Stefan-Boltzmann - ~270 K. So which is right ? 270 K calculated by one quarter of the solar radiation or 396 K which is observed and confirmed even by NASA ? You cannot simply dismiss this - the only difference between the 2 relevant to a discussion on radiative heating is the atmosphere and oceans. The Earth never approaches its "blackbody" temperature which is ~87 degrees C for an albedo of 30 %. The atmosphere clearly reduces the heating effect of the solar radiation.
  47. The sun is getting hotter
    True, even a few tenth of a degree would buy us some time. Undeserved but welcome.
  48. Philippe Chantreau at 11:19 AM on 21 February 2012
    Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    Monckton has no credibility whatsoever. The first time I saw a video of him, the gross errors in the first seconds of it had me wonder why people weren't getting up and leaving. It is beyond me why anyone would even pay attention to his ramblings. It is a strange world indeed where such buffoonery as his speeches can gather traction. It reveals how badly some want to believe a certain way.
  49. The sun is getting hotter
    That would be undeserved but welcome break for mankind. Let's hope we can make the most of it before the sun returns to normal activity.
  50. Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
    "we cannot tell if the warming that has happened since 1970 is because of CO2 or reductions in aerosols or something else altogether. Wrong again. In this is the realm of attribution studies. Beyond those discussed in AR4 (have you even read this?), you might like to look at Benestad and Schmidt 2009. So much for "complete lack of mathematical technique". The models dont differ their view of climate but differ heavily in how to compute the physics. What "widely different assumptions" are you claiming that models make? Oh, and further to the idea that other factors were added to the theory to make it work, perhaps you should look at the Broecker 1975 which is based on one of the earlier climate models and the first that I know of that made quantifiable predictions to test. It's opening line shows nothing added to make it work.

Prev  1267  1268  1269  1270  1271  1272  1273  1274  1275  1276  1277  1278  1279  1280  1281  1282  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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