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  1271  1272  1273  1274  1275  1276  1277  1278  1279  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  Next

Comments 63901 to 63950:

  1. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    skywatcher@85: I have not studied the MWP in detail as to climate sensativity, so I can neither agree nor disagree with you. I have studied it in detail as to North America and there are more issues dealing with solar effects that drive droughts than temperature. If you think that the MWP proves a high climate sensativty, that is fine. I have not read proof of that and would entertain you providing published documents that confirm your thoughts. dana1981: I am not sure the resolution of the proxy data used to show MWP temperatures has the resolution to either confirm or cast aside the statement that current temperatures were not similiar to the MWP. The latest paper with at least decadal resolution using Greenland Ice Cores shows that the temp over the Greenland Ice Mass was as warm or warmer approx 1,000 years ago. That is only one area tho, and would not represent world wide climate.
  2. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Aw shucks, I posted Clement eta 2011 and now on reading my post it looks like I was discussing this paper, when in fact I am discussing the paper presented in the above article.
  3. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Sphaerica@17: "In two sets of experiments, Clement, recent UM alumnus Pedro DiNezio, and co-author Clara Deser from the National Center for Atmospheric Research modeled two climate scenarios – one with a static, current-free ocean and another with a fully dynamic ocean. The team showed that atmospheric pressure, surface temperature, and precipitation were the same in both ocean scenarios, which reveals that the Southern Oscillations global signature is still present even when the ocean and atmosphere are disconnected." I am not convinced that ENSO is not a climate driver. Clements research raises some thoughts. Clement etal 2011 The imbalance of radiation found as lower in this paper is using measured states of radiation. The measurements show that Trenbeth and Hansen were close in their models, which is a very fine outcome. As far as another 10 years of 1.5(+-.43)W/m2, that is speculation, your opinion. All factors must be taken into consideration. A SSW can expel tremendous amounts of heat and is a random event. Some years there is one, some years there isn't. Just one item amongst others that has an influence on the total budget
  4. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    I'd like to point out that the last ten years have demonstrated an unusual number of strong La Niña events. Even a casual glance at the MEI shows this. So the imbalance measured for the last decade will be low (compared to a longer average) simply because of the way the winds have tended to blow in the Pacific for the past ten years. That is not going to continue forever. It is going to even out over time. This implies that for every ten years of 0.5 (±0.43) W/m2 that we see, there will probably also be another ten years of, say, 1.5 (±0.43) W/m2 (or whatever). Once again, we are simply dealing with too short a time frame to view an accurate trend. [And before the skeptics among us start on it, it is far too early to jump up and down saying "see, see, we're in a La Niña period, the earth is going to cool for three decades!" ENSO does not affect climate, it only affects short term surface temperature observations, and it will not change the physics of CO2 warming in any event. If there really is some mystical natural cycle that causes 30 years of predominantly La Niña events, that is not going to change the net final temperature of the planet, it's only going to mask the effects of CO2 for that period -- to be followed by 30 years of painfully rapid warming that will "make up for lost time."]
  5. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Does GRACE shed light on total OHC? If we know how much more water there is in the 'ponds' courtesy of GRACE's gravity profiles, subtracting sea level rise due to the added water should leave sea level rise due to pure thermal expansion. Even if the coefft of thermal expansion changes with pressure & temperature, the rough amount of heat ending up below 2000m should be calculable to some extent, wouldn't it?
  6. The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
    Ken wrote: "Aerosol cooling is not a small Item. From memory, Hansen was claiming about -1.5W/sq.m as the Aerosol cooling forcing." Actually, -1.6 +/- 0.3... net for all impacts of human made aerosols. Which the same paper pegs as about half the recent GHG forcing. It shows a much smaller aerosol forcing, in line with other estimates, prior to ~1990. That is a fairly large short term impact. However, it remains quite minor as a long term factor because the only way that the aerosol forcing can increase is for the rate of aerosol release into the atmosphere to increase... whereas GHG forcing increases with the accumulation of GHGs. To put that in practical terms; Let's say renewable energy adoption resulted in a 10% decrease in coal plants worldwide. That would result in a decrease in aerosol forcing from coal plants of 10% within just a few years... but the GHG forcing from coal plants would not decrease. In fact, it would continue increasing... just at a 10% slower rate. If Hansen is correct then the recent massive build-up of coal plants in Asia has caused significant short term aerosol cooling. However, this is a minor factor compared to the GHG warming observed over the 20th century and/or projected over the 21st. It is also not able to continue growing indefinitely because aerosols do not remain in the atmosphere for long. As to semantic questions about 'deep'... there is uncertainty even around the 0-700m ocean heat readings, considerably more for values down to 2000m, and very little information for values below 2000m. However, as with aerosol impacts, the uncertainty range here is small compared to long term GHG forcing, long term solar forcing, and short term volcanic forcing... which can be measured closely enough to 'separate out'. The answer to your original question thus continues to be that these aerosol effects are not "taken out" because they cannot be quantified precisely enough to do so. The fact that you keep running off on further and further disconnected tangents rather than acknowledging this (frankly obvious) conclusion and moving on makes this 'discussion' seem rather pointless. You just keep finding new semantic irrelevancies to argue with no actual 'point' that I can identify.
  7. The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
    "Your last paragraph is also in error, and is a point that has been made repeatedly. Surface temperatures are a small component of where the energy budget imbalance shows up. It is perfectly consistent to have an increasing warming imbalance and a stasis in surface temperatures if ocean circulation has been redistributing sufficient heat. Read the paper by Easterling and Wehner (2009) on this subject." Since AGW started around 1975 we have been seeing a steady rise in surface temperatures and a claimed increasing warming imbalance due to the almost linear effect of CO2GHG from human releases. We now have a stasis in surface temperatures, despite the same claims of ongoing increasing warming imbalance due to the same almost linear effect of CO2GHG from human releases. To explain the stasis in surface temperatures - the warming imbalance has directed itself almost completely into absorption by the oceans. Which begs the question - why was surface temperature rising for the first 25-30 years of AGW - and this heat not being fully sequestered in the oceans by the same mechanism which has been operating in the past 7-10 years? The likely answer could be an unknown ocean cycle, or it could be that the warming imbalance has in fact decreased, but it seems unlikely that the warming balance has steadily increased by CO2GHG forcing and all of it has gone into the oceans.
  8. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Camburn@3: An energy imbalance of only 0.2W/m2 is a very alarming conclusion. That would mean that even more GHG warming is being masked by other effects (given that the forcing due to GHG is confirmed by OLR satelite observations, and the CO2 forcing is accepted even by Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton and company). If the masking is due to aersols (which we would then have to keep generating at current rates to maintain the cooling) or anything cyclic (which can thus swing back again), then we're totally screwed. Hopefully you are wrong and the imbalance is rather higher.
  9. The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
    CBD #47 "Umm... both deep ocean heating and aerosol cooling are "minor factors" because they are small compared to other components of the ongoing temperature rise." How deep is 'deep ocean'? There is nothing much happening over the last 7 years or so in the 0-700m layers. The 0-2000m layer is where most of the claimed warming imbalance is supposed to be; and 2000m - bottom is also being suggested as another possibly significant sink. Aerosol cooling is not a small Item. From memory, Hansen was claiming about -1.5W/sq.m as the Aerosol cooling forcing.
  10. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    PN #53 "The variation in solar forcing from minimum to maximum of a 11 year cycle is typically about 1 W/m^2." "This is more than enough to cancel out the enhanced greenhouse effect gained from 2005 to 2011" I don't think so. Your 1W/sq.m is the variation on a TSI of about 1366W/sq.m. You have to divide that by 4 for the sphere/circle geometry to get the average over the Earth's surface. This reduces (also by a factor of 4) the Solar ripple to 0.25W/sq.m peak to trough or +/-0.13W/sq.m. for an Incoming Solar radiation of about 342W/sq.m. I am considering the warming imbalance at TOA - from all effects - GHG, Solar, Aerosols climate responses and feedbacks. There is no 'warming in the pipeline' in energy terms. All the heat energy absorbed in the past to date is reflected somewhere in the Earth system as a temperature rise or phase change (evaporation, ice melt etc). There might be temperature rise in some part of the system and due to thermal lag - but without future energy gain - there would be temperature decline in some other part of the system. So future warming requires future imbalance.
  11. Philippe Chantreau at 23:48 PM on 19 February 2012
    A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    That Monckton is largely wrong the majority of the time is not a matter of belief, it is a verifiable fact. When that fact becomes a little too difficult to manage, Monckton starts contradicting his earlier statements/versions whatever. Peter Hadfield showed that in great detail, see the links I posted earlier. I disagree that it is a mistake to debate on SkS when the author of a post is also moderator and poster. They manage these roles quite well. More often than not, multiple warnings are necessary for those who ignore the comment policy. All who respect it see their posts showing up. It does not necessarily prevent anyone from enduring dismissing statements if they are not contributing usefully or disgorgeing plain nonsense. If rethorical tactics or intellectual dishonesty is being used that will also be adressed, by mods if nobody else does so before. Most of the time someone does. Nothing wrong with that
  12. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    Glenn #54 5E22 over 5 years is 1E22 or 100E20 Joules average per year. 0.9W/sq.m is 145E20 Joules per year globally; so your 100E20 equates to 0.62W/sq.m. Where did you get the 0.7? Are you relating calculating your 0.88W/sq.m for the 70% of the Earth's surface which is ocean? If so this equates to 0.88 x 0.7 = 0.62W/sq.m globally as I have calculated above.
  13. Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
    What are the drawbacks from hydrogen? I know it is energy intensive, but other than that what are the reasons we wouldn’t switch over to hydrogen? What they are trying to produce has the potential to be superior, but a decent hydrogen infrastructure could be up and going in a few years.
  14. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Michael of Brisbane @28, there are several crucial differences between the money received by climate scientists and that received from the Heartland Institute. The first, and most crucial is that money paid to scientists is paid based on the quality of their research, not on the basis of the conclusion reached. So called climate skeptics will dispute that, but there is no question that it is formally correct; and no question also that some well known so called skeptics continue in the university sector in publicly paid positions with no financial penalty despite rejecting the consensus on climate change for over a decade. (Spencer and Christy come to mind, but there are others). In contrast, payment from the Heartland Institute is definitely conditional on the recipients hold particular opinions. I do not know if that is a formal requirement, but how long do you think Craig Idso would continue receiving his $139,000 a year if he started publicly arguing that the evidence supported the IPCC consensus, and that the IPCC AR4 was a sound document, with few and inconsequential errors? Because payment form the Heartland Institute is conditional on opinions held, it represents a conflict of interest for any scientist investigating climate change, and any person speaking out on the topic. This does not mean that those receiving payments are wrong (although we know they are wrong on other grounds), but because it is a conflict of interest it should have been publicly declared by those people long before now. Not declaring a known conflict of interest is an ethical breach. Second, contrary to your supposition, many of the activities of scientists are unpaid, including any participation in the IPCC, and of course in internet forums. While Anthony Watt can build his site with 44-88 k donations from the Heartland Institute, John Cook (for example) must do so with his own money, and that from a few small donations from friends. I understand that RealClimate does receive free web hosting, but that is the limit of funding. As they say:
    "The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions. RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is hosted by Science Communications Network (and previously Environmental Media Services), and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor SCN nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked."
    (My emphasis) I am sure there are climate scientists who would love to be paid $119,000 a year to work full time in science communication as Craig Idso is paid to work full time on pseudo-science communication, but the money is not forthcoming for that purpose. Further, unlike payments from the Heartland Institute, payments to scientists are largely used up in research costs and administrative costs for universities (which always take a large chunk). Not having been employed as a scientist, I cannot speak from experience, but my understanding is that scientists typically get paid significantly less than Craig Idso is being paid, and for positions which are very demanding in terms of time and stress. This is not a significant factor for most of the anti-scientists paid by the Heartland Institute. Most of their "research" consists of cherry picking librarianship, with their research costs being restricted to the costs of journal subscriptions (where they do not already have such subscriptions through university affiliation. Finally, assuming that the Heartland Institute payments are the limits of payments to the various scientists received for their opinions held. There are many conservative "think tanks" which attack AGW, and most of the scientists involved are affiliated with more than one of them. The assumption that they only receive money form one of the poorest and smallest of those organizations is unwarranted.
  15. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    It really bugs me when these organisations are thought of as ‘Libertarian’ They are any but.
  16. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam, you may be a brave man, but you are missing the point here. No-one can be wrong 100% of the time, any more than anyone can be 100% right. This thread is about undermining Moncktons credibility in climate science by pointing out his dodgy statements. It’s not meant to be even handed any more than Monckton himself is even handed, it’s about showing how dodgy a lot of his statements are. You are making the mistake of trying to debate that on a basis of the idea that he is not always wrong This is not the thread or site to do that any more than trying to debate on WUWT what a plonker Monckton really is. A golden rule with SkS in my books is to read the articles and appreciate the site, but if it says something you don’t agree with don’t worry about it, above all don’t challenge! The site will never be in agreement with everyone, but it is a mistake to try and debate a point when the presenter of an article may also be a moderator and a poster of responses at the same time. There are many people who are firm in their beliefs that Monckton is largely wrong (including myself) and most of those who post on this site are not likely to be to be sympathetic to any argument that he is occasionally correct. So chill out and don’t worry about it.
  17. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Doug H Generally when an estimate is expressed as x(+/-y) the distribution is considered approximately normal. For normal distributions, numbers closer to the mean(x) are more likely and mean + y (in this case 0.93W/m2) is ~as likely as mean - y (0.07W/m2). However, because the physical models (Hansen, Trenberth) indicate that the energy imbalance is most likely to be around 0.9W/m2, the body of science suggests that the actual imbalance is more likely to be in the upper region of Loeb's estimate.
  18. Michael of Brisbane at 20:44 PM on 19 February 2012
    DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Hey umm, this post is about "denial money", but what about the massive amounts of money spent by governments on AGW? I mean, it's a full order of magnitude over the few million outlined in the graphic above isn't it? I have just added up all those figures and the total comes to around about $10 Million, including the faceless, anonymous donor. In all honesty, what do you guys think of the many billions of dollars spent so far, and continuing to be spent, on pro AGW think tanks, studies and conferences? Bill, your example of Corey Bernardi's travel to a conference for Heartland pales into embarrassing insignificance when compared to the money spent by governments on meetings such as Copenhagen and Durban. Wouldn't Australia's contingent for those meetings have had accommodation provided for them too? (if accommodation being provided is your bug-bear) I mean am I wrong about this?? The Australian government (to name but one) expends/invests money in the hundreds of millions on AGW.
  19. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    Ken Lambert @49 The figures I would use are the annual data rather than the Pentadal data since the earlier years are estimates from XBT. So my eyeball gives me roughly 5 * 10^22 over 5 years. Translating this to a TOA imbalance, this is 5*10^22/(5*365.25*24*60*60*510000000000000*0.7) = 0.88 w/m^2 As for what I am claiming for "What are you claiming is the OHC increase measured from 2000m to the bottom? ", I am not claiming anything. The purpose of this post is to refute the 'warming has stoped since (insert date here) meme. I am not addressing anything like the missing heat meme. Maybe heat is missing, maybe it isn't. But warming is still happpening.
  20. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Very interesting to see figures based on observations agree with the theory and the models in that there is an imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy, even if the magnitude may be less than models predicted. Even so, the margin for error in the observations include the modelled ranges. Should I read the 0.5(±0.43) W/m2 as meaning the .05 is most likely, or does the distribution of possibilities favour a higher or lower figure as most probable? It is probably a dumb question, but I am not a statistician and I have seen discussions where the mid-point of a range is not always statistically the most likely.
  21. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Sceptical Wombat @ 7 - " I understand it correctly the more heat that goes to the deep ocean the better" Yup. Better for us living today. But the effects will be felt at some point in the future. It would also indicate climate sensitivity at the high end of estimates. However some scientists, notably James Hansen, point out that observations of ocean warming are slower than the models predict. In other words, the models mix heat down into the ocean more efficiently than is revealed by real-world observations, yet they do a good job of modeling temperature in the past. This suggests the negative (cooling ) forcing by human-made aerosols (small particles of pollution that reflect sunlight), which have to be specified in the model runs because they cannot be modeled, may in fact be much larger than commonly thought. If true this is very bad, there may be much more warming unmasked when atmospheric pollution declines.
  22. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    owl905- "The Loeb analysis is a budget solution with a budget problem" The article makes explicit that the three OHC data sets do not agree. See figure 2. The picky point with the SKS review is that backlog of 'heat in the pipeline' ... it was just covered, it's being sequestered in the oceans No. The energy imbalance shows that more heat will accumulate in the Earth system until radiative balance is restored. This energy will go into warming the ocean, and atmosphere too. There's no "get-out-of-jail-for-free card" here. "Opinion - until such time as La Nina's upswelling starts tapping the affected sink, it should have marginal effect on surface temperatures" Yes, well I'd rather rely on the analysis of experts here. As noted in the two part SkS series NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future, we are on the cusp of rapid warming, which is likely to take place over the next 3-5 years.
  23. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    I think you should say that the XBT system is less precise rather than less accurate.
  24. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    @Ken Lambert You are considering the period from 2005 to 2011. And you only consider GHG forcing. However, the Sun has been exceptionally quiet over most of this short period. TSI has been lower than it had been during the two previous minima of the 11 year cycle for all but the last year (2011) of this whole period. This is more than enough to cancel out the enhanced greenhouse effect gained from 2005 to 2011. The variation in solar forcing from minimum to maximum of a 11 year cycle is typically about 1 W/m^2. So, most of the ocean warming that was nevertheless measured consists in warming that was already in the pipeline, as it were. We were not yet equilibrated to the previous enhanced greenhouse effect caused by the CO2 emitted in the previous couple decades. The thermal state of the troposhere+oceans is transient. It responds belatedly to the current total forcing, not only instantaneously to the most recent variation. This is why the recent variation in Solar influx has an effect that combines with (and has clearly been dominated by) the longer term increase in GHG forcing. (I also didn't consider possible variations in aerosol forcing that contribute to the overall radiative balance.)
  25. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    The Loeb analysis is a budget solution with a budget problem. There is a connected problem outlined in: "The historical global sea-level budget, J.C.MOORE, S.JEVREJEVA, A.GRINSTED4" (the doc is - a59a019.pdf; the article is in Annals of Glaciologym 2011). Both a draft and a final publication are ... somewhere. Sorry, no pdf link. Annals Announcements,2011 There is already a shortage in the known sources to account for the rise-rate, and absolute sea level, since 1950. If the Loeb analysis reduces the heat imbalance, it increases the insufficient sources of sea-level rise. The picky point with the SKS review is that backlog of 'heat in the pipeline' ... it was just covered, it's being sequestered in the oceans. Opinion - until such time as La Nina's upswelling starts tapping the affected sink, it should have marginal effect on surface temperatures. Instead, it'll be a bumpy ride with continued extremes swings.
  26. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Camburn, I presume you mean Ljungqvist et al 2012:
    "We conclude that during the 9th to 11th centuries there was widespread NH warmth comparable in both geographic extent and level to that of the 20th century mean."
    ...which is a statement that could have easily come from Mann et al 2008, where peak MWP is comparable to the 20th Century mean! Note L12 is a NH reconstruction, not global. The statement is also quite consistent with what I wrote above. So we have current temperatures, which I'm sure you'll agree, are now rising well above the 20th Century mean, and a forcing which is much larger than that in the MWP (see Dana's other links). The strong MWP = high climate sensitivity argument has still not been refuted by you.
  27. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Swanson 2009. I agree, recent reconstructions (including by Mann and colleagues) show a warmer MWP than the original hockey stick. That's not good news, as it means higher sensitivity.
  28. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam droned at 40: "Yes, the IPCC didn't give an exact time frame, but the science is clear that the ice sheets are not going to disappear any time in the near future." You still get the target wrong; and you try the same Monctonite spin where a nearby revision is true (even when untrue)... so the original wrong is right. It's a pathetic attempt to defend your original error. AR4 gave no timeframe and no forecast of complete meltdown. Your claim of clear science is false, and your vague context is useless. It's the same with your word defence - there is no 'a millenia'. It doesn't exist; 1k is 'a millennium' and multiples is 'milennia'. It's the same spin as your shabby response to the other critiques - weak, misdirected and erroneous claims; and claim of corroborating documentation that isn't justified. This real surprise after your weak attempt at a response is realizing that if Abraham chose to let his one rebuttal stand on its merits - he's the smartest guy in the room. Everyone else got the "nya nya can't make me on the Net" maneuvre. (if the Mod wants to scrub this, that's okay with me ... this was the fork in the bird response).
  29. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Dana1981: I clicked on Swanson 2009 and the link didn't work. I also did a search, and it came up empty. Can you fix the link? As far as "The Hockey Stick", I don't care much about that. The latest proxy data shows more warming than the Hockey Stick shows. I am more interested in accuracy than dogma. Skywatcher: The link I provided about China was full of papers that supported the link. The analysis of those papers as presented in the link showed that the current temps are about on par with the MWP temps in China. During this period, China also experienced prolonged periods of drought, just as the Mid-west and Western Conus did. So now we have Western NA, and Asia. And the findings of F. C. Ljungqvist etal 2012 shows general warmth during the 900-1300 time period. Just as today, there were areas of cooler temps and areas of warmer temps, but overall the proxy data shows the warmth exceeding the coolness.
  30. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Camburn@3... Then you would have to come back to basic physics and ask yourself, "How could you possibly increase atmospheric radiative forcing by 2.7W/m2 and NOT get warming?" It seems to me you have to look at the whole package, not just a given part.
  31. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam,instead of playing these games, pick ONE argument you think is strong and well supported by papers from CO2 Science. Now actually read the papers that CO2"Science" quotes. Their modus operandi depends on people not doing that. If you still think there is a case (and are not disgusted by their tactics), then look up the argument here, and lets examine that evidence that you find so compelling.
  32. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Camburn, you cannot force large global climate changes from relatively limited forcings (increased solar, reduced volcanic) without climate sensitivity being high. Where are the big forcings, comparable in scale to recent CO2 emissions, that would mean we could be happier about the MWP being strong? And your link indicates there was a warm period sometime in the Medieval in China, but not when they occurred, how long, strong or how they synchronised with events elsewhere on the globe. Your link is to an editorial, I'm sure there are actual papers that indicate warm episodes of climate at times during the Medieval in China. Nobody disputes that there are relatively many places in the world, notaby NH, that experienced warmth at times in the Medieval. It's a credible hypothesis that there were periods where quite a lot of the Northern Hemisphere experienced more-or-less synchronous episodes of favourable climate (illustrated in the relatively more 'bent' Hockey Sicks), but that still does not excuse you for assuming global significance and synchrony from a few scattered sites. If the Medieval Warm Period does turn out to be a globally significant event, I will be much more worried about the magnitude of 21st Century global warming. Dana, as ever, has just explained it more eloquently than I!
  33. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    It's pretty simple physics, Camburn @78. Something had to cause the MWP. The hotter the MWP, the larger the climate sensitivity to those causes, and thus the larger sensitivity to CO2 as well. See hockey stick own goal and Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for? and the papers referenced therein. Swanson (2009) makes a similar point about large internal variability suggesting high sensitivity. The greatest irony of the climate 'skeptic' movement is the ferver with which they've attacked the hockey stick, when in reality the hockey stick should be their best friend. The flatter past temperatures are, the lower climate sensitivity is (hence the 'own goal' title).
  34. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    This was suppose to be posted with the above link. "A 2100-yr decadal-resolution salinity and aridity proxy record of lacustrine ostracode-shell Mg/Ca ratios from a closed-basin lake in the northern Great Plains shows statistically significant periodicities of ∼400, 200, 130, and 100 yr"
  35. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    skywatcher@78: I am always concerned about drought in the crop production area of the USA. Just as I am concerned about how the sun affects hydrological cycles in the crop producing areas. Drought and the suns effects in the Upper Great Plains There are numerous studies that show sun cycle and hydrological cycle effects. Temperature also plays a role, but the sun does as well.
  36. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    skywatcher@77: The MWP was certainly present in the Western CONUS. And from this it appears it was present in China and the surrounding area as well. Confirmation of MWP in China As far as a strong MWP= High climate sensitivity, that remains to be determined unless you have papers that show otherwise.
  37. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    The mega droughts of long term duration indicate that there was a definite world wide climate effect. One does not have a drought centuries long without other areas of the world being affected as well.
    Unsupported assertion of worldwide impact here, Camburn, based on evidence from a very limited percentage of the World's surface (5% for North America). Given the trajectory of drought in the article you link to (showing a pattern not too dissimilar to the more recent Hockey Sticks, and the indication that parts of the USA were simply more arid in the Medieval rather than periodically dry, I would be very concerned about water availability for agriculture or cities in parts of North America over the coming decades. Of course that is exactly what is forecast by climate science as the world warms, so thanks for providing evidence agreeing with that. Never forget as well, Camburn, that a strong MWP = HIGH climate sensitivity and is really bad news for everyone, particularly climate skeptics who for some bizarre reason seem to think the MWP is good news for their arguments.
  38. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam @40, Thanks Adam for pointing me at the Monckton's response to JA. This voluminus, gishgallop document is too big to describe, let alone answer to any of its arguments, as it fits perfectly the GG definition here and could be added to the listed examples. It's only possible to dispute it one point at a time, as many commenters here are trying to do, provided that the opposite side tries to focus on the actual point until the point reaches the logical conclusion, as stated in the rationalwiki link above. That's unfortunately not the case with lord Monckton, as his famous evasive actions - "monckton maneuvers" - have been documented on the web. Sadly, it appears also not to be the case with you on this thread, as several commenters tried to narrow the focus to some specific points but you, in response, are trying to dillute the focus. For example, in your comment above, you are saying: "Chris if you read all of Monckton's rebuttal you will realize that what Abraham asked was most likely a strawman designed to mislead the authors" You are clearly dilluting any depth of arguments here and running into Monckton gish-gallop, as emphasized text indicates. As a classical gishgalloper, Monckton wants JA to engage into the debate of "responding to every question" raised, even if that question is irrellevant. You want to engage SkS readers into the same. This is physically impossible. I condone JA for his silece about Monckton's "biblical response" and suggest to SkS moderators to curtail this threat as we don't have time to read it all. But I'm looking forward to the detailed critique of "Monckton's bible" in coming posts. We will see what Adam will have to say there. Hopefully the moderators wil keep it on topic. Thanks guys for good work!
  39. Sceptical Wombat at 14:11 PM on 19 February 2012
    Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    If I understand it correctly the more heat that goes to the deep ocean the better. It will cause a slight rise in sea levels due to thermal expansion but is unlikely to otherwise affect the surface climate (including the surface layers of the ocean) for many thousands of years. Or have I got it wrong?
  40. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    And another way to learn about the Medieval Warm Period in North America: "Severe though the six multiyear droughts since the mid nineteenth century have been in terms of environmental and social impacts, as climate events they were dwarfed by a series of megadroughts that struck the West between about 900AD and 1400AD. These droughts were sufficiently long in duration that it actually makes more sense to describe the Medieval climate of the West as not so much afflicted by a sequence of droughts but as simply more arid than in subsequent centuries or now." The Medieval Droughts would make man shudder today, and in fact may happen again. Medieval Drought North America The mega droughts of long term duration indicate that there was a definite world wide climate effect. One does not have a drought centuries long without other areas of the world being affected as well. It is also quite well defined as to time line in North America.
  41. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    I have this fantasy of Monckton bringing a lawsuit against Abraham,and Abraham's lawyers having every one of those scientists that Monckton has misrepresented sitting in court prepared to take the stand.I would love to see the wind deflating from his well puffed up ego as he realizes that his game is over.Sort of like the Marshall Mcluhan scene in 'Annie Hall' (Google it if you are not familiar)
  42. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Here's another way to learn about the Medieval Warm Period “The scientists found the years from 800 to 1300, known as the Medieval Warm Period, had the most frequent fires in the 3,000 years studied. Other research has found that the period from 800 to 1300 was warm and dry,” the university said. “What’s not so well known about the Medieval Warm Period is how warm it was in the western U.S.,” Swetnam said. “This is one line of evidence that it was very fiery on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada–and there’s a very strong relationship between drought and fire.” http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2010/03/18/sequoias_endured_500_years_fire_and_drought/ Chris Shaker
  43. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    I noticed that on Adam's link in @1 "Abraham surrenders to Moncton" that Adam highlights a statement by Moncton "And when the courts find that his talk was and remains malicious, then he will have thrown away the one defense that might otherwise have worked for him – that in US law a public figure who sues for libel must be able to prove malice. I can prove it, in spades." How's that court case coming?
  44. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam, you might also note that CO2Science is well known for misrepresenting hunderds of legitimate papers (I should know, it's misrepresented one of mine). Using papers that identify any old warm period between about 800AD and 1400AD as indicating the Medieval Warm Period was global is stupid. Different places experienced particular warmth at different times, and when you add all those signals together it means the overall average is not one of exceptional warmth. That some places experienced notable Medieval warmth has never been in doubt. A good place to start is Hughes and Diaz (1994) "Was there a Medieval Warm Period and if so, where and when?", where even in the early 1990s, it was thought most likely that the MWP was not a global, synchronous event. That research led to the initial hemispheric and global reconstructions, which the skeptics love to hate, and even now, nearly two decades later, the most complete evidence indicates the MWP was globally at the very most a relatively modest event. Adam, you should do well to remember the caveat I've been trying to help Burt Rutan with in his struggles to understand climate science at Scholars and Rogues is this: A strong Medieval Warm Period = HIGH climate sensitivity. If skeptics really actually understood this point we'd hear a lot less about the MWP and the Hockey Stick!
  45. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam: "But might I point you to this list of 900+ peer reviewed papers supporting skeptics arguments The arguments made by skeptics (including Monckton) are indeed supported by hundreds of studies in the peer reviewed literature." Oh, we know all about poptech, alright: http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=poptech&x=0&y=0 Monckton. Poptech. Barrel meet bottom. "Have you seen 'An Inconvenient Truth'? He shows these expensive computer generated images of all these major cities getting flooded by his supposed 6 metre sea level rise. No, he didn't give an exact timeframe..." Right, he didn't give a timeframe, therefore Monckton's lying when he suggest he did.
  46. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam wrote : "Chris if you read all of Monckton's rebuttal you will realize that what Abraham asked was most likely a strawman designed to mislead the authors." That is a disgraceful, cheap accusation with no basis whatsoever in reality. You have shown your true colours and I'm sure Monckton would be proud of your dissembling.
  47. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Two other points : - I use to see 0-2000 m data for OHC on SkS or on NOAA-NODC website. Is there a reason for choosing the 0-1800 m interval? - the 4a figure is a bit unclear for me. Why is there just a 2005-2010 period for 0-1800m and a 2001-2010 period for 0-700m? Is it unimportant for the calculation of energy imbalance if we do not take account of 700-1800m for half of the period? Thanks for explanations!
  48. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    In a previous discussion with Tom Curtis on SkS, about confidence level, I was said that 95% is a "conventional" level in statistical significance. But in the abstract (I've not found the paper for free), Loeb et al mention "uncertainties at the 90% confidence level". Is there in the full content of the paper a reason for this choice of 90% rather than 95% or 99% confidence?
  49. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam @ 40 says: "I'm not familiar with Huang's work, so cannot comment on it, but might I point out that is just one study. Co2 science has gathered hundreds of studies supporting the existence of the MWP http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php" How dreary... You're playing the same game of evasion and redirection as Monckton. The fact is that Abraham pointed out a clear misrepresentation in Monckton's presentation of paleo data including that of Huang. Never mind not rebutting this in his mish-mash, Monckton compounds his misrepresentation by further misrepresenting Huang's data. Rather than engage with this, or ponder why Monckton is presenting a fabricated graph and pretending it belongs to Huang, you simply evade the issue by pointing to some unrelated website. Monckton made very explicit false claims - he insinuated that Sir John Houghton supported lies...he attributed a fabricated quote to Sir Houghton...he asserted (with zero evidence) that 700 scientists supported the interpretation that the MWP was warmer than current temperatures. The pictures he showed to accompany this assertion turn out not to support it at all. In fact in the case of Huang's borehole data that include much of the 20th century, the latter indicate that that current temperatures are warmer than during the MWP. Do you get the point Adam? Abraham highlighted these misrepresentations in his lecture, and Monckton is unable to rebut them since they're unrebuttable. You feel compelled to defend Monckton's disgraceful falsehoods and misrepresentations, yet don't seem to have any factual basis for doing so.....and so you evade the issue by directing us to some irrelevant website that has nothing to do with Abraham's lecture, nor Monckton's mish-mash...
  50. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    It doesn't really mean either of those because you can't look at the study in a vacuum. To get a naive 'best estimate' of the imbalance would require something like the bayesian interval of Hansen, Trenberth and Loeb. Maybe DM can provide that.

Prev  1271  1272  1273  1274  1275  1276  1277  1278  1279  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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