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  1273  1274  1275  1276  1277  1278  1279  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  1287  1288  Next

Comments 64001 to 64050:

  1. actually thoughtful at 03:51 AM on 19 February 2012
    DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Credit Union National Association?! Why? I am a member of a couple of credit unions. What is the best way for me to protest the use of MY money to fund the Heartland Institute (I just got a little sick thinking about it).
  2. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    pbjamm - worse yet, this time we did specifically email Monckton asking for clarification about a number of his comments (he's very bad about making his sources clear and seems to expect his audience to simply trust him, even though that trust has obviously not been earned, given his history of misrepresentations); Monckton did not reply to our request. Moreover, it's a sad excuse because his audience isn't going to email him asking for his sources. If somebody has to contact you to ask where you got information from in a presentation, the presentation is incomplete and unsatisfactory. Besides which, when he finally provides the sources for his comments, they still don't say what Monckton claims they do.
  3. Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
    Dikran Marsupial: I shall do so in the future. I was pressed for time yesterday, and had reviewed the papers I posted not to long ago. They do add to the disucssion. Thank you for explaining the policy.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No problem. If in doubt, this format ought to be safe: (i) make an assertion, (ii) provide link, (iii) explain how the link supports assertion.
  4. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    @sky 47 Dutch org called DEOS tracks the Gulf Stream Current tracking http://rads.tudelft.nl/gulfstream/index.shtml Historical charts http://rads.tudelft.nl/gulfstream/gif/ A slowing around 2005 gave up some headlines (it didn't stop), and the fringe dragged it out in 2010 during the Macondo oil spill disaster.
    Moderator Response: links fixed
  5. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    MarkR#11, it is all described in the link. There is no money going to the scientists, they are, in effect "peer reviewing" (at no cost) articles sent in by citizens who have seen the effects of global warming in their area. The nonsense put out by Laframboise and other deniers is just more slander and smearing of climate scientists. Please check the link I gave. To claim that it is a conflict of interest for scientists to be on the Advisory Panel and also to be affiliated with the IPCC is just nonsense plus there is no attempt to hide their associations unlike the way deniers do.
  6. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Tom Curtis@7 This Monkton quote makes me chuckle: "he has even been imprudent enough to add quite a new and serious early in his talk, having failed yet again to check his facts with me." As though he were the ultimate authority rather than the peer reviewed scientific literature.
  7. Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
    Camburn @37, I have often noticed that you have a modus operandi of providing a small link or undefended disparaging comment on the topic of any given post, thereby imposing a significant argumentative burden on those who wish show that the evidence in your links is irrelevant/off topic/ or just plain wrong. I do not have time to waste on those games of yours. Consequently I will simply point out where those comments or links violate the comment policy. If you actually want to discuss the topic, do so in good faith and take up the burden of explaining your sources, and showing the relevance to the topic. If in your opinion the sources are not worth that effort, I will take you opinion of their worth at face value and treat them as irrelevant to the discussion.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The point has been made, please lets go back to the science. I am sure that Camburn is now aware of the comments policy on this issue and will conform to it in future. Any further contravention of the comments policy will result in posts being deleted.
  8. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    I note that Fred Singer has pretty much confirmed receipt of the money and it has been used to "...hire students whose job it is to review current papers in the literature and these are reviewed and get published in the NIPCC reports."
  9. Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
    Tom@35: Instead of discussing my posting skills, why not discuss the findings of the papers. nuoncounter@36: I will try to do so in the future. I have not noted any papers since the two that I posted that have changed the conclussions of the above papers. Do you know of any that disagree with the findings?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The comments policy does indeed forbid link only posts, and a substantive description of the content provided by the link is required. In future, please provide your interpretation of the evidence provided by the referenced material and explain how it is relevant to the discussion. This will encourage others to discuss the findings of the paper.
  10. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    RyanStarr#9: "And where's the 'Big Oil' we keep hearing about?" Right here: Based on this Heartland statement, in 2007 foundations provided approximately $3.69 million, corporations contributed $832,000 and approximately 1,600 individuals. Energy companies -- "coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear" -- contributed approximately 5% or around $260,000.)
  11. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    "John Mashey, a retired computer scientist and Silicon Valley executive, said he filed a complaint to the IRS this week that said Heartland's public relations and lobbying efforts violated its non-profit status. Mashey said he sent off his audit, the product of three months' research, just a few hours before the unauthorised release of the Heartland documents." "I believe there was a massive abuse of 501c(3)," Mashey said. "My extensive study of these think anks showed numerous specific actions that violated the rules – such as that their work is supposed to be factually based. Such as there was a whole lot of behaviour that sure looked like lobbying and sending money to foreign organisations that are not charities." Source: Heartland Institute faces fresh scrutiny over tax status The U.S. charity laws appear to share our U.K. common law base of charity law. What is held in common is that falsehoods, bias and insufficiently researched studies all count against an organization being able to call itself a charity. Again in common, a charitable organization must be primarily engaged in a permitted activity, or what the tax authorities describe as an exempt purpose. "Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations." "To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), ..." IRS exemption requirements. caveat: I am not a lawyer. More info from John Mashey: Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax
  12. DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
    Bernard J#32: "there would be an immediate and overwhelming testing of the material in court, a la Kitzmiller v. Dover " The grounds for Kitzmiller were based on the argument that ID is creationism in disguise. There is hardly an analogous argument to be made over the low quality of HI's so-called science. The teaching of bad science is still rampant: Interviews with Harvard graduates in the late 1980s illustrate how widespread these misconceptions about the seasons are. When asked what causes the seasons, most of the newly graduated students gave the same wrong answer that many people give: the seasons are caused by earth getting closer (or farther) from the sun. Given the amount of money the other side is willing to throw around, this would not be pretty.
  13. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Good grief. I'd like someone to explain to me how anyone can take Monckton seriously after what Abraham and Hadfield have revealed? It's clear as day he is willing do engage in any misrepresentation or fabrication as long as its suits his purpose. How can anyone trust an iota of what the guy says? BTW John and Dana, that graphic is cool. It's too bad the scientists are faceless however.
    Response: [JC] Stephen, help me track down photos of all the scientists and I'll happily update it. There are only so many hours in the day.
  14. The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
    Suggest you have a look at my comment on Glenn's piece in "Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!" I can only get about 0.37W/sq.m of total OHC increase over the last 7 years. The latest Loeb paper quotes total global imbalance at 0.55+/-0.45W/sq.m: 1.0 or 0.1 confidence interval - pretty wide. Hansen quotes 0.6W/sq.m. I have never claimed that the warming imbalance has 'stopped' or even zeroed. I have claimed that it has reduced - much less on some analyses than the modelled 0.9 - 1.0W/sq.m. - or was never of that magnitude to start with - which poses a problem for the theory of *increasing* imbalance from steadily increasing human releases of CO2. [snip]
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I have stepped out of this discussion due to the need for moderation. Inflamatory content snipped. EVERYBODY involved in this discussion, please stick to the science; leave enforcement of the comments policy to the moderators.

    Also, please conduct any discussion of OHC on the other thread that Ken mentions so that we don't conduct the same discussion in parallel on both threads. I've added a link to Ken's earlier comment to make it easier to locate.
  15. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Thanks for this post. It was very interesting to see scientists explaining how their work has been misrepresented. I especially enjoyed the quote from Tad Pfeffer. Adam: I followed the first link provided in your comment. The expectation that Dr. Abraham should respond to 466 questions is comical. And, for what it's worth, the assertion that Abraham is somehow "surrendering" to Monckton immediately reminded me of Charlie Sheen insisting that he is "winning."
  16. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    Glenn The 0-2000m OHC chart shows a rise in OHC from roughly 12E22 Joules to 15E22 Joules over a period of 2005-2011 - 7 years. This is a rate of 3E22 Joules over 7 years or 0.43E22 Joules/year = 43E20 Joules/year. 145E20 Joules/year equates to a TOA imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m. So the 0-2000m OHC increase equates to 0.27W/sq.m at TOA. 2000m to the bottom is very uncertain. The last number I recall was around 0.1W/sq.m (Willis?) This makes a total OHC increase around 0.37W/sq.m TOA equivalent which is far short of the modelled 0.9-1.0W/sq.m - 10 year hiatus notwithstanding. What are you claiming is the OHC increase measured from 2000m to the bottom?
  17. DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
    The very public dissection of the Intelligent Design movement at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Board of Education trial was an enormous blow to the good PR that IDists had enjoyed until people got a close look at them.
    Stephen Baines at #29 pre-empted my response, but it merits a repetition of the basic notion. A part of me actually hopes that Heartland does try to put its K-12 material into schools, for exactly the outcome that would occur - there would be an immediate and overwhelming testing of the material in court, a la Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Board of Education. The queue of climate experts willing to testify would probably wrap around the block, and the likes of the Heartland rogues' gallery (and others such as Monckton and Watts) would either turn up to be scientifically emasculated in a legal test of their claims, or they would avoid the courtroom altogether and be conspicuously seen to be the flim-flam artists that they are. Frankly, I can't see that Heartland can in any way move on its schools plan now - not if they don't want to suffer an ignominious legal challenge. Further, I can't see that they or any of the other lobby groups could even attempt in their turn a legal challenge if, say, the AAAS helped to structure a K-12 program to enable in schools a greater scientific understanding of global warming: in any impartial courtroom testing of science, there would be only one possible outcome (yes, probably even in the States...). A corollary of this is that it's irrelevant whether of not that document is genuine - it's already done its job and the real scientific community will be carefully scrutinising the US school system for any sign of Heartland's plan, and the day that something appears on the radar there'll likely a complainant case ready to roll. I'd be surprised if such a case is not already being prepared somewhere, in anticipation. Heck, Skeptical Science represents the basic structure of such an effort, so if there isn't already a legal attack project running, a nacent one could do worse than to start here (...or at RealScience, of course!).
  18. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam @1, John Abraham has explicitly responded to Monckton's critique of his presentation here at Skeptical Science. In it he acknowledges just three errors in his original presentation: 1) He admits that Monckton says he was "bored" at one time in his speach, where as Abrahams originally quoted him as saying he was "boring". 2) He admits that some of Monckton's slides noted as containing information without reference are marked as being from the SPPI (of which Monckton is the Policy Director). However, he correctly notes that the SPPI was not the original source of the data so that that does not constitute a proper scientific reference (nor a reasonable aid in checking the veracity of the information). 3) He admits that just one slide of Monckton's containing information without reference was marked as data from the University of Alabama Hunstville. However he correctly maintains that that is not a proper scientific reference, which would include the papers name, journal and date of publication. At a minimum it should specify the channel, and version number of the UAH satellite temperature series, and the date on which the data was accessed. As we are now on (at least) version 5.2 of the UAH record, that is not a trivial issue: Abraham also notes an additional error in Monckton's speach. I quote from the second of your sources:
    "Abraham and the university are half-heartedly attempting to characterize the issue as a mere “academic dispute”, as if telling lies is what academics do. However Abraham has put up a new version and taken out the worst of the outrageously libelous errors, which amounts to a full ten minutes of lies removed! Abrahams original version. Newer, tamer, but still incorrect version. As Monckton points out on Watts Up, this is an admission on their part that the first version was libellous, but with many errors still remaining:"
    (My emphasis) I note that the underlined sentence is a direct lie. The University of St Thomas' lawyers had written to Monckton expressly stating that:
    "It is the University's position that Professor Abraham has done nothing improper or illegal in expressing his ideas and opinions on this matter and that Professor Abraham has not engaged in any academic or professional misconduct."
    Inferring an opinion in direct contradiction of a stated opinion that has not been retracted is not justifiable, and Monckton is certainly intelligent enough to know so. What is more, John Abraham continues to maintain both both his original and his revised presentations on his faculty website. As he continues to publish the original presentation, the implication that he has resiled from that is obviously ungrounded. Again, Monckton is in a position and intelligent enough to know this. Unfortunately he is also intelligent enough to know that his accolytes will not care for such matters of consistency, and unscrupulous enough to exploit that gullibility in his followers. Again quoting from your second link:
    "Plenty of libels indeed remain in the new version of Abraham’s talk: he has even been imprudent enough to add quite a new and serious early in his talk, having failed yet again to check his facts with me. In the new version of Abraham’s talk, every remaining libel will be regarded by the courts as malice, because he was told exactly what libels he had perpetrated, and was given a fair chance to retract and apologize, but he has wilfully chosen to persist in and repeat many of the libels. 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."
    The claim that Abraham has "willfully chosen to persist in and repeat many of the libels [sic]" directly contradicts the claim that Abraham and/or the University of St Thomas which continues to host both of his presentations, has surrendered. Therefore that claim is also deceptive. As the claim is made by Jonovva rather than by Monckton, I cannot attest sufficiently to he intelligence to know that it was deliberate deception (aka, a lie), or whether she was simply first deceived by Monckton. Finally, I have a friend who tells me to never attribute to dishonesty what you can attribute to stupidity. Therefore I cannot comment on the ethical basis of your regurgitation of Monckton's deceits.
  19. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    To the 'skeptics', any response counts as worthy. The important thing is to keep a safe distance from actually understanding the science, so that they can say "he responded and won!" Even if the 'skeptic' in question has in front of himself the juxtaposition of Monckton's crocks and the very scientists he cites contradicting him. I sometimes question the ability of human kind as a species to tackle this problem.
  20. Dikran Marsupial at 00:32 AM on 19 February 2012
    A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam, I should add that if you want to discuss any of Moncktons questions here at SkS, just pick an appropriate article (use the search facility) and I am sure there will be someone willing to discuss it with you (if it has to do with the carbon cycle, statistics or GCMs, I would probably be one of them). However, I would suggest you discuss one question at a time in depth.
  21. Dikran Marsupial at 00:29 AM on 19 February 2012
    A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam, a "84-page letter and 466 questions", sounds very much like a Gish Gallop to me, which is a well known rhetorical device that is intended to evade topics that one does not want to discuss by presenting a profusion of other topics in the hopes that said opponent will either be distracted by one of them or not have the energy to address them all and as a result not bother to reply. In science, we have found over the years that depth of discussion is generally preferable to breadth of discussion, as it is more likely to result in the truth. The depth of the discussion is often a good indicator of whether it is scientific or rehtorical; if someone obstructs in depth discussion of a particular topic, there is often a very good reason why. It is good that you mention Moncktons' reply, but it doesn't necessarily present him an a good light. Note also that if Abraham has retracted statements that he couldn't substantiate, then that doesn't necessarily present him in a bad light. One of Monckton's greatest problems is an inability to concede when he is in error, again this is something associated with rhetoric rather than science.
  22. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Oh, please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, both of those links are so riddled with errors that it would take a brave individual hours to catalog and rebut them all. Having said that though, Codling's last gasp:
    It's a bore listening to the endless triumphant claims that Monckton is not a Lord (as if it makes much difference to the climate), but for the record, here's his full explanation (from the Watts Up page) of how he does qualify, as he has always explained, as a non-voting hereditary member of the Upper House. [snip]
    is worth some scrutiny, if only because it's been completely stripped bare by those who should know:
    I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms.
  23. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    #1 Adam, Monckton's Gish Gallops are absolutely enormous, and it takes time to analyse all of his claims. This is an introductory post, and as you can see, there are clear misrepresentations in what he's presented before. The Monckton reply you link to, for example, fabricates IPCC projections in order to make them look bad. Sure, he's excellent rhetorically, and can lead an audience on a merry dance with his debating skills, he seems completely unphased by repeatedly misrepresenting scientists. But SkS is about the evidence, and that's why we're comparing Monckton's claims with scientific evidence here. And you can see clearly, Monckton misrepresents. It's that simple.
  24. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    John Cook, why do you not reference Monckton's extremely detailed reply to Abraham. Abraham has not been able to answer any of the points that Monckton brought up, and he himself has actually surrendered to Monckton, as he has been forced to significantly edit his original video. 'Response to John Abraham' by Christopher Monckton Abraham surrenders to Monckton. Uni of St Thomas endorses untruths.
  25. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    #3 it would be good to see more information. Potential conflicts of interest should be out in the open, whereever the money comes from.
  26. Newcomers, Start Here
    Thanks guys.. and thanks CBDunkerson for the links.. they definitely answer some of what i was looking for..
  27. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    34 (Rob), 35 (KR) : for example, I don't understand very clearly what energy is concerned in this D'Araso et al 2011 paper. By "dissipation" rather than "storage", that is the kind of phenomena I've in mind (not just this one in particular, but the nature of energy in the ocean system). For example, once LW from CO2 (or SW from the Sun) warm the upper layers by radiative transfer, what will happen exactly in the ocean? How this oceanic heat surplus is transferred (where, when, which rate, which quantity, etc.)? Can heat fuels work, like in a Carnot cycle, or can a thermal energy produces be transformed in a kinetic energy? My questions are very basic and naïve, and that's why I search an educational introduction to ocean as an energy system.
  28. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    I’m pleased to see such knowledgeable people posting. Thanks. The comments help me so much to increase my knowledge and understanding. Might I add, has anyone observed any published results on the measurement of the strength and northern boundaries of the Atlantic Current or the Gulf stream? I understand that it is known by several names. The last I can find was in 2005. Sky
  29. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    RyanStarr - most oil companies have moved on from climate denial to acceptance, which makes it all the more confusing why so many continue to cling to their own climate denial.
  30. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Altria appears twice in the donors. Looking at combined 10/11 actual the order is: Nucor ($502,000), William Dunn ($480,000), Renaissance ReService ($407,000), Bartley Madden ($398,933), State Farm ($344,200). Three of them don't appear at all, and yet General Motors' piddly $45K gets in? And where's the 'Big Oil' we keep hearing about?
  31. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    The proposed payment to Loehle is small enough that he may simply not have felt it worth being associated with Heartland. I'm willing to take his word on it.
  32. Climate Insights: a series of bite sized videos on climate science
    You know, these really are well worth publicising, but, unsurprisingly, 'Denialgate' has rather overshadowed this post. Might I suggest a retry after the dust settles?
  33. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Tom @6, That may be, but why then is Loehle's salary still included in the budget at this point. Loehle or HI need to provide a timeline. When did they offer the payment to Loehle and did Loehle decline before or after these documents were created? These are valid questions IMHO. Call me cynical, but I do not trust these folks at all and it would be folly to take their claims at face value.
  34. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Albatross @2 if the HI's word that they proposed to pay Loehle is good enough to accept that fact, then Loehle's claim that he declined the offer is also goode enough to accept his claim. That is because there is no contradiction between the two claims. If, on the other hand a document turns up showing a payment in the budget (ie, a payment to have occurred) then that would raise a conflict between the two claims and require further explanation.
  35. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    That would be bad. This would do virtually nothing to the change the energy imbalance - at best it would buy time.
  36. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    This graphic is not one of your best. A better graphic might be a scaled pipeline showing trickles in, and trickles out, explicitly by donor and ear-marked program. You could use the Heartland budget documents to itemize the various project-elements including climate, health-care or operations. That would more clearly indicate which funders are interested in funding which. You could even animate it using the available annual data. This would have the effect of highlighting the substantial changes in funding per program over the last few years.
  37. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Have we seen this - the open letter from climate scientists to Heartland in the Guardian?
    We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking. It happened to climate researchers in 2009 and again in 2011. Personal emails were culled through and taken out of context before they were posted online. In 2009, the Heartland Institute was among the groups that spread false allegations about what these stolen emails said. Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails. When more stolen emails were posted online in 2011, the Heartland Institute again pointed to their release and spread false claims about scientists.
    Bradley, Karoly, Santer, Schmidt, Mann, Overpeck, Trenberth.
  38. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Someone asked about a similar diagram for WWF. That just shows that whoever asked for that didn't know anything about the WWF programme. The programme is called the Climate Witness Science Advisory Panel. The large number of names deniers like Laframboise and Motl go on about as being compromised by their association with WWF are advisers and receive no remuneration for their participation. A quick look at the programme shows that deniers are once again slandering and smearing scientists when they claim they are compromised when acting on behalf of the IPCC. It is just more slander and smearing of climate scientists doing their job.
  39. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    jmsully, nowhere is it stated in the OP that all the funds are earmarked for climate science denial. Although you may have a point with OP's the title. As for Loehle's claim, I'd like to see some compelling evidence that he did indeed decline the money and that he has not received money from them now or in the past. His word alone does not suffice.
  40. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Some of the figures in the fundraising plan are earmarked for projects which are not associated with climate science denial. You should account for that in this graphic.
  41. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    MattJ Wow. Manipulating ocean currents! Now that is GeoEngineering!
  42. Climate sensitivity is low
    SirNubWub @269, that is a strange graph. In addition to the errors noted by Stephen Baines and Sphaerica, I notice that the line marked "Global Warming Models" is almost certainly mislabeled. I draw your attention to the comparison of actual temperatures (HadCRUT3) and model results from the IPCC AR4 below: As you can see, the model results for actual forcings (Red line, graph a) very closely follow the observations (black line). Therefore in a graph such as you show, the model results would be shown by a scatter plot that overlapped with the observed data through out its entire range, and which had nearly the same mean for most of it. Fairly obviously the line labelled "Model Range"is therefore not the model range at all. Rather it is a simple plot based on a projected response function of temperature to CO2 of 3 degrees per doubling. As noted by Sphaerica, that response function is not the climate sensitivity. I note, however, that the IPCC definition of Transient Climate Response states:
    "The transient climate response is the change in the global surface temperature, averaged over a 20-year period, centred at the time of atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling, that is, at year 70 in a 1% yr–1 compound carbon dioxide increase experiment with a global coupled climate model. It is a measure of the strength and rapidity of the surface temperature response to greenhouse gas forcing."
    In other words, the Transient Climate Response is not the immediate response of temperature in the year of the change of CO2 concentration. As such, and contrary to Sphaerica, the graph plotted is not a graph of the Transient Climate Response. To plot that you would need to plot CO2 concentration against lagged temperature. Even then you would still face confounding factors in the effects of other Green House Gases, increases in solar radiation, and most particularly, changes in Aerosol Optical Depth. It is dubious, therefore, that such a plot will give anything better than a vague approximation of the Transient Climate Response. However, if you were to plot the IPCC TCR on the graph for comparison, the IPCC AR4 value for the TCR for a doubling of CO2 is between 1 and 3 degrees C:
    "Agreement among models for projected transient climate change has also improved since the TAR. The range of transient climate responses (defined as the global average surface air temperature averaged over a 20-year period centred at the time of CO2 doubling in a 1% yr–1 increase experiment) among models is smaller than the range in the equilibrium climate sensitivity. This parameter is now better constrained by multi-model ensembles and comparisons with observations; it is very likely to be greater than 1°C and very unlikely to be greater than 3°C. The transient climate response is related to sensitivity in a nonlinear way such that high sensitivities are not immediately manifested in the short-term response. Transient climate response is strongly affected by the rate of ocean heat uptake. Although the ocean models have improved, systematic model biases and limited ocean temperature data to evaluate transient ocean heat uptake affect the accuracy of current estimates. {8.3, 8.6, 9.4, 9.6, 10.5}"
    (Note, this quote is from the Working Group 1 technical summary. The numbers at the end are relevant section of the WG1 report for further details.) In looking at the graph I noticed that the measurement range of CO2 was from 287.50 - 388 ppmv. The temperature range was 0.8 degrees C. That strongly suggests the temperature data was taken from Gisstemp, and that the time interval of the graph was from 1880 to approx 2009. This information, and the information about who produced the graph should always be included in any graph used for teaching (or science in general). I also notice from the large number of temperature values at the lowest CO2 value that the plot was made against the most recent ice core value of CO2 concentration prior to the availability of Mauna Loa data. Using that method instead of plotting against a smoothed value introduces further inaccuracies to the graph. There is some possibility that values other than ice core values where used prior to 1959. If so, that should be specified, and great care taken as many CO2 measurements prior to 1958 are strongly distorted by local sources and sinks of CO2 (factories, roads, forests). In sum, this graph provides an excellent teaching opportunity. Specifically, it can be used to show how so called "skeptics" use incorrect values (3.25 instead of 3 for the IPCC central estimate of climate sensitivity; mislabel data (labeling a mathematical estimate as "Global Warming Models"); do not properly understand the data they are analyzing (ie, presenting it as a plot showing climate sensitivity, when the technique can show Transient Climate Response at best, and is likely to underestimate it); and do not take into account proper caveattes on the data (due to the unmentioned confounding factors). As such, it presents an excellent opportunity to show the difference between the pseudo-science of so-called skeptics and the genuine science as reported on by the IPCC. It also is an excellent opportunity to show that the vast majority of objections to climate science only masquerade as being science based, but are in fact political in nature, employing as they do pseudo-science rather than science to back up their claims.
  43. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    Glenn Tamblyn: The important issue with the geothermal flow is not just its magnitude which is part of the normal energy balance of the planet, but how much that flux could change because it is that that would be the driver of any contribution it might make to change in the ocean heat content. I'm aware of that, however I wanted to get a handle on the magnitude of the difference between the two. If the heat flux (averaged across the entire ocean floor) is ~13% of the total change in heat content, then the changes required in geothermal heat flux would have to be enormous in relation to the average value. While searching for data, I found this page showing the variation across the ocean floor in the geothermal heat flow data. The greatest values are along the East Pacific Rise, and reach no more than ~350 mW/m2. This suggests that enough variability doesn't exist, certainly not on the scales necessary to have a significant impact on OHC worldwide.
  44. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    I can't claim that this article proves my guess was right, but it does encourage me to believe the guess I made a couple of years ago: if there is a successful "geo-engineering" project to save the world from the worst of AGW, it will be accomplished not by spraying aerosols in the air, but by manipulating ocean currents so that the oceans can absorb more of the heat. That said, I still believe that we do not know enough to embark on ANY geo-engineering project yet, we might not know enough for decades to come. We could easily end up just making things worse.
  45. DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
    The NIPCC project aims raise doubt about climate change, it contains a lot of misinformation, therefore nobody in climate science believes the NIPCC report. But this is different outside science, many folks out there believe the Heartland message that climate change is a hoax. And in this sense the NIPCC has been successful. Also, I can confirm that one of the Dutch authors on the NIPCC report attempted to get more scientists involved. It all fits in the strategy of the Heartland institute, namely to discredit science in order to gain a strategic advantage in a public debate. Last year Nature had an article with since remarkable statements made by Joe Bast, in my opinion most information was known before the documents leaked. link On my blog I keep a collection of articles related to leak at the Heartland Institute.
  46. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    And another point about the estimation of geothermal energy... the petroleum industry invest heavily in understanding this. It is a crucial input to sedimentary models used for determining if and when a basin could be generating oil and gas. I think they would have noticed and reported loudly if there was any suggestion that the accepted geothermal heat flux rate were underestimated. Volcanoes and associated events are extremely localised heating.
  47. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    wrt to Geothermal Energy, the following from Wikipedia gives some sense of its relative magnitude: "The Earth's internal thermal energy flows to the surface by conduction at a rate of 44.2 terawatts (TW),[33] and is replenished by radioactive decay of minerals at a rate of 30 TW.[34] These power rates are more than double humanity’s current energy consumption from all primary sources, but most of this energy flow is not recoverable. In addition to the internal heat flows, the top layer of the surface to a depth of 10 meters (33 ft) is heated by solar energy during the summer, and releases that energy and cools during the winter. Outside of the seasonal variations, the geothermal gradient of temperatures through the crust is 25–30 °C (45–54 °F) per kilometer of depth in most of the world. The conductive heat flux averages 0.1 MW/km2. These values are much higher near tectonic plate boundaries where the crust is thinner. They may be further augmented by fluid circulation, either through magma conduits, hot springs, hydrothermal circulation or a combination of these." 0.1 MW/km2 is 0.1W/M2. Contrast this with Solar absorbed by the surface at around 161 W/M2, back radiation at around 333 W/M2 and the forcing due to a doubling of CO2 of 3.7 W/M2. Geothermal is present but it is 3 orders of magnitude smaller than the main components of the energy balance in the atmosphere. And while it is conceivable that a major subsea volcano might put out enough heat to cause a circulation, heat flows from diffuse sources like vents are pretty unlikely to to contribute much. And the key issue with Geothermal energy is that, apart from major eruptions, there is no sensible mechanism for why the output wouldfluctuate significantly. What must also be remembered is that when we look at the major ocean currents, they may move slowly but the water volumes are massive. So there is a huge amount of kinetic energy in them that can then drive all sorts of complex circulation behaviour. So secondary circulations like gyres aren't really surprising in the context of the whole ocean, and that their behaviour can change from time to time isn't really surprising either. Matt Arkell. The important issue with the geothermal flow is not just its magnitude which is part of the normal energy balance of the planet, but how much that flux could change because it is that that would be the driver of any contribution it might make to change in the ocean heat content.
  48. Global Warming: Trend and Variation
    #85, a single site is not a good measure of global sea level rise, I'm sure you know that. Global sea level measurements are running at the top of the IPCC projections, showing they most likely underestimated sea level rise. Recent papers support this conclusion, and the IPCC SLR figure is likely to be revised upwards in the next report. So I don't believe your last para unequivocally, I think it is an underestimate! You include a couple of irrelevant points. The 120m SLR that concluded in the Early Holocene is as irrelevant to recent sea level as sea level rise in the Jurassic. Although it has some relevance for showing how much oceans can rise (and how fast - Meltwater Pulse 1A) when you melt ice sheets. The Little Ice Age is similarly irrelevant - what on earth do you suppose is the main reason temperatures have risen ~1C since the LIA, and especially since the 1960s?
  49. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    To emphasize KRs point, one need only look at the fact that temperature within tens of meters away from those vents is back to 3-4C. The vastness of the deep ocean provides enough heat capacity to easily dilute that geothermal heat and maintain a very constant temperature. For those geothermal vents to force upwelling through the permanent thermocline, they would have to exert a wide ranging and persistent effect of temperature that would be very obvious. We simply do not see that.
  50. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    I read this line: But the absolute clincher is that the amount of heat going into the oceans is so great that no other source of heat here on Earth could supply it and was curious to know the numbers. While I had an intuitive sense the statement was correct, having studied geothermal heat as a power source in the past, I felt interested to see just how different the heat fluxes from above and below are, just in case I ever get asked. Now obviously I'm comparing apples and oranges to an extent, there isn't much mixing between the parts of the ocean where these heat flows wind up, but the numbers are interesting nonetheless. The heat flow into the top 700 m from 1993-2003 averages out at 257 TW (from the IPCC report graph), while the geothermal heat flow from oceanic crust is 35 TW (from Pollack, 1993; heatflow of 97 mW/m2). So the geothermal flow is only ~13% that of the additional heat being pumped into the top 700 m, which is quite a small amount. In fact I'm a little surprised that no-one I've ever talked to has asked whether the OHC anomaly could be coming from the bottom up instead. Of course, for this to be the case, the oceans would have to operate on a vastly different mechanism to how they are known to operate, even if the heatflow was sufficient.

Prev  1273  1274  1275  1276  1277  1278  1279  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  1287  1288  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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