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 Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

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
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Recent Comments

Prev  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  1287  1288  1289  1290  1291  1292  1293  1294  1295  1296  1297  1298  1299  Next

Comments 64451 to 64500:

  1. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Some serious fudging of the (non)issues here by damorbel. For comparison between the Sun's output and planetary temperature, there's a handy page on this site called It's the Sun.

    If you don't think that there's a relationship between temperatures of stations within 500km or 1000km, or stations of different elevations, clearly you haven't ever done any temperature reconstructions, understood lapse rates, or looked at the data. There's a handy temperature reconstruction that does not extrapolate to cover regions of missing data, it's done by those friendly folks at CRU and is the HADCRUT3 dataset. It shows just the same pattern of warming as GISS. Satellite data, done by those friendly folks at UAH, also shows just the same pattern of warming.

    Though it may "seem to you to be tenuous in the extreme", fortunately there are some clever people out there (including Hansen et al), both professionals and bloggers, who have done the maths and determined that your assertion of limited correlation between stations, supported by nothing more than handwaving, does not stand up to scrutiny.

    See many articles elsewhere on this site for why the 40% extra CO2 is the most important driver of present climate, concentrate on things like the fingerprints of CO2.
  2. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    #12 damorbel: relationships between the effect of the Sun and temperature response are a different subject.

    Hansen and Lebedeff used pairs of stations, i.e. actual observations, to test the strength of spatial correlation and they found from their data that at 1200 km separation the temperature change correlation coefficient dropped below 0.5, so used 1200 km as their cut off for weighting.

    This doesn't sound unreasonable to me. There is a real temperature field, and for a large enough number of point observations you get a statistically good idea of spatial & temporal variability. I trust Hansen, Lebedeff and their reviewers did a reasonable job with the statistics until someone shows me otherwise.

    Can you demonstrate using the data that this isn't true, or pick out a mistake that invalidates the results of HL87?
  3. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    KL:
    The rate of rise of sea levels has slowed. This is not in question. The current rate is under the 1915-1950 rate, and under the 1970-2000 rate. That is not questioned as it is very well documented.
    The question is, will the rate continue at its present level or accelerate.
    I have no clue.
    Response:

    [DB] "The rate of rise of sea levels has slowed.  This is not in question."

    Incorrect.  This is well-documented and not in scientific question, as you say.  See my response to okatiniko at 58 above (specifically the Church & White 2011 reference).

    I suggest learning more about the science before making such unreferenced and authoritative statements.

  4. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    DB@64:
    When we are talking Greenland, I am thinking that the temp metrics affecting Greenland would be the source. We all know that temps in and around Greenland in the 1940's are very similiar to temps today.
    It may be hot or cold in Australia, that will not affect the Greenland area. The temps in and around the Greenland area will affect Greenland.
    Response:

    [DB] My point was that you are cherry-picking when comparing the current global warming period (largely caused by man) to the earlier warming period in which Greenland warmed disproportionatley more than elsewhere.

    Glaciologists are well aware that current ice and ice discharge conditions experienced in Greenland have no contemporary equivalent in the past several thousand years.  Consider Mittivakkat Glacier in Southern Greenland:

    Mittivakkat Glacier

    Note the clear progression of ice termination lines, showing the recessionary behaviour of the glacier over the past hundred years.

    The consensus of indicators and information available show that, for Greenland, the current warming period is longer and of greater intensity than that of the mid-20th Century, and that warming still in Greenland's pipeline (relative to that already experienced globally) will bring it to, or exceed, the levels of the HCO.

    And that is without any compounding warming effects from the ongoing albedo flip underway in the high Arctic.

  5. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Re #12 for autocorrelation read cross-correlation
  6. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Tallbloke: "a lot of valid scientific evidence has been either ignored, downplayed, or dismissed on inadequate or incorrect grounds by the IPCC's scientists and policy makers."

    For example? (on the appropriate thread - and I must say, you haven't done well so far here or at SoD. You suggested SoD work on Miskolczi. SoD did.)

    Given the sheer amount of idiocy spewed forth in claims that "it's not happening," "it's not us," or "it's not bad," and given the fact that very powerful/wealthy individuals have given out a great deal of money to "inspire" people to argue those three ideas, you--being the true skeptic you claim to be--should be appalled not at the possibility, no matter how small, that the scientific community has "overlooked" or "dismissed" too quickly a few articles or that Gavin or writers at SkS have examined the motivations of others; you should be appalled at the unscientific garbage being cheerfully posted at sites like WUWT (and the intensely uncritical cheerleader reactions in the comments streams) and repeated by lawmakers. If you're concerned enough about the public "debate," why not help clean up the unscientific madness first--as SkS is trying to do--in order to get the public to where actual scientific debate is occurring (clouds, methane, extreme weather)?

    Where. has. the. scientific. method. not. been. adhered. to?
  7. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Re #11 MarkR et al

    You cannot learn anything from correlation processes unless you have a clear idea what you are looking for. Autocorrelation is frequently used for detecting (crudely) delay in a signal path; changing the delay enables the full impulse response of the signal path to be determined.

    Such a process could be used to measure how the temperatures on a planet such as Earth respond to variations tin the Sun's output. It is known that the sun's output varies in a cyclical way (basically 11 years but really rather more complex). It would be of interest to try to extract the dependence of any given temperature, global or local, by finding the correlation (at various delays) between the Sun's output and any temperature. As yet I have seen no attempt to do this.

    What Hansen is doing is looking to see if he can reconstruct temperature records where there aren't any which is creative, not scientific.

    There will always be a limited correlation between temperatures, the effects of variations in the Sun's output will see to that; trying to use this to support the argument that man, through generating in a surplus of CO2, is changing the climate of the Earth seems to me to be tenous in the extreme.
  8. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Riccardo #50 DB and others

    Whether you want to quibble about the Jason 1 & 2 SLR records being 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 or 2.3mm/year for the last 8-9 years, it is surely significantly less than the 3.1mm year average for the UCAR 1993-2011 chart, and the oft quoted figure from the likes of the Australian Climate Commission.

    This cannot mean anything else than SLR slowing or decelerating - not accelerating.

    While ice melt is hard to measure, Dr Trenberth suggests in his Aug09 paper that approx 1mm/year is from glaciers and another 1mm/year from major ice sheets. A total of approx 2mm/year from ice melt.

    This 2mm/year for ice melt estimate leaves nothing much when subtracted from the 1.6-2.3mm/year for the component of steric rise - ie. the thermal expansion of all that heat sequestered in the oceans from global warming imbalance.

    Hence steric rise estimates like 0.5+/-0.5mm/year and 0.8+/-0.8mm/year pop up in the literature.

    If I expresed my height as 1.8m +/-1.8m you would not know if I were a giant or a grease spot.

    This is the state of play in SLR measurement.

    If the steric rise has almost stopped, then warming imbalance gap is rapidly closing.

    This is further confirmed by the energy balance budget. If the SLR components are mostly ice melt, the energy needed to melt ice is very small compared with thermally expanding seawater, and the warming imbalance is small for the budget to close.

    okatiniko is trying to understand DB's 'correction' point for SLR at #58. Please explain to us all DB??
  9. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    #62
    "These are scientific issues, not ones of "pre-defined policy positions".

    "I want to see the scientific method adhered to, and proper standards and procedures put in place and adhered to for data gathering and the validation and assessment of the outputs of scientific work done by climate scientists."

    See now, this is what makes me wonder. The practice of climatology and related disciplines has, as far as anyone can tell, been normal, high standard, above board, best practice adhering, science; working it's way thorough available data and models, with their limitations and insights; and proposing new studies. No evidence to the contrary, no evidence of systemic bad practice or distortion. There are, clearly, high quality standards and procedures in place. There really is no good reason why anyone outside the disciplines would want to go round re-analysing every little detail except for for political reasons. That really isn't believable.

    Fact is there is a conflict for reasons outside the science. That is why somewhere like SkS reviews the science for public consumption. That is why talshop tries to show "it's the sun" - even though that website isn't part of a solar-research unit or such like.
  10. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    #5 damorbel;
    "It is all too easy to 'assume' correlations instead of establishing them; the latter is of course the scientific thing to do."

    Exactly, that's why they were determined from observations.

    And why shouldn't there be any hope of correlation if elevation is involved? Higher elevations would expect to be cooler than lower ones, but it's believable that their temperature changes might correlate: they might both warm and cool at the same time which is what is being calculated.

    Here are some New Zealand stations, with Kelburn being near to the airport, but at a higher elevation. A quick eyeball Mk.I suggests very strong correlation, despite the altitude difference.

    So it seems that it isn't impossible.
  11. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    #62 You're still not putting up the 'important science that has been downplayed'. Remember that this important science has to have not already been refuted by rational argument in the peer-reviewed litereature.

    There is plenty to challenge climate scientists and plenty of room for scientific argument, but it does not matter from a policy perspective whether warming will be 2C / CO2 doubling, or 4.5C / CO2 doubling, or if sea level will be 1m higher by 2100, or 4m higher by 2100. It matters from the perspective of determining how much action we take and how quickly, but the answer does not change the fact that we must take action as soon as possible.

    Uncertainties about climate change do not, from a scientific perspective, include a range of climate change where there will not be serious consequences for modern human society from coastal swamping, extreme weather and poor food security.
  12. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    okatiniko:

    "I understand it is a real effect producing a real negative component, so why correct it ?"

    Because they're trying to measure sea level rise, not the rate at which the land is rising in such regions.
  13. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Eric #12: Did you look? All the data is on Prall's website, which is in turn referenced in the supplemental material of the Anderegg 2010 paper. The supplemental material is referenced (and hyperlinked in the PDF) version from the article text (at least twice that I could see). He provides all the data you need to repeat the calculations with your own criteria of number of papers or number of cites.
  14. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    What about the luke warmers, those who believe we are warming but it does not require drastic action?
  15. Eric (skeptic) at 22:29 PM on 30 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Dikran and John, there are a few problems with Anderegg et al such as: "To examine only researchers with demonstrated climate expertise, we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers" and "We conducted the above analyses with a climate researcher cutoff of a minimum of 10 and 40 publications, which yielded very little change in the qualitative or strong statistically significant differences between CE and UE groups." But they didn't publish those numbers. I am interested in the CE/UE breakdown of climate scientists who only published a few papers, but those statistics were not released in Anderegg.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The definition of "climate expert" is still not "self-selected" as a perfectly reasonable objective criterion is given. Whether or not the statistics from a test of the robustness of the findings to the threshold used are published makes no difference to that fact.
  16. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    I gave a talk at the University of Qld last Friday night and part of the talk featured the "97 out of 100 climate experts..." infographic. During question time, my old dean of physics (now retired) grilled me with your very question, Eric - what do I mean by a "climate expert"? Was a bit weird, took me back 2 decades, getting grilled by my old dean. I answered much the same as Dikran Marsupial - according to the two surveys in Doran et al 2009 and Anderegg et al 2010, a climate expert is a climate scientist who is actively publishing climate research in the peer-reviewed literature. That answer seemed to satisfy the crusty old dean :-)
  17. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    JMurphy@62,
    "How many times does that have to be repeated before you accept it,"

    I understand the tactic, but nonetheless, repetition doesn't make things true, or necessarily acceptable.

    Gavin made an assumption that I have been "picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position".

    As I pointed out to him in personal email, I am myself leading a life of low consumption - solar hot water panel, electric bicycle for local errands, re-engineered 80mpg motorcycle to commute to my job (supporting people who train teachers how to teach science), woodburner for domestic heating and cooking, grow my own vegetables, rainwater collection system for irrigation and domestic supply, working on permaculture principles to recycle materials and integrate with natural environment, and so on.

    My objection (and that of a lot of other people) to the IPCC climate scientist's position on the matters put up for discussion by the European Centre for Research is that a lot of valid scientific evidence has been either ignored, downplayed, or dismissed on inadequate or incorrect grounds by the IPCC's scientists and policy makers.

    These are scientific issues, not ones of "pre-defined policy positions".

    Gavin is, like yourselves, guilty of presuming to know what the motivations are in the minds of others, and refusing to engage on the strength of those unfounded assumptions. It looks like a cop-out to me, and to the majority of the public.

    I want to see the scientific method adhered to, and proper standards and procedures put in place and adhered to for data gathering and the validation and assessment of the outputs of scientific work done by climate scientists.
  18. Eric (skeptic) at 21:34 PM on 30 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    From the article: "we have a consensus of scientists with 97 out of 100 climate experts" Please define climate expert. It seems to me that "climate experts" are self-selected just as surely as Tom Curtis seems to think that those in the "denial movement" are.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please follow the link provided in the article in question, which contains the the following quote "97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes". Thus the only self-selection involved is in the decision of the individuals concerned to pursue a research career in climatology.
  19. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    skywatcher@68:
    Wrong. I was pointing out an observation about Greenlands glaciers.
  20. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Thanks for the image fix at #54, DB. They looked alright when I did a Preview but I suppose I should always include that img width="450" bit, just in case.
  21. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    tallbloke, instead of seeing conspiracies where there are none (e.g. your bringing in of DeepClimate to suggest that, somehow, Curry's clearly visible and audible actions and words have been misinterpreted), and trying to make yourself some sort of unbiased, neutral observer willing to discuss what you believe are the 'beliefs' of others (i.e. the majority who accept the science), why don't you yet again (or properly) read what Gavin Schmidt had to say about the previous attempt at pseudo-reconciliation :


    None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.
    You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific ‘controversies’.


    How many times does that have to be repeated before you accept it, rather than proclaim you would rather consider "new physics" - whatever world that exists in !
  22. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    damorbel #5

    What's the temperature trend if you used, say, a correlation to a distance as short as 250Km?
  23. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Tim Curtin #7

    If it's so easy to get whatever desired outcome, how come no research institute, or even blogger, managed to produce a time series with the "real" decline in temperature you imply to be the case?

    How much evidence one can deny before admitting to himself he's in denial?
  24. Rob Painting at 20:32 PM on 30 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Tom Curtis @ 7 - hear, hear!
  25. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    On second thoughts I'll leave you and John Cook to your psychologising. It's hard work trying to dialogue with people who reassure themselves of the superiority of their beliefs by making up stories about the mental states of others, and there is some exciting new physics to consider.
  26. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    #7 Tim Curtin. I'll see your cherries (Eskdalemuir and Oxford) and raise them with the UK's April temperature according to CET. That graph looks almost like a hockey stick, with 2007 beating the previous record by 0.6C, and 2011 beating 2007 by 0.6C.
    In Scotland, where I live, global warming is manifesting itself in weird winter weather (either no snow or deluges of it), and by smashed temperature records any time the wind is persistently in the south, which has been relatively rare due to weird weather patterns. Flooding is also not uncommon. Extremes haven't been reached in the UK like Russia or Pakistan (though Cumbria and Gloucester might argue differently), but arguing on the basis of a few cherries that global temperature isn't rising is a lame duck argument.

    Why do satellites show the same warming, why are the seasons changing, and why are the glaciers retreating at a rate of knots? Did you go round and tell the glaciers that GISTEMP has been fudged and they should retreat so as to keep in with the conspiracy?
  27. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    HR and Tom:
    I guess what is stake here is the consequences of taking a strong line. I'm reminded of Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" line. So I'm guessing the effect will be to polarise the debate, pushing people out of the middle to one extreme or the other.

    Questions:
    - Is that is a good thing?
    - Does making the middle ground uninhabitable make it harder to change your mind?
    - In which direction are people more likely to change their mind?

    I suspect in the light of recent insights on why people are deniers (e.g. default position based on political/economic ideology), and the increasingly in-your-face evidence of drought and extreme rainfall, that we are moving to a situation where people are more likely to be moving toward the scientific consensus.

    But I'm not a sociologist. I don't trust my instincts on this one, you shouldn't either.
  28. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
    Very informative - Thanks.
    Shame about the typical (unconnected) so-called skeptical misrepresentation above !
  29. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    58 mods - As I thought. Not that I'll be wasting my time on talkshop (or what ever); but I suppose that that sentence sets him up for "SkS... they just censor people who don't agree with them" type triumphalism.
  30. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Well said Albatross (#65). It's worth comparing Camburn's comments about Greenland glaciers with John Cook's points made in his article at the Drum. Camburn hopes that by identifying a single, growing glacier in Greenland, we'll ignore the prepondernace of evidence showing accelerating greenland mass loss and global glacier retreat.

    #66: clearly you don't get what I was alluding to - that the past decade is warmer than expected based on the rate of warming over the previous two or three decades (or more). When you consider temperature change over climatically significant time periods (decades), you find absolutely no evidence that warming slowed at all.
  31. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    57 - tallbloke "there is an expressed wish that I "be quiet" here."

    Did someone email you that? I can't see anything in responses to your posts to suggest it.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I requested we steered away from yet another discussion of falsificationism (which would be off-topic for this thread); however that is very far away from expressing a wish that anyone be quiet here.
  32. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    HumanityRules, climate change denial is a political fact. This is very evident in the choice of allies of the various adaptors, luke warmers, solarists, cosmic rayers, conspiracy theorists and what have you that make up the denial movement. Although many of these groups are closer to the mainstream scientists than they are to each other, still they self select the most absurd theorists as their allies. Obviously the sole criterion to be welcomed into the alliance is that you must oppose mitigating climate change. If you are firm on that point, any epistemological sin will be overlooked by your new found allies.

    Having self selected on this basis, turning around and blaming those who will not distort the science for political convenience for trying to impose two camps is a bit rich.
  33. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    That is an excellent account of how James Hansen's Gistemp is an artefact very easily manipulated to give the desired outcome, because of the ample opportunity for subjective selection. For example, the latest Gistemp shows an anomaly for both Oxford and Heathrow UK over the period 1959-2010 relative to 1951-80 of 0.41 oC. However the UK Met Office shows the LS linear trend in Tmax for Heathrow of over 0.034 p.a. from 1959-2010, or 3.4 oC if projected forward to 2110, while Oxford, about 30 miles away has a down trend over 1959-2010 of 0.07 oC p.a., or MINUS 7 oC to 2110. Guess which is chosen by Gistemp using its 1200 km rule, which also enables GISS to use Heathrow to represent temperature trends in Scotland, even though like Oxford, Eskdalemuir up there (home to the main Scottish observatory)shows NEGATIVE trends of 0.051 for Tmax and 0.037 oC p.a. for Tmin from 1959-2010. Scotland's mean annual temperature is already less than 10 oC, and if these 50 year trends persist it is going to be really cold by the end of this century! Climate scientists are expert at linear projections when it suits them, but they don't want to know about Oxford with its temperature records going back to 1660, or Scotland, and Heathrow will do very nicely.
  34. HumanityRules at 18:57 PM on 30 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    (pressed submit early)

    Take an example of Roy Spencer.

    He believes CO2 is a GHG, that the planet has warmed recently (his satellite temperature record shows this) but he also believes (and has published) that climate sensitivity is low. Climate sensitivity is an unsettled issue, his is part of a spectrum of opinion on the subject. John seems to want to impose some sort of cut off point by which Spenser is to be considered in some way different to the other scientists that are putting forward their own estimates of climate sensitivity. I struggle to understand how you set the cut off point that labels one scientist a denier (and all that entails) and others reasonable.

    (BTW congratulation John on getting on the Drum, it's one of my favorite shows on ABC News24)
  35. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    There are some pretty serious issues raised in the foregoing comments from Tom Curtis and Albartross, amongst others. I'll put up a new post on my blog to address these, since there is an expressed wish that I "be quiet" here.

    My parting observation is that respectful dialogue increases understanding of conflicting viewpoints, and reduces misunderstanding of motive, so I hope some of you will join in over at the talkshop when the post goes up in a few days time.
  36. HumanityRules at 18:43 PM on 30 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    "So which camp do you fall in?" (quote from article)

    Do you not think this is problematic? Take a large scientific subject like climate science. There are endless questions you could ask about the subject why should evrybody agree on every issue?. Throw in the fact the incomplete nature of this science as well and it seems only right that people who agree on one subject can (and should be) vermently disagreeing on others. And as we have seen many of the so-called deniers and sceptics agree on much of the science. For example I think all serious individuals agree that the past 100 years or so have seen the planet warm and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    So the real question should be what two camps are you trying to impose on climate science
  37. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    okatiniko: GIA is a local effect. It has to be corrected for when trying to assess changes in global sea level.
  38. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Interesting place, the Australasian media...

    From the BBC: Actress Cate Blanchett sparks Australia climate debate
  39. Leland Palmer at 18:17 PM on 30 May 2011
    Wakening the Kraken
    It's been traditional since the time of Svante Arrhenius to fit a logarithmic curve to radiative forcing versus greenhouse gas concentration. But because this is a complicated atmospheric chemistry feedback system that the authors are talking about in the Isaksen paper, it's not clear to me that the forcing will be strictly logarithmic. It seems possible that a series of logarithmic increases could sum together into something close to a linear curve.

    A logarithmic curve fit with the data points generated by the above paper produces forcing of up to about 18 W/m2 and so temperature increases on the order of 14 degrees C.

    This paper does not count forcing due to CO2 or water vapor not generated as a result of indirect atmospheric chemistry effects of methane, though. By the time we get to 14 degrees C increase in temperature, likely a lot of the CO2 dissolved in the oceans will be forced out- and that is a huge, huge amount of CO2.

    At what point will the tropical oceans start to boil, adding potentially huge amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere?

    It seems possible that we might see a series of additive logarithmic increases, starting with the logarithmic increase due to CO2.

    Next, and stacked on top of that curve, could be a logarithmic curve due to methane and its indirect atmospheric chemistry effects.

    Stacked on top of that could be a logarithmic curve due to huge increases in water vapor from boiling lakes and oceans.
  40. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    My first impression was "Hey, John's getting serious here!", due to the wording being a bit stronger than the average article here on SkS, but then I realised you were writing for a different audience.

    I thought the point was well put, and forcefully so. This isn't a time to be tiptoeing through people's sensibilities, while the deniers are busily kicking doors in with their mining boots. The only way the general public will get to see the science, is if the science is put before them.

    Have added my comment to the moderators' queue, will be interesting to see how the 'discussion' evolves. I expect to see a post here in a few days listing the denier arguments put forward, and how often each one appears in the comment thread! :-P
    Response: [JC] Hmm, nice idea for a blog post. Noted!
  41. Philippe Chantreau at 17:49 PM on 30 May 2011
    CO2 limits will make little difference
    Mods, is Faramir the same person as Dorlomin?
  42. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    To Glenn Tamblyn
    In order to monitor if the global surface temperature is rising, an absolute value is not needed. A checksum will do, wherein even temperature anomalies become part of what can be considered "all things being the same".
  43. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    A well written piece, John. Excellent.
  44. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Hi John,

    I regularly comment in The Drum. You'll probably find the comments come through in batches as the moderators find time to read them.
    I have to give you two thumbs up as I usually use Skepticalscience for the abridged version of rebuttals.
  45. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Re #3 GaryB you wrote:-
    “The 1200-km limit is the distance at which the average correlation coefficient of temperature variations falls to 0.5 at middle and high latitudes and 0.33 at low latitudes."

    Thank you for making my point. Can any serious analysis expect correlation of temperature over 1200km? 1200m may just be satisfactory over land mass but is unlikely to be so for a land/water interface and absolutely not if a change of elevation is involved.

    It is all too easy to 'assume' correlations instead of establishing them; the latter is of course the scientific thing to do.

    Re #4 Chad you wrote:-

    " If one takes into account the land data interpolated into the ocean, the spatial coverages is well over 100% "

    'Interpolation' means creating data points where you have none; interpolation always means making assumptions about how some function, arbitrary (free hand sketch) or mathematical (a very big subject!) behaves.

    There you have it; you must show how the interpolation is valid, something that has not been done. This validity failure corresponds exactly with the failure to establish the correlation I have mentioned above.
  46. Glenn Tamblyn at 15:33 PM on 30 May 2011
    Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
    SoundOff

    I am not planning on looking at the specific issues of individual stations. Rather the purpose of these series is the general principles of how the temperature record is handled.

    That said, variations in stations, station ID's etc are unfortunately just what the teams who compile the records have to deal with. Unfortunately they don't control the information sources they are dependent on. The stations are controlled by various national meteorological services around the world. And the primary function of the stations is meteorological. The climatological function piggy-backs on top of that. So the national agencies do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, good & bad, and the temperature record guys just have to wear it and do the best they can with the data they get.

    Hence the importance of the Average of Anomalies approach.
  47. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    skywatcher , I don't think that a statistically decelerating trend would result in a decrease of all trends computed for any interval. This would be cherry picking. If you find a couple a value for which the trend is decreasing, and then another one for which it's increasing, what's your conclusion then ?

    DB, sorry, I'm not sure that I understood your explanation : does GIA produce a real decrease of SLR , and does the correction remove this decrease, giving (after correction) a higher result than what is really observed on the coasts ? I understand that the measurements should be corrected from instrumental effects, but GIA is not an instrumental effect : as I understand it is a real effect producing a real negative component, so why correct it ?

    for instance to my knowledge there is no "correction" from astronomical influences on the average temperatures ? it is just a part of the signal.

    and actually I didn't catch either your answer on how the model were validated if no statistical acceleration could be measured yet - how do you know that the models are correct ?
  48. Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
    What particularly warms me about this book is that in addition to its rigourous coverage of the science it goes further and suggests the broader social changes required to defeat the coming climate calamity.

    As demonstrated by these choice quotes,

    "A sustainable society will require fairness (equity) and justice locally and globally." – Climate Change Denial

    "Preventing the collapse of human civilizati­on requires nothing less than a wholesale transforma­tion of dominant consumer culture." – Climate Change Denial

    "We need to replace private consumption of goods with public consumption of services." – Climate Change Denial
  49. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Does anyone else find it odd that Haydn and Cook got the science right in their book, when an alleged eminent climate scientist (Dr. Spencer) mangled the science in his recent book as outlined by Drs. Bickmore and Smith? Spencer, Christy and Lindzen have all clearly abandoned undertaking serious and unbiased science a long time ago, and have forsaken their credibility in the process. Sad then that there are those who are only too happy to aide and abet them in their misguided quest.

    And once again, please DNFTT (TB), you are only giving them an opportunity to further their nonsense. It is pointless trying to reason and argue with Dunning-Krugers and ideologues...pointless.

    Haydn and Cook have looked into the fascinating psychological underpinnings of the denialism and "skepticism" movement. The psychological aspect of those in denial or "skeptical" of AGW has been ignored for too long IMO.

    What is also interesting (and at times amusing) is that those afflicted with these traits, are so oblivious to their plight (some might say deluded) that they feel compelled to come here and defend their ideology, without realizing that with pretty each and every post they only succeed in illustrating the exact problems identified by Haydn and Crook.

    The best thing they can do is to actually be quiet, because they are only further undermining their credibility with each post.
  50. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Folks,

    Watch the sleight of hand being perpetuated by the deniers of AGW and "skeptics" on this thread. Note their tendency to cherry pick regional transient events in the past and then confuse them with what has been happening globally and what will continue to happen globally as we continue to emit GHGs.

    This is nothing but tricks to obfuscate and an attempt to confuse people not familiar with the literature and the science.

    It is also the height of arrogance for someone to assume that they know more than the Australian climate commission and the US National Academy of sciences. Think of it as someone on the web telling you that the oncologists have gotten it all wrong on the links between tobacco and cancer. Who would you trust them or the oncologists? Well, the oncologists of course.

    Beware of the omniscient contrarians and confusionists.

Prev  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  1287  1288  1289  1290  1291  1292  1293  1294  1295  1296  1297  1298  1299  Next



Get It Here or via iBooks.


The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2017 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us