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  1352  1353  1354  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  Next

Comments 67951 to 68000:

  1. There is no consensus
    Jdey #497 It's hard to forecast the weather more than a few days ahead, yet amazingly we can have (in the NH) real confidence that June will be warmer than December, and that June's temperature will lie within a particular range. GHGs play the role of the height of the Sun in the climate version of this analogy - the strong longer-term forcing that does not immediately dominate the vagaries of day-to-day weather, but inevitably wins in the end. Scientific theories are the best we have (read up on what a theory is). What are scientific 'facts'?
  2. There is no consensus
    Jdey123, what do you make of that paper from Hansen et al. 11 years ago? Did you read the whole thing, and do you think that Hansen currently thinks that CO2 is not the dominant forcing where recent warming is concerned? It's easy to point to abstracts and say, "see! see!," but perhaps you can tell us what you think the paper says. I do note that it does say that CO2 and CH4 are the principal GHGs.
  3. Models are unreliable
    Let's be clear about what happens in the modelling process. There is the famous George Box statement. "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful". When you hindcast, you find models capture some observations but all. So what do you do to improve the model? In a physics model, you add more physics. Beyond bugs in the code, a failure in the model is physics not working. A lot of that has to with simplifications necessary for hardware of the time, so it's choose the important stuff. In 1975, "Broecker, W.S. 1975. "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" used Manabe's model to make a very good fist of predicting the 2010 temperature. However, the Manabe model was so primitive, that it had little to say of use about a great many other parameters. Improving computer power allows better spatial and temporal resolutions; more direct physics calculations rather than parameterisations etc. You will have no trouble finding things that the models still dont capture well - ask the modellers - but more and more of the important stuff go in. What doesnt happen in the process is tweaking numbers to fit a line. There are parametrizations made from empirical data - eg evaporation as function of temperature,humidity and wind speed - but the fitting is done in terms of data on evaporation, temperature and windspeed, not fiddling the function to make achieve say a particular global temperature curve.
  4. Arctic settles into new phase – warmer, greener, and less ice
    Muoncounter @2, the fluctuations are largely due to seasonal variations. However, between 1997 and 2007 the difference between the winter and summer anomalies was around 1 million square kilometers. Post 2007, it is closer to 1.75 million square kilometers. That is partly because the winter anomaly has not declined since 2007, while the summer anomaly continues its death spiral. However, contrary to DeWitt Payne, I think 5 years is two short an interval to suggest that this is a new seasonal pattern rather than just noise. On the other hand, at some stage in a continuing death spiral of summer ice, we would expect this pattern to emerge. In the near term limit, winter ice will still form extensively, while the summer ice will shrink to near zero. In the medium term we would then expect the winter ice to gradually shrink in area as the summer water temperatures start to climb in the absence of ice. Consequently the pattern over the last few years may be this pattern (continuing winter ice, and low or no summer ice) starting to assert itself. It is just too early to say IMO.
  5. Arctic settles into new phase – warmer, greener, and less ice
    If you are talking about this Cryosphere Today graph, aren't the 'big spikes upward and downward' the seasonal variation? And isn't the very-well defined trend down?
  6. Arctic settles into new phase – warmer, greener, and less ice
    There has certainly been a shift in the seasonal behavior of NH sea ice area. The new seasonal pattern that appears to have been established in 2007 is significantly different from that observed by satellite from 1979-2006 and appears to be reasonably stable, at least through 2011. That's why the anomaly data for NH sea ice area at Cryosphere Today calculated using the 1979-2008 average, for example, shows big spikes upward and downward starting in 2007.
  7. Models are unreliable
    431, mace, Not based on, but tested with. The models are physics based, but may be run over past periods so that the outcomes of the model can be compared to what we know already happened. And GHG's are a significantly stronger forcing agent on climate scales, but not simple monthly to inter-annual variability. The swings from one year to the next or over several years are still large. Consider the monthly and annual changes in temperatures here, versus the trend, using the BEST data:
  8. Dikran Marsupial at 10:44 AM on 19 December 2011
    Models are unreliable
    mace@431, GHG may be the dominant forcing, but that doesn't mean that their effect on climate dominates unforced variability on short timescales (e.g. 15 years). GCMs are just approaching the point where decadal predictions are beginning to be interesting. There was a good article at RealClimate on this recently.
  9. Models are unreliable
    Stephen Baines, the article to which these comments are attached says that the model is based on hindcasting. I thought GHGs were already large enough to be a significantly stronger forcing agent than natural sources. It's only deniers who claim otherwise.
  10. Models are unreliable
    Jdey, The reason we observed climate change is thought to be manmade is because it is consistent with the physics, not due to extrapolation from statistical correlations. The models are not statistical -- they cannot behave differently than dictated by the physics of radiation, heat transfer, mass flow, etc. That physics is based on an enormous amount of experimental, observational and theoretical work that has built up over the years, and must be acknowledged. Given this physics and observed forcings (GHG, aerosols, solar), the only way to explain the recent global warming is via greenhouse gasses. Morever, given good input on forcings, the models do very well at predicting their consequences for climate past and present. It's that simple. It's crazy to compare climate models to the stock market models; they are apples and oranges. The rules governing the stock market are poorly understood and possibly maleable through time depending on human behavior and perceptions. We can use complex statistical time series analysis to analyse these patterns, but we cannot say for sure whether the rules governing the patterns we see now will not change in the future. It's a real and difficult challenge for that field - hats off to them for trying. In physics, by contrast, the factors do not change through time. As long as you capture the key variables, your will do OK. And there are many, many well established constraints that limit the range of possible solutions. In that sense, climate scientists have it easy! That's why Arhenius 100 years ago was able to estimate pretty well the CO2 climate sensitivity, and why models haven't really deviated far from that number much in the intervening century. Also, it isn't so hard to understand the inability to predict changes due to greenhouse changes for periods less than 15 years. The signal from GHGs accumulating increases over time while variation from natural sources does not. So naturally the effect of GHG will be more obvious over longer time scales, when it is larger relative to background natural variation.
  11. Models are unreliable
    Are you extrapolating past history based on curve-fitting or physical basis? Conflating "beliefs" with independently validated scientific research leads me to conclude curve-fitting.
  12. Models are unreliable
    Bibliovermis, the thread is about whether the climate change model is reliable or not. Given that we have to wait until 2100 to prove whether it is or not, we have to examine the beliefs that this model is based upon. One of which is that you can extrapolate past history.
    Response:

    [DB] Let the reader note that Jdey123 found compliance with the Comments Policy too onerous a burden.

  13. Models are unreliable
    Statistics with no physical basis describing a matter of physics is a perfect example of "lies, damned lies, and statistics." This would be why your comments conflating stock market analysis with climatology are being deleted, at least in my non-moderator opinion.
  14. Models are unreliable
    (- off topic snipped -]
    Moderator Response:

    [muon] This isn't about the weather, its about the climate; you apparently do not know the difference. Anyone investing in the market must have a reasonable expectation that his or her investment will increase in value over a long enough term; that's climate. Day-to-day, week-to-week fluctuations: weather.

    [DB] See the previous moderated comment.

  15. Models are unreliable
    Re Dow. Well actually I expect that stock market does in fact respond to forcings but there isnt a quantitative model to test. Climate IS different. There is a quantitative model based on known physics not a deduction based on observation of a trend. The models are not one dimensional. They make a huge no. of predictions on wide variety of parameters with spatial and vertical structures. These predictions vary in robustness but all amount to tests of the model. The evolving climate is a continuous test of these predictions. Please learn how to do hyperlinks (see tips below comment box).
  16. Models are unreliable
    Ok, so my example including hyperlinks showing why stock market prediction is analogous to climate prediction and showing why extrapolating historical trends has been deleted. The post was on topic and scientific, so why has this been deleted?
    Moderator Response:

    [muon] This is not about the stock market. There are several threads dealing with the overall accuracy of past climate predictions - as well as the overall inaccuracy of predictions made by those in denial.
    You've been counseled multiple times on other threads to read, learn and follow the Comments Policy. As you were already told, posting on this forum is a privilege, not a right.

    [DB] Ok, you have now had 3 4 comments deleted since this one was posted, all of which amount to moderation complaints, trolling and taunting.  No more warnings.  Zero. 

    Either adhere to the Comments Policy, a rule the vast majority of participants here have no difficulties whatsoever in adhering to, or you "choose to recuse yourself from this venue".

    Your call.

  17. NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
    Has there been any attempt to fit the data to catastrophe theory? It has often occurred to me that if the ‘y’ axis showed rate of food production, ‘x’ axis showed the temperature and the ‘z’ axis the rate of temperature increase, there would be a fold in the resulting plot that would eventually show a catastrophic fall in food production. This would be when the surviveable environment for a species moved quicker than the speed at which it could migrate. Clearly this would vary with location and species etc. but I think we should not let it creep up on us by surprise.
  18. Models are unreliable
    Jdey123 - the reasons why models have little skill with decadal-level prediction are well understood. It may improve, but this has little to do with the skill of models designed to predict climate not weather. You do understand the difference between a climate model and a weather model? I would note that models are very successful at predictions within their domain. eg look here (Noting the papers cited both in making the prediction and observing it). As to volcanoes - models respond to specific aerosol loadings at given altitudes and locations. Until a volcano erupts, you dont know what these will be. Instead models use scenarios to put in volcanoes at the rate they are normally observed. If you look at any of the climate models predictions beyond the present you will see downturn spikes in places (and they will be different for different models and for different runs of the same model). These are simulated volcanoes. They are not saying that there will be a volcano at this time and place, but if they didnt put periodic volcanoes into the scenario, then the temperatures would be too high. (A long span of very quiet volcano activity is in effect a natural forcing). If you think that code is "fitted" to reproduce volcano change, then you could take code from before eruption, put the volcano into the scenario, and rerun. Glory awaits you if this doesnt match the published outputs from scientists doing the very same thing.
  19. There is no consensus
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27611/?tool=pmcentrez "A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties." Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario James Hansen,*† Makiko Sato,*‡ Reto Ruedy,* Andrew Lacis,* and Valdar Oinas*§ June 16, 2000
  20. There is no consensus
    Jdey123 - I think you find that this site is happy to argue about different viewpoints - provided the person does so in the correct place, in keeping with the comment policy. Everyone except John is a guest here. it is far more constructive to arguments about models on a models thread. Also, arguments about science need to proceed from discussion of data and publications, not misinformed opinion. So, in keeping with topic of this thread, perhaps you could tell us on basis you make this statement? "There is still no concensus amongst warmists as to which greenhouse gas is the main culprit.". As far as I know, this is flat out wrong. Show me otherwise.
  21. Models are unreliable
    "Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption." I note that there is no hyperlink to any report which actually proves that a model was produced prior to an eruption taking place, that the prediction was proved correct in terms of the volcanic eruption's effect on the global mean temperature.
  22. Models are unreliable
    "If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future." Interesting point of view. See my Nikkei example which demolishes that thought.
  23. Models are unreliable
    skywatcher. The weather varies from day to day because of atmospheric pressure and wind blowing either hot or cold air from other areas of the planet on to the location that you're observing the weather from. Now, if manmade pollution is the main factor that governs climate change, and natural forcing agents are a much lesser factor, then why can't you predict the global mean temperature next year, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years etc. with a reasonable degree of confidence?
  24. There is no consensus
    (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  25. There is no consensus
    Eric, when you produce a model that can predict the future global mean temperature, then it becomes science. In the mean time, it's theory. Weather forecasters are at least correct most of the time for a 1 day forecast. They may not be 100% correct, but they're correct often enough that most people have confidence in 1 day forecasts. Most people also have little confidence in forecasts greater than a few days. At 1 point, forecasters rather ambitiously used to issue seasonal forecasts but were wrong so often, they lost complete credibility. With climate change, we're told that the model can't be accurate either in the short or long term due to too many complicating factors. (-inflammatory snipped-). It will no doubt take a supercomputer bigger than what we have today and years of research, but humanity will eventually be able to crack this. As I've mentioned in my last post, I'm fine with the demand that mankind reducing pollution but I'm not ok with calling a theory, scientific fact. What exactly is my supposed political agenda here?
    Response:

    [DB] Please refrain from introducing politics into the discussion.  This is not a thread devoted to politics & climate science (others do exist that cover that).

    Also, your discussion of models is off-topic on this thread.  Please use the Models are unreliable thread for that.  Thanks!

  26. NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
    I am mostly afraid about Earth becoming like Venus some day - I just read about the findings of CH4 in a German newspaper
  27. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @ Bob Loblaw It was about a year ago that I counseled RW1 that, in order to better be able to combat & overturn climate science with the ideas learned at the knee of George White, he must first start with a clean slate & learn climate science from the basics up. Then and only then would he be able to apply himself to overturning it.
  28. Philippe Chantreau at 05:18 AM on 19 December 2011
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    "no chance for the 2nd law naysayers to squawk" Thing is, real scientists do not give a hoot about 2nd law naysayers. They really don't. 2nd law naysayers are either so hopelessely confused as to be irrelevant, or, in the case of G&T, trying to have fun by exploiting the hopelessely confused. All of it has no bearing whatsoever on the real science. Has G&T led to proclamation of a revolution in atmospheric physics by AGU, NSF, the major publications? No, it met complete indifference. Only a few involved in fighting climate disinformation have taken up the task of disentagnling the sad confusion generated by this useless piece.
  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I've been hesitant to add to the fray, but here goes... Trenberth's diagram (just a recent variant of similar diagrams that have been around for decades) represents global mean net fluxes, and any any interpretation that treats them as absolute fluxes is doomed to failure. All the associated energy fluxes vary in magnitude in space and time, and for a full understanding of global climate you have to look at the fluxes in three dimensions. That's why people make 3-D climate models. As Tom, Sphaerica, and other regulars have pointed out repeatedly: all the simple models (be they descriptive or numerical) while useful for helping explain parts of the system are very limited in looking at the details. Unfortunately, the discussion by people such as TOP and RW1 falls into a couple of unproductive patterns: 1) misunderstandings of the simple models (Trenberth's diagram is one such example of a simple, descriptive model with some numbers attached), in particular what the simplifications are and why they are made. For example, TOP's statement in #1252 about the diagram only showing "radiating energy in one direction", when it is only intended to express the average net result (e.g., amount of IR absorbed at the surface, from the atmosphere, in the case of the 333 W/m^2 back radiation). 2) basic misunderstandings of physics, such as the difference between radiative energy transfer and convective heat transfer, or how energy is transferred as "latent heat". In particular, both of them seem to be missing the concept of absorption of radiation as the driver for atmospheric temperature change, rather than the flux of radiation. Thus, the difference between absorption and emission drives the energy balance (with the added requirement that convective fluxes be considered, too). At any single point, it is the flux divergence that controls heating/cooling rates, not the absolute fluxes themselves. Tom, Sphaerica, other regulars: I strongly disagree with you that TOP and RW1 have a lot to learn. Unfortunately, I think the major problem is that they have a lot of just plain wrong stuff in their heads that they have to unlearn first. Their obstinate view that they have some unrecognized gift to knowledge is a major hurdle. Unless they are willing to sit back and say to themselves "let's start from scratch" and begin to learn physics and climatology from a blank slate, then pointing out their wrongheadedness is futile (except in the goal of making sure that the casual reader sees their foolishness). RW1:, TOP: in comments 1143 and 1145 I challenged Fred Staples to explain some modelling results that relate to how radiation transfer really works. Fred seems to have gone missing completely - do either of you wish to take up the challenge?
  30. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    Jeff Masters strikes again: Our extreme weather: Arctic changes to blame? dated Dec 16, 2011 Report and analysis of an AGU talk by Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University: "Does Arctic Amplification Fuel Extreme Weather in Mid-Latitudes?" Arctic sea ice loss may significantly affect the upper-level atmospheric circulation, slowing its winds and increasing its tendency to make contorted high-amplitude loops. High-amplitude loops in the upper level wind pattern (and associated jet stream) increases the probability of persistent weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, potentially leading to extreme weather due to longer-duration cold spells, snow events, heat waves, flooding events, and drought conditions. ... Dr. Francis found that the upper-level wave amplitude has increased by over 100 miles (161 km) in summer over the past decade, and this change appears to be connected to the decline in May snow cover. Very well worth the read for all the 'warming doesn't cause extreme weather' loyalists in the room.
  31. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP @1252, if you think it is possible to construct a model of the greenhouse effect using net energy flows only, by all means go ahead. For myself, I notice that the people who have dedicated their lives to understanding the green house effect require all of the laws of radiative physics plus a number of others beside. I am not so arrogant as to think that I can do better with less. As it stands, the proof, and indeed the only relevant proof that your truncated "net energy flow" only physics is not mysticism is the ability to predict from that truncated physics the effects of increasing green house gases, etc. Call me when you have your working model.
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1252, TOP,
    ...why a gas is shown radiating energy in one direction, down, where it should be shown radiating upwards as well.
    What is this a reference to? What are you talking about?
  33. There is no consensus
    #493 (or 492 if 492 gets deleted), Jdey123, keep in mind the lower scenarios in the chart in your link are ones that start with the assumption that CO2 output will be greatly curtailed. The scenario with the lowest projected warming, B1, is labeled "global environmental sustainability" which is not currently happening. For each of those scenarios (A1, A2, B1, B2) there is a low to high range of temperature in the year 2100. My understanding is that the low end of the range represents the warming from CO2 and fast feedback which is basically increased vapor due to the CO2-caused temperature increase, but no other feedbacks. The high end of the range includes some "slow" feedbacks like permafrost melting and releasing CO2 and methane. Since that is already happening those are not necessarily slow anymore but there is considerable uncertainty about the future amounts. The darker line inside that range is the current best estimate. The amounts and types of uncertainty around that best estimate are difficult to depict in such a simple chart, and it is worth reading some of the details in the text. For your comments about this website, there are actually quite a few threads that address some of your bones of contention. For example making predictions for 5 years involves climate but also weather and is addressed here Even the difference between skepticism and denial was discussed here. I suggest you read the comments below the opening piece because you will probably find that all or most of your arguments have been offered and responded to there. If you disagree with the response then maybe you should add to that thread.
  34. NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
    #1 perseus, Good point. However, I think "vulnerability" takes factors other than ecological sensitivity into account. For example, Texas farmers have been dealing with periodic droughts for decades, and have alleviation strategies like shipping cattle north and getting Federal assistance. But to an Ethiopian farmer with a small plot of land, an equivalent drought means he cannot feed his family after his surplus is gone. The level of development does count, and vulnerability is made up of several complex strands.
  35. There is no consensus
    For the record, I don't have a political agenda. I would agree that it makes sense that mankind reduces pollution, not only just in case it'll lead to climate change but because if you live in a country that produces high levels of pollution, the immediate environment is terrible. I have never encountered such a debate as what we have on climate change that is so emotionally charged, however. This website is setup to try to debunk arguments put forward by all and sundry who've spotted holes in the warmist arguments, and there are lots of them. It will naturally attract people who agree and disagree with you. (-Snip-) I don't believe that warmists are a collective group, they represent a range of views of which the only concensus is that they believe that the earth will get warmer due to mankind. There is no concensus on how much warmer, which manmade pollutants are the primary cause of global warming etc.
    Response:

    [DB] "and there are lots of them."

    Unsupported assertions.  Be specific, put your objections on the appropriate threads (use the Search function; 4,700+ threads exist here).

    Your use of the terms "warmists" betrays ideology. Please study the Comments Policy & constructe future comments for better adherence to it.  Future ideological and/or inflammatory comments will simply be deleted and your posting privileges may be curtailed.

    Your use of the term "concensus" shows a lack of understanding of the scientific use of the term.

    Inflammatory snipped.

  36. There is no consensus
    Science is about trying to establish truth by coming up with theories and then demonstrating that new data meets the prediction that the theory made. Creating a site where only warmists are allowed to attack arguments that critics of the science (labelled as denialists) have pointed out is not science. 5 years, ago, warmists had even more alarmist scenarios that they claimed would happen to earth. The more alarmist of these have now been dropped leaving just those scenarios which could be credible left. So far, none of these scenarios have been proved, and if you're a scientist then that's what you should concentrate on rather than spouting propaganda.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "Science is about trying to establish truth by coming up with theories and then demonstrating that new data meets the prediction that the theory made."

    Imprecise; science is about developing an explanation (a hypothesis) that best explains what we can see and measure.  Tests are then devised to either support or disprove the hypothesis.  Those hypothesis that withstand the test of time and much research are then called "theory".  One such is the theory of gravity.  Another is the theory anthropogenic global warming.  This link may help.

    "Creating a site where only warmists are allowed to attack arguments that critics of the science (labelled as denialists) have pointed out is not science."

    Two misconceptions here.  This site was created to debunk the logical fallacies of those who pretend to try to poke holes in the research by ignoring the evidence which contradicts their position.  The second misconception is that the term denialist refers to those who ignore evidence contrary to their position, no matter how damning.  If you prefer, substitute the term fake-skeptic on those occasions you encounter the term "denialist" on this website.  They are interchangeable.

    The remainder of your comment, unfortunately, devolves into ideology and misunderstandings of what science is, and isn't.  Please read the Comments Policy.

    [not DB] Use the Search box to search for "models are unreliable" without the quote marks.

  37. There is no consensus
    scaddenp. No serious scientist deletes posts that disagree with their viewpoint. This magazine labels these as political or even more ridiculously that they're off topic and removes them. We know how much greenhouse gas has been produced by mankind, so assuming that the growth rate continues on trend, then you should be able to predict with a good degree of confidence what the global mean temperature will be in a relatively short time period, 5 years say. If you can't do this, and say that there are too many factors - mankind and nature - that prevent any level of confidence being attributed to your predictions, then your predictions are practically useless. There is still no concensus amongst warmists as to which greenhouse gas is the main culprit. Is it CO2 or methane? Both of which, of course, have both manmade and natural sources.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "If you can't do this"

    Straw man argument.  Even removing exogenous factors such as volcanic effects and oceanic cycles, a trend of much more than a decade is typically needed for the underlying warming signal inherent in multiple metrics used to monitor global warming due to the noisy nature of the data.

    "There is still no concensus amongst warmists as to which greenhouse gas is the main culprit."

    100% incorrect.  You will need to actually educate yourself more on this topic to understand just how wrong this statement is.  This is the equivalent of saying that 2+2=a porcupine.

    Trolling comments struck out.  Future comments of this nature will be simply deleted.  FYI.

    [not DB] Use the Search box to look for "methane" without the quote marks. Then search for "Scientists can't even predict weather."

  38. Latest summary confirms death of Chacaltaya glacier, and acceleration of global glacier shrinkage in the 2000s
    #12 If you read the first link I provided in #3 you will see a photo of the mountainside with the Chacaltaya glacier and snow almost completely gone. There's then this unequivocal quote... “Here you have precipitation only part of the year,” said French glaciologist Patrick Ginot as he stood at 16,500 feet next to Zongo glacier last year. “But it’s stored on the glacier and then melting throughout the year, and so you have water throughout the year. If you lose the glacier, you have no more storage.”
  39. There is no consensus
    Jdey123 - I dont know whether your post will remain since you seem to be disregarding the comment policy which will not continue. This site is about providing what the science says in response to skeptical arguments. If you want to learn that then stay around. I'm short of time, but lets sort some basics. What model tells you what climate (30 averages of weather) do, given a particular emission scenario. They obviously cannot predict what humans will do - that is for politicians to decide. Its like firing a cannonball. If you choose this angle, then you get this trajectory. However, the force from the gunpowder is subject to uncertainty so the exact landing spot has uncertainty too. The uncertainty is qualified - and shown on the IPCC predictions. It seems to me that you believe that the modellers make claims that no published science in fact makes. You could learn what the models actually do and what they predict. Then you can discuss sensibly what models can and cannot do. Until you do that, your argement makes no sense. You are attacking a strawman - a common tactic. Please go to the "Models are unreliable" thread, and take from there after you have learnt a bit.
  40. NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
    correction: that's the climate type on the link (which is dictating what sort of vegetation thrives).
  41. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1250 Tom No mysticism. No difficulty explaining the RGHG. 23&npsp;W/m2 added to the atmosphere due to long wave radiation from the surface raises the heat content of the atmosphere. It is far more mystical to me why a gas is shown radiating energy in one direction, down, where it should be shown radiating upwards as well.
  42. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP - SoD means not "Subject of Discussion", but a reference to The Science of Doom, a physics oriented website that I'm certain you have been given links to. In particular, I would like to refer you to On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), a discussion of thermodynamics related to the misconceptions you have demonstrated here. I'm sorry if that was not clear - please follow the links.
  43. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP @1248, if you simplify to that level you cannot explain why the greenhouse effect works. Consequently you also cannot make predictions of how it will react when perturbed. Scientists do not operate with story book level explanations, and no amount of creative misinterpretation by the G&T's of the world is sufficient reason to retreat back into mysticism as you are suggesting.
  44. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP @1247: 1) Not only could, but clearly did. Their interpretation, as illustrated by figure 32 (page 78) is plainly absurd. 2) You have provided no explanation as to why you are relying on G&T as a source despite their obvious misinterpretations and equivocations. The only abbreviation of SoD that is relevant is "Science of Doom" an online science blog, and G&T are certainly not the Science of Doom. Nor is the fact that SoD discusses and eviscerates G&T justification for using it as a source. Quite the contrary. Finally, you have merely asserted that fridges do not violate the 2nd law, which they do not. Never-the-less, if I place water at 2 degrees C into my working freezer, it will fall in temperature to -2 degrees C, freezing in the process. In the meantime the excess heat released by my ice cubes will be lost from the heat exchange at the back of the fridge to the 30 degree C ambient atmosphere.
  45. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1246 Tom Why not simplify even more? Using Trenberth as a reference point and taking the surface of the earth as the boundary within which we are accounting for heat: 396-333 = 63 W/m2 radiative heat across boundary. Of that 63 W/m2, 40 W/m2 goes directly to space and 23 W/m2 increases the heat content of the atmosphere from ground radiation. No confusion about heat flowing from cold to hot, no confusion at all by doing this simplification. And no chance for the 2nd law naysayers to squawk. It then makes it easier to put into perspective the effect of RGHG.
  46. Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
    ahaynes @15 - I'm not sure what timeframe your reference about Lindzen defending his iris theory is from. However in an article in SEED magazine, An MIT climatologist's quixotic struggle against global warming science Lindzen's attitude was interesting: In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. “That was an old view,” Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. “I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this.”
  47. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @1243 Tom 1) I suppose G&T could have misinterpreted Stichel. 2) Why I am using G&T as a source? It is the SoD! Nowhere in a refrigerator or air conditioner do you find heat flowing from hot to cold. The cooling coils inside are always colder than the inside box and the radiator on the outside is always hotter than the outside air. The fact that work is being added by the compressor to change the working fluids volume is not a heat flow.
  48. NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
    Living on the 80% zone, I'd imagine this is for the loss of winter cold. Multimodel mean estimates at A1FI (was this the BAU?) of the zonal shifts in vegetation (where plants would prefer to be) http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/shifts.htm of course the CMIP5 studies are being done now so the picture may change quite a bit (for the projected precipitation changes f.e.) And of course multimodel ensemble is towards the conservative side for the inclusion/exclusion of the Arctic T estimates in the calibration period. Can't really imagine 80% of the trees around here changing to some other species over that time, but have considered planting the most southern species currently present in nearby areas.
  49. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP @1244, it certainly is easier to say that: 1) Adding CO2 to the atmosphere reduces the net rate at which energy flows from the surface to the atmosphere, which 2) Cools the atmosphere, resulting in a reduction in the rate at which which energy flows from the surface and atmosphere to space, and 3) The additional CO2 also (and independently) reduces the rate at which energy flows from the surface and atmosphere to space; which 4) Results in the surface warming because the net rate at which energy leaves the surface has reduced while the rate at which energy enters the surface from the sun has remained the same; and that consequently 5) The increasing surface temperature (from 3) increases the net rate at which energy enters the atmosphere, thereby warming the atmosphere, and 6) therefore increases the energy leaving both the surface and atmosphere to space until the original balance of energy leaving for space is restored, with 7) both the surface and atmosphere being warmer in the final equilibrium condition than in the former equilibrium condition. There you have the entire greenhouse effect in a nutshell with no mention of back radiation, and no heat flowing from colder to warmer regions. It should be noted that the reduction in heat flow from surface to atmosphere is primarily through a reduction in convection the balance of which is restored in days, and further that the cooling that results in the atmosphere is concurrent with warming from preceding additions of CO2 in the atmosphere, so that given noisy data the signal of that initial cooling is undetectable. However, as soon as somebody asks, "How do you know? I must introduce the physics of radiation, and hence upward long wave radiation, and downward long wave radiation and all the other complexities you want us to avoid. If you want an account for children, then we can ignore back radiation. If not, we cannot.
  50. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    TOP#1244: "they are heated or receive heat of evaporation or fusion to be lifted up ... So by analogy why treat the "cold" back radiation any differently." You're kidding, right? Because there is no 'analogy.' Latent heat and convection are not radiative. Analogy: a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based

Prev  1352  1353  1354  1355  1356  1357  1358  1359  1360  1361  1362  1363  1364  1365  1366  1367  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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