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  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  Next

Comments 68601 to 68650:

  1. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
    TOP - exactly. So Morner rotating the viewpoint so that trendline is horizontal and claiming "no trend" is pure quackery. Why rotate the viewpoint if not to mislead? If you want trend then you use all the data and compute whether it is significant. Not all graphs show trend by that criteria at all (eg cosmic ray flux). I would like satellite going back 1000s of year too but science (and policy) has to be informed by what data is available. Proxy sealevel constructions of 1000 of years show very little sealevel rise till recent times. That has to be what we use.
  2. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    Dana: I personally find it a tad disconcerting that the AGU Fall Meeting is being held att he same time as the COP17 meeting in Durban. Has this scheduling conflict been discussed?
  3. The Monckton Maneuver
    Now I've finished watching the second video. Both are highy informative and a thorough exposure of Monckton's empty rethoric. To reach a broader audience, though, I would limit the whole thing to the first 2 minutes or so of the second video. The juxtaposition of Monckton contradicting claims speaks for itself.
  4. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    Look this site is about discussing the science of climate change. Mervhob should either put up (reference published science to support his/her assertions) or be shut up.
  5. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1144, Fred Staples, You persistently insist on ignoring the problems in your model. This was pointed out to you in comment 1128, where you were directed to this explanation of how optical thickness, convection, evapotranspiration moderate the radiative effects of greenhouse gases, and result in a modeled outcome that very closely mirrors observations. Your own model is incomplete and therefore, while an important first step towards understanding how the real world operates, it is ultimately invalid. As far as this commentary of yours:
    anecdotal hand waving
    Words of wisdom.
  6. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Fred @ 1144: Something, as G and T say, must be wrong here. What is wrong is that the atmosphere is not opaque, so your multi-layer model has very little to do with reality. As it has very little to do with reality, the conclusions you draw from it also have very little to do with reality. Take a look at the figure I posted in #1143. Pick either side - it doesn't matter which. Left side is a pure radiative model; the right side includes convection. The figure shows two time-dependent progressions for each side. Each time series starts with an initial assumed temperature - one hot, one cold. In each case, over roughly one year of simulated time, the two simulations converge on the same equilibrium, showing that the model's final result does not depend on the initial assumed temperature. Now, think about the case where the initial temperature was hot. In these cases, the simulated energy balance leads to atmospheric cooling - until equilibrium is reached. In particular, note that the coldest section (at equilibrium) is in the middle section of the atmosphere - not the top; not the bottom. And here is the question that I would like you to attempt to answer: based on your understanding of the physics of energy transfer in the atmosphere, please explain how the middle section of the atmosphere is colder than the layers both above and below in the early part of the simulation, but continues to cool. How is is losing more energy than it gains? It may be easier to focus on the left side - the pure radiative transfer model - but the same answer applies to both panels. Alternatively, if you like looking at the two simulations that start "cold", and warm to equilibrium, ask yourself: why does the middle section stop warming before it reaches the temperature of the air below it or above it? Keep in mind that although the graphs are for a model simulation, not reality, the model is a good representation of what reality would do, and the final equilibrium result from the model is an excellent representation of the real global mean temperature profile. The reason why the model behaves this way is because that is also the way the real atmosphere works. I personally know the answer to the question that I am asking, but I'd like to see what you think it is before I explain it. Feel free to ask additional questions.
  7. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    My top tip on reducing your household heating bills... Hot water bottle.
  8. The Monckton Maneuver
    (This may be slightly political, please feel free to delete if it violates the policy, but...) Monckton may be a clown, but he may well be about to become an influential clown. Within the UK, some time before there was any climate sceptic lobby, we had a load of Euro-sceptics - nationalists on the right wing of the Conservative party. Some time ago, a fringe of these broke off to form the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Monckton does have influence within UKIP. AFAIK he claims to be their Head of Policy, which is slightly more credible than his claim to be member of the House of Lords. To judge by my reading of the right-wing UK press, this UKIP mob are currently gaining a lot of popularity due to the current Eurozone financial mess.
  9. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
    @scaddenp Almost all graphs show some kind of trend. That's a meaningless question. If you asked me to use the data in the graph from 1993 to 2006 to predict 2011 I would say it over predicted and therefore shows a downtrend. If you asked me to use the data from 1993 to 1997 to predict following years I would say there is a serious up trend. I would really like to see the satellite data going back a few thousand years or so.
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] The satellite data going back a few thousand years ago remains classified and unaccessible to climate scientists. All FOIA requests for this data have been summarily rejected by the CIA.
  10. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
    Thanks for the keyboard suggestions, gentlepeople. Alas, I usually post comments from a linux system, using KDE as the window management software. Haven't played around much with keyboard settings on it - just set up a new system a couple of months ago (although I've been using linux for about 15 years, now).
  11. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    mervhob: You are entitled to your opinion regarding climate models. You are not entitled to have your opinion taken seriously if you are not going to substantiate it. Your posts on this thread thus far have consisted of a great many unsupported assertions and no small amount of contempt for the researchers working on climate models (including their continual improvement). Without your providing calculations or citations to support your claims, on what basis should interested laymen such as myself consider any of your criticisms valid?
  12. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
    @scaddenp I don't accept that the graph is rotated.The viewpoint is rotated. When I trace the coordinates of a point in either graph I get the same result.
  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    One last attempt, Spherica. You seem keen on Petty, so tackle the problem he sets on page 144, for radiative transfer between (up and down) n layers of the atmosphere. Here is a simple solution. To eliminate all constants, and any confusion over units, I will calculate the ratio of the surface temperatures with and without an atmosphere. Without an atmosphere the surface receives W from the sun and emits W to space. Now consider an atmosphere of just one layer, perfectly absorbing and emitting, half up and half back to the surface. If the solar radiation is W, the surface will receive and emit 2W, (W from the sun and W from the atmosphere). The atmosphere will receive 2W from the surface, return W, and emit W to space. Temperatures are proportional to the fourth root of radiation, so the ratio of the temperatures with and without the atmosphere is the fourth root of 2W/W or the fourth root of 2, which is 1.19. The presence of the atmosphere produces a temperature increase over the “bare rock” case of 19%, which is about 48 degrees C. Not a bad result, considering that the absorption is not really 100%. Now divide the atmosphere into 2 layers, radiating against each other. The top layer receives 2W, and emits W to space and W to the first layer. The first layer sends 2W up and down, and so must receive 4W, 3W from the surface and W from the top layer. The surface receives W from the sun, and 2W from the first layer, emitting 3W. Our temperature ratio is now the fourth root of 3, (3W/W), or 1.315.and the increase is 31.5% or 80 degrees C. Now try 3 layers of atmosphere. The top emits W to space and W down, as before. The second layer sends 2W up and 2W down, and receives 3W from the first layer and W from the top layer. The first layer receives 2W from the second layer, and 4W from the surface. The surface receives 3W from the first layer, W from the sun, and emits 4W. The temperature ratio is now the fourth root of 4, or 1.415, and the temperature increase a formidable 106 degrees C. For n layers, Petty’s answer is the fourth root of (n+1). Something, as G and T say, must be wrong here. Perhaps we should revisit the second law , and notice that every spontaneous energy transfer from a lower to a higher temperature (higher to a lower layer) reduces the entropy of the system, which is forbidden by the second law. I do understand the Carnot cycle, Les. I introduces "quality" much early in these posts to try to explain entropy. Entropy (more or less) is unavailable energy. The first law says that the quantity of energy will be conserved in any spontaneous transaction. Entropy, on the other hand, must increase, so quality is not conserved. It deteriorates. To try to explain the netting effect, Spherica, here is a simple example, extrapolated from Schaum’s Thermodynamics for Engineers, page 51. A 20cm sphere is suspended in a cold volume maintained at 20 degrees C What is the heat input required to maintain the sphere’s temperature at 200degrees C, if the emissivity is 0.8. The value of the constants is 5.7 e to the minus 9. Using the difference between the fourth powers of the temperatures in degrees K, the answer is 262 Joules per second. What is the heat input if the surround temperature is 350, 400, and 473 degrees K (200degrees C)? The answers are respectively 200, 139, and zero Joules per second. The energy radiated by the surround is the negative term in Stefan Bolzmann. In the 473 degree K case it is 262 Joules per second, which is what a pyrgeometer would measure. However, the net transfer (which is heat) is zero. Finally, Bob Loblaw, I really believe that atmospheric temperature are a complex function of many variables, including evaporation (latent heat from the sea), convection, and sensible transfer as well as radiation. However, the final transfer to space is wholly radiative, and must be from an effective "bare rock" temperature of 255 degrees K. Only the elevation of the effective transmission altitude can change with the composition of the atmosphere - hence the "higher is colder" theory, which G and T, sadly, did not address. To look for that effect we must look at the temperature records from satellites and radio-sondes. Not "pages and pages" Spherica, but two or three time series. Everything else, in my opinion, is anecdotal hand waving.
  14. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    7, DSL, Just to clarify that thought, you must remember that we are talking about climate change, not climate events. One or two unbelievably long, bad droughts, or storm seasons, or crop losses, or floods or heat waves or whatever are simply events which are symptoms of the permanent change that has taken place. Once people experience these, it is too late to undo the damage not of the particular event but rather of the inherent and ongoing cause, the changed climate. Events like those will necessarily and unalterably repeat and intensify. We can begin to take action then, but the world and the climate will already have changed (for the worse). It would rather be like insisting that you actually die of cancer before you submit to those so-annoying radiation and chemotherapy treatments, just to be sure that you weren't wasting your time with a doctor who really can't otherwise prove to you that your cancer is terminal.
  15. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    #7 DSL- My guess is that many will say "Mistakes Were Made...But Not By Me".
  16. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    7, DSL, The problem is that if we have to wait that long we are screwed, because it will then be far too late to properly mitigate, and adaptation will instead become the only viable, primary option. That, and the need to very suddenly cut off emissions, causing exactly the sort of wholesale disruption of economies and lifestyles that deniers pretend is being asked of them now, but is in fact unnecessary as long as we start soon, with considered and intelligent moderation, rather than waiting until later when moderation will no longer be an option and panic instead drives policy.
  17. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    #4 renewable guy-Thanks for the Barry Bickmore link.It is encourgaging to see that people can change their mind,despite the fact that it goes against their political bias.
  18. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    "If you don't know anything about medical science, and you don't trust doctors, who do you go to when you become ill?" Nancy Reagan's astrologer?
  19. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    22, mervhob, Do you know anything about computer programming and modeling, or is your only frame of reference mathematics? Computer modeling is inherently non-linear (computers are, after all, based on the concepts of iteration, decision making and branching -- complex iteration), even when some linear techniques are (necessarily) used in base calculations. Really, comparing mathematics to computer algorithms is wildly inappropriate. And, once again, you go on and on about what you know, without recognizing what you don't know, or more importantly that, true or not, nothing that you say is applicable to the problem at hand. None of what you say applies to climate models, because they do not work the way you claim they work. You have been corrected repeatedly, and yet you repeat the categorically false statement statement that "...all non-linear behaviour is suppressed. It is argued that no such possibility exists with climate..." This is false. It is flat out, categorically false. Please stop repeating falsehoods unless you are able to support the assertion with a clear and unambiguous citation... something you have been asked repeatedly to do and yet the requests are repeatedly ignored. I would suggest that if from this point on you fail to support your assertions, your comments amount to trolling and should be moderated. You must accept that as evidenced by your statements your own understanding of climate modeling is pitiful. You need to educate yourself and stop pontificating as if everyone else is stupid and you are a genius. You have been directed to multiple sources of information. Please take advantage of them, and put your energy into improving your knowledge base rather than arguing from ignorance.
  20. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    Nobody wants to be screwed ( - snip -), especially when the screwing isn't readily apparent. Chest pain is readily apparent. As I've said before, in my more cynical moments (roughly 23.9 hours a day) I favor the prognosis that it's going to take several years of obvious climate change in the US before the culture starts to transform, and climate change of the type that hits the economy from several directions. AGW needs to present a clear and present danger--again, like chest pain. Suddenly, trust in climate scientists will bloom, apologies will be issued, and Watts will claim that he was always on board--just playing devil's advocate, in the same role that crackers and hackers perform for the online security industry. That might be an interesting followup paper on the psychology of denial: "Escape Pods: What Happens to Committed Doubters When the Writing is On the Wall?"
    Moderator Response: [Rob P] - reference to deleted comment snipped
  21. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    As Dr. Alley says, the 'brocken hockey stick' false narrative makes for a good story for those who don't want to believe the scientific evidence is correct. And it's a real problem when those who influence public policy say "I don't understand science, but I know the climate scientists are wrong." If you don't know anything about medical science, and you don't trust doctors, who do you go to when you become ill?
  22. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
    johroberthunter @37 - very interesting email exchange, thanks for sharing. Email after email of Morner failing to explain how the PSMSL data for Maldives are wrong, claiming that papers which contradict his claims of no sea level rise are "very poor," etc.
  23. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    Sphaerica et al Russian mathematician’s re- initiated the interest in non-linear systems, after their abandonment at the end of the 18th century - I know of only a few American mathematicians that have contributed anything of importance. David's PhD used the asymptotic method of Boguilobov and Mitropolsky - I suggest you access it. The models currently displayed are based on energy balance, forcings and feedbacks. This is a classical 'steady state' scenario - as Poincare pointed out in 1899, the only reliable integrals we can form are those based on energy, 'vis viva'. Only then can we assume the existence of closed integral curves, and a solution. By definition, as energy is a scalar, there is no vectoral information, only increasing or, decreasing total energy. This we can relate to a single variable – temperature, with reasonable accuracy. However, using the same approach in a multivariate dynamic model we have to assume that single, linear ‘steady state’ exists as the bedrock around which the system is perturbed. This is the method of small perturbations as developed by Lagrange and Laplace, the replacement of a dynamic system with no closed integral curves by one where all integral curves are closed by definition. However, if there are non-linear states within the model, which can be accessed by a sufficiently large noise term, the use of ‘smoothing functions’ and integration destroys such behaviours in the model. Very simply, as we found with oscillator models, all non-linear behaviour is suppressed. It is argued that no such possibility exists with climate – with your current models how would you know? Let us say that the increase in freshwater melt from the Arctic ice so dilutes the water of the Northern Atlantic that the Atlantic conveyer turns off. The Atlantic Conveyor has been weakening since the 1980s. Such a change tips the system into a new state space very quickly, with very unpleasant effects for Northern Europe. I would argue that I can apply your assumptions, providing I have sufficient representative data over a long enough period of time to feel safe. Or, sufficient data from comparable dynamic systems. In the case of oscillators, measurement of the noise of a 100Mhz quartz oscillator over 10 sec gives me adequate data – 1 billion cycles worth. But even this proved in some cases a fool’s paradise, as oscillators demonstrating phase hits due to non-linearity merely showed a slightly raised integrated noise level, but had a devastating effect on digital signal links. You could treat the temporary loss of the Atlantic conveyer as the equivalent of a ‘phase hit’ – in overall energy terms it would be. This blog purports to deal with signal/noise effects – I looked at the paper by Santer et al, the noise signatures are very interesting – clear evidence of both 1/f noise and periodic terms, a very interesting dynamical system. However, the linear processing applied, low pass, high pass and band pass filtering is fairly simplistic – I would be tempted to apply a Bayesian filter to the same data, to see if the possibility of sustained trends developing, as you might with radar return data. (-Snip-) No, Laplace did not develop the Laplace transform method – Oliver Heaviside did – Carson transformed Heaviside’s method to one of definite integrals in the 1920’s. David Hilbert’s (-Snip-) foundered on the rock of Godel’s incompleteness theorem in the 1930’s. It is a myth that a non-linear system can be linearised by approximation, if the system is non-linear, it remains non-linear down to its smallest amplitude – Y. H. Ku states, in a paper on his acceleration plane method, ‘Nature is non-linear – even the pendulum of Galileo is controlled by a second order, non-linear equation.’ Those who doubt the sagacity of that remark can examine the performance of the Littlemore clock on the web.
    Response:

    [DB] "The Atlantic Conveyor has been weakening since the 1980s. Such a change tips the system into a new state space very quickly, with very unpleasant effects for Northern Europe."

    Based on what?  Source citation needed.

    Inflammatory snipped.

  24. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Daniel @31, Thank you. Yes, that is the one.
  25. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    Richard Alley has also produced Earth the operators manual. This has been shown on PBS. Richard Alley right off the bat says that he is a registered republican. One of my cases I like to make is this is not a lefty loony thing. I also like to bring up Barry Bickmore's presentation,http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/how-to-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/. This is one of their own supporting the truth of AGW.
  26. It's the sun
    955, Tom, I'm done with Mr. Gaddes, but to clarify (since he seems unable to articulate things clearly himself)... Don doesn't seem to understand the difference between a hindcast and a forecast. The book was published in 1990 with "forecasts" from 1976 to 2001. My assumption then is that A. S. Gaddes actually performed hindcasts from 1976 to 1990 (which is cheating, because he also used that same data to develop his model, so no surprise there if he achieves some degree of accuracy) as well as true forecasts from 1990 to 2000. Don Gaddes further extended those forecasts through 2055. You can e-mail Don to get a copy of the book, to see his actual forecasts in the Appendices. For my part, I'm only curious as to what figures (both data source and thresholds) you (and he) are using to determine when a period is "wet" or "dry" in order to evaluate the veracity of a forecast. And, with that said, I still see no point to the entire endeavor. Predicting wet/dry cycles based on climastrology has no influence whatsoever on the temperature of the real world, and A. S. Gaddes' prediction of an imminent ice age is clearly not coming to fruition.
  27. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    I'm not sure if I will ever understand the specific and exclusive focus on Mann's 1998 paper. I'm not sure also if the fake skeptics who do specifically and exclusively focus on the paper realize that he, and many many others, have performed paleoclimate work since then. Let's imagine a world without Mann 1998 - what do we have? Mann 2008. Ljungqvist 2010. Moberg 2005. Those are just the "hockey sticks" of surface temperatures too (often NH temps), several exist with sea ice, glacial ice, oceanic temperatures, need I go on?
  28. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    As Peter Sinclair says, the 'hockey stick' is not the proof of the physics of 'greenhouse' gas-caused warming, it's simply evidence of the effects that such gases are having. And the 'hockey stick' is just one line of evidence. Anyone who claims that the 'hockey stick' is broken has to explain why physics and other lines of empirical evidence are also collectively broken, or are lying through their respective metaphorical teeth.
  29. The Monckton Maneuver
    1) I wish more journalists had the knowledge and enthusiasm of Mr. Hadfield. The press all over the world would be vastly more informative. 2) Unfortunately, I think such demonstrations are far too lengthy and dense to reach an audience nearly as wide as Monckton's (maybe some kind of Overkill Backfire Effect?). It's fun to watch and it does give some response soundbites to a few of Monckton's fans, though. 3) Monckton is as informative as a clown. It's astonishing how he gets any attention at all by now. The truth eventually prevails... but I wish we had more time.
  30. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
    johroberthunter I had noticed those emails but although I think they are worth reading I didn't share them with anyone; afterall, those are you personal corrispondence, it's upon you decide if highlight them or not. I much appreciated you decision, thank you.
  31. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
    Blimey thats interesting.
  32. johroberthunter at 23:32 PM on 7 December 2011
    Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
    If Nils-Axel Mörner wants a "sealevelgate", here is a contribution: http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~johnroberthunter/www-swg/morner_emails.txt - this is a series of emails between me and Mörner from 2004. You will have to draw your own conclusion of Mörner from these, but I don't see a "true expert on sea level" - I see a prevaricating duffer who, after a year of obfuscation, provided nothing to substantiate his wild claims.
  33. It's the sun
    Don Gaddes, the date I am looking for is 1990, the date of first publication of the book (and hence the predictions). It follows that there were only two actual predictions in the section quoted by Sphaerica, one of which was true, and the other false. That means when it comes to predictions (as opposed to retrodictions), your father is as accurate as a coin flip, on the data available to me.
  34. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
    There was a Guardian article on Mörner the other day. Not a single sceptic attacked Mörner. None of them distanced themselves from him publically. And he is on the advisory board for the GWPF. We seem to be at the stage where you can say anything and remain credible among the contrarians.
  35. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    I believe the relevant graphic from Lawrence 2011 Albatross references above is then that of Figure 6 (Click to enlarge): Figure 6: Time series of Northern hemisphere near-surface permafrost extent for CCSM3 and CCSM4 for historical and projection periods. Near-surface permafrost extent is the integrated area of grid cells with at least one soil layer within the top 10 soil layers (3.5m in CCSM3, 3.8m in CCSM4) that remains frozen throughout the year. Frozen ground underneath glaciers is not included in the near-surface permafrost extent. The greenhouse gas concentration in CO2-equivalents (ppm) for the year 2100 are listed in parentheses for each SRES and RCP scenario. Shading indicates the ensemble spread.
  36. The Monckton Maneuver
    Potholer54s video series introducing the climate change debate Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=channel_video_title And here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI&feature=relmfu Is always an excellent way of showing people what the real debate among scientists is. Also his 'made easy' series on everything from the origins to the universe to human evolution is excellent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDknzZ9b6rg&feature=channel_video_title He is a real stand out on how to use youtube to make science accessable and to whittle the debates in the public and press down to what the science actually says.
  37. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    Can I suggest to give English subtitles for the videos. this could help me (and many other people) understand the videos. thanks pierre
  38. It's the sun
    Tom Curtis (950) The date you seek is 1976.
  39. Philippe Chantreau at 20:21 PM on 7 December 2011
    Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    Mervhob is trying really hard to sound very educated but he fails to produce any substantiation on any single one tof the terrible accusations he throws around. Could we have some pointers and links to some real substance showing how bad the situations is? As for calling Laplace and Lagrange "not so good mathematicians", once again, let us see links to mervhob's own work, so we all can be in awe before the revolutionary mathematical understanding that it surely is already spreading throughout the world. No doubt that one who calls Lagrange and Laplace in such derogatory terms has an intellect the like of which is witnessed every other century or so. I can't wait to see its products.
  40. Philippe Chantreau at 20:04 PM on 7 December 2011
    The Monckton Maneuver
    I don't know how you call it Tom, but at any rate it may be more functional a democracy than the kind in which Monckton can testify to the representatives of the people and serve them a hefty portion of BS, yet receive no consequence whatsoever. Strange days we live in...
  41. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    adamski @54, regardless of my opinion of the current economic system, tying the needed reform to combat global warming to additional reforms desirable (or not) for political or economic reasons merely ensures that the needed reforms to combat global warming will not occur. That is the nature of politics. As it happens, I believe some other reforms of the west's (and particularly Australia's) economic and political systems are also desirable. (I even have a few ideas about the United States political system.) However, I firmly believe that those reforms should be argued on their merits; and that I should not make more difficult the essential (cutting emissions) as a tactical ploy to obtain the merely desirable (by comparison). That is the path of folly.
  42. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    To Perseus/Skep/Tom. Let me understand you better. In light that this current economic system monopolieses wealth and power, you believe the solution to AGW lies within the framework of capitalism where these powers have vested interests to maintain BAU???
  43. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Agnostic, Charlie A has been told several times on this thread that the data are based on model data. With that said, the caption for Fig.2 needs to be changed to reflect that. But this all detracts form the fact that the permafrost is melting and is expected to continue doing so, especially if emissions follow the A2 scenario. It would help greatly if someone could digitize the curves, or even better contact Lawrence and/or Slater and request the actual data. we can then generate our own hi res graphic. I wonder if that would appease the contrarians? But those data are now outdated. Lawrence et al. (2011) have a new paper out on this subject. They say: "Near-surface permafrost (NSP) and seasonally frozen ground (SFG) area is projected to decline substantially during the 21st century (RCP8.5: NSP – 9.0x106 km2, 72%, SFG – 7.1x106, 15%; RCP2.6: NSP – 4.1x106, 33%, SFG – 2.1x106, 4%). The permafrost degradation rate is slower (2000-2050) than in CCSM3 by ~35% due to improved soil physics. Under the low RCP2.6 emissions pathway, permafrost state stabilizes by 2100, suggesting that permafrost related feedbacks could be minimized if greenhouse emissions could be reduced."
  44. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Charlie A @28, the data is clearly sourced from Lawrence and Slater 2005, and specifically their figure 1 (d), which is reproduced below: A detailed comparison shows that the UNEP version differs primarily in showing the SRES A1B scenario, rather than the B1 and A2 scenarios shown in the paper. As only the B1 and A2 scenarios were modeled in the paper, and the graph shown matches very closely the A2 projections, it is likely that the UNEP graph has been mislabelled in error. Further, the UNEP graph mislabels the modeled 20th century extent as observed extent. In Lawrence and Slater, the observed continuous permafrost (figure 1C, and figure 1 above) matches well the modeled permafrost for the 20th century (figure 1).
  45. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
    Bob Loblaw @34, you can also set your key board up in windows to produce an umlaut by typing double [shift-inverted comma] followed by a vowel, which produces: ä, ë, ï, ö, and ü. Using the single inverted comma produces: á, é, í, ó and ú. Unfortunately I just stumbled onto this, and cannot tell you which key board setting is required.
  46. A_Gang_of_Loners at 16:19 PM on 7 December 2011
    Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    5 mervhob "I am deeply worried" Also, you're concern trolling.
  47. A_Gang_of_Loners at 16:19 PM on 7 December 2011
    Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    When will you deniers get it through your heads that words - prose - like the kind you and I are typing into these textboxes right now - are MODELS of the real physical world? Hence, you already ARE modeling the world. The difference between all the words by all the deniers - or even lectures by non-deniers meant to educate the public, but which must necessarily resort to imperfect metaphors or analogies for clarity and brevity - versus mathematical models, is that only mathematical and logistical models can model 1) the magnitude of things - only math can tell you when one thing is bigger than another, or that there is more of something than another, or that something occurs more frequently than another, or that one form of energy gets much more government subsidies than another 2) logical consistency of cause and effect: i.e. if (as deniers always do) you blame some poor person in India for failing to do enough to get THEIR government to pass stronger restrictions on CO2 emissions, then you must blame (as deniers never do) blame some comfortable person in America or Australia for failing to do enough to get THEIR governments to act, etc 3) test hypothetical what-if scenarios and assert if-then statements 4) no human can memorize all the boundary and initial conditions (i.e. data) that goes into these models. Only computers can. 5) the difference between math models and computer models is: one can test only one "what-if" scenario in a computer model at a time, or, more accurately, one can test only a finite number of them. A math theorem proves assertions that can knock out an UNCOUNTABLY INFINITE number of scenarios, say, if a given forcing function f:R->R, f(t), t=time, is unknown, we can still derive important statements from a math theorem. e.g. if x = some physical variable, x'+x=f(t), we know then that x(t)=integral of exp(t)*f(t) times constants mervhob: here's a quiz: what is the cardinality of continuous functions, f:R->R, from reals to reals? So, saying math and computer models are wrong is like saying language is wrong and should not be used or trusted for making predictions or assertions of any kind.
  48. A_Gang_of_Loners at 16:05 PM on 7 December 2011
    Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    5,8,12 mervhob Since you make completely false and outrageous claims about what mathematicians know and claim to know and claim to know, I am free to do the same to you. You clearly have never heard of functional analysis: Fredholm operators, Hilbert spaces, Soboleve spaces. It was created by extremely intelligent mathematicians in the early half of the 20-th century to extract results about the properties of non-linear differential equations to deal with the fact that they could not figure out a way to solve these equations exactly. These mathematicians know more than anyone else the difficulties and limitations of their work. And computer programmers know better than any non-programmers the difficulties and limitations of their work. There is a niche of mathematics called differential algebra which is devoted entirely to finding exact solutions. Exact solutions can be defined as finite compositions of certain well-known functions and quadratures (integrals) of such compositions. I personally know many mathematicians who work night and day in this area, searching for new exact solutions. Check out the weekly Kolchin Seminar in Differential Algebra at Hunter College in New York City. You DO know that any partial differential equation (PDE) has a multivariable Taylor series solution that can be computed iteratively from the PDE itself by repeated differentiation, right? If Laplace and Lagrange are "bad" mathematicians, as you claim, then by the same standards WUWT posters and Monckton and Alex Jones don't even deserve recognition as human. Laplace - inventor of the Laplace transform. Lagrange was the discoverer of the Lagrange Interpolation Formula. And Lagrange who achieved the single greatest triumph over the nonlinearity of math still to this day: the Lagrange Inversion Formula for inverting ANY given analytic function, z=g(w), to find w=f(z), and expressing the coefficients of the powers of z in the power series expansion of H(f(z)) for an ARBITRARY function H(t). I'm sure you know all about these achievements, since you claim to be such an expert.
  49. The Monckton Maneuver
    I'd like to bring again this comment by John Hartz quoting Donald Brown, Professor of Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law at Penn State, comparing the climate change disinformation campaign to "A New Kind of Assault on Humanity". Clearly, we are dealing with the person very intelligent and outspoken as Christopher Monckton appears to be; with the degree of journalism, so surely understanding the manipulative mechanisms he employs. We have a perfect case of the assault prof Brown is talking about, with plenty of evidence gatherred by Peter in this this bunkum series. And the harm done by Monckton is also very high: i.e. his testimony in the Congress is a very high profile disinformation, targetted at most influential policy makers. Shouldn't someone name those practices and bring justice to the evidently guilty perpetrators? In Australia, Monckton labels policy makers trying to deal with climate change as 'fascists' here. Well, if he regards the debate about climate change in such terms, then he is simply asking for that himself: to be treated as he is treating others. If prof Brown's teaching turned into law soon, and if law could work backwards, we would have a perfect criminal to watch, as we had them in Hague some half century ago...
  50. Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
    It's alt + 0246 (numeric keypad) in Windows: ö

Prev  1365  1366  1367  1368  1369  1370  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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