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  1369  1370  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  Next

Comments 68801 to 68850:

  1. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Charlie A, why don't you spend your time looking for the provenance of the great many more egregious errors in data and interpretation that can be found in articles on climate science from the supposedly "skeptical" community? Not only are these errors easy to spot, they are also all-too-regularly significant enough to demolish the arguments made by the so-called 'skeptics'. Nothing you have written here alters the point or the outcome of the above post (Tom Curtis' 5th note in #36). Try a similarly skeptical approach with some of the fare served up elsewhere on the Intertubes...
  2. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    @Tom Curtis #36. I agree with your analysis on the provenance of the data for Figure 2, although it appears the WWF introduced some errors/interpretations when taking the data from Lawrence 2008. Indeed, if you look back at comments #12 and #20 you will see that I long ago came to the conclusion that the original basis of the graph was Lawrence 2008. (-Snip-) The more substantive question, considering the wide variances between modeled permafrost areas in both the 20th century hindcasts and the 21st century projections is "How accurate are the models". I have looked at some length for historical data on permafrost, and unfortunately have not found any more than a couple of decades.
    Response:

    [DB] "How accurate are the models"

    Off-topic on this thread.  See Most Popular Skeptic Argument #6 on the left, Models are unreliable.

    You have been warned previously about complaints about moderation and being off-topic.  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, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. 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, as no further warnings shall be given.

  3. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    DB: If you turn these hockey sticks 90 degrees, there's an amazing resemblance to those PIOMAS curves.
  4. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    @ Glenn Tamblyn Like this recent PIOMAS trend update from Wipneus: (click to enlarge)
  5. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    Philippe#27: "short term "trends"" Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (pdf here) make the case for separating the signal from the noise in a stunningly clear presentation. -- Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, Figure 8 More to your comment, the warming rates F and R show stabilize when the start year for calculating the trend gets back to 1990 or so (their Figure 6). That says very clearly: -- The warming signal is present - and has low uncertainty - with 20 or more years of data. -- Any 'change in trend' (or 'hiatus' for that matter) based solely on a short time period (like a decade) is a statement with low certainty, as it is based on a time interval too short to eliminate the noise. -- There is thus no basis for saying that warming has stopped, slowed or changed course. All five data sets show statistically significant warming even for the time span from 2000 to the present.
  6. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    DSL @6 One thing that might tip the balance little - it doesn't hit right at home or the economy but it sure might be visual and compelling. An aerial shot of a group of cruise liners, side by side on Sept 15th. At the North Pole. With no ice in sight. If we are lucky - and this is a terrible thing to have to say - the current trends from PIOMass mean we should be there around 2015/16.
  7. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Charlie A @35, on reviewing the information and discussion, I can point out that: 1) The original source for the data in the figure is Lawrence et al, 2008 as indicated by DB inline at 5. 2) Contrary to my 29, the original source of the data shows only one projection for the 21st century, and that projection is for the SRES A1B emissions scenario, so that the original labeling of the graph is correct. That means that the WWF librarian made an error in their advise to agnostic. As a side note, in that WHO reproduced the graph from original data, the very slight differences between the their graph and that of Lawrence et al. are probably due to the in vertical and horizontal scale, and possibly also to smoothing. 3) If you had followed the link in the graphic to the version used by Agnostic, you would have found a link to the WWF report, from which you would have found an endnote (17) detailing the source of the graph. Ergo, all the information above was available for two clicks of a mouse and a google search, or for three clicks of a mouse after DB made his inline comment. 4) All of the information above plus relevant analysis was available from post 13 by Albatross. Your unwillingness to do a simple trace back on the data; and your unwillingness to accept the correct the correct information is noteworthy, and unsurprisingly has led to some frustration with your post from other commentators. Note, that is frustration, not controversy. There is nothing controversial about the fact that graphics should be labelled correctly, or that where possible the best (which often means the most recent) data should be used. 5) The primary use of the figure 2 was in support of the statement:
    "Lawrence et al (2005) estimate that permafrost covering ~9.5m km2 will have thawed to a depth of 3 meters by 2100. This thawing will make sediments wet, plastic and unstable producing change to the land surface through formation of wetlands, gullies and sinks."
    Nothing you have adduced shows this statement to be in anyway inaccurate or misleading. The most that can be said is that the figure should now be revised to ~6.5 km^2 based on an accepted (in Sept 2011), but not yet published paper. 6) As you have obviously looked up and read these papers, comments suggesting that the WWF did not base their graph on a peer reviewed source (despite the clear footnote), or that certain papers did not contain equivalent graphs (when clearly they did), not to mention the inability to follow three mouse clicks, shows a certain obtuseness on your part which is hard to credit. Searching for knowledge is a cooperative endeavour. Perhaps you ought to try that sometime, instead of wasting your time and ours in a desperate search for "gotcha" moments in a futile attempt to ignore the clear implications of available evidence.
  8. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    #33 inline moderator comment by DB "Eyecrometers lack scientific accuracy. FYI." My eyecrometer is sufficiently accurate that I am able to see the difference between "SRES A1b" on the WWF/SkS Figure 2, and the SRES A2 and B2 labels on Lawrence and Slater 2005 (see graph posted by Tom Curtis in comment #29. OTOH, Lawrence 2008 ran simulations using A1B, and the WWF/SkS Figure 2 is similar to (although differing in detail) Figure 5. I did not realize that asking for the source of data for Figure 2 would cause such controversy.
    Response:

    [DB] "I did not realize that asking for the source of data for Figure 2 would cause such controversy."

    You asked a fair question and were given a fair answer.  No controversy at all.

  9. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    I love Richard Alley videos! He kind of squeaks in a way that superbly expresses an exasperation with which I identify. But I'm a scientist. For people who aren't scientists, maybe there are other voices that might be able to sell the message more effectively. I'd like to see an experiment done -- get James Earl Jones or, uh, I dunno ... a variety of great speaking voices and see if this has an effect on how the message is received. There's a reason commercial interests use spokespeople rather than company directors (who should know more about whatever topic it is) to sell goods. Results of this experiment could be appended to the next edition of the Debunking Handbook.
  10. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    @Daniel Bailey #31 - a figure that might be even more relevant is Figure 13. There is a known warm bias of about 3 degrees Celsius in the ground temps generated by the CCSM4 20th century simulation. Figure 13 shows one model run of the CCSM4 model both with and without bias adjustment. Caption: "Figure 13: Time series of Northern Hemisphere near-surface permafrost extent for a single CCSM4 20th century and RCP8.5 (solid lines) and RCP2.6 (dashed lines) ensemble member and for offline CLM4 simulations forced with climate bias corrected data from the same CCSM4 simulation (see text for details)." Note that either with or without the bias correction, these latest simulations are both significantly different than the 20th century permafrost areas of Figure 2. The projections are also significantly different, even for the RCP8.5, which corresponds to It would be interesting to compare these various simulations with the best guess on actual permafrost area. Unfortunately, although I have found some ALT data for Russia from 1930-1990 I have been unable to find any time series for permafrost area. It is unclear to me how the models have been validated. As noted above, a comparison of simulated vs actual borehole temperatures for one specific decade shows a warm bias of about 3 C by the latest model.
  11. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    #30 Albatross says "Charlie A has been told several times on this thread that the data are based on model data." Other commenters have agreed with me that Figure 2 appears to be the output of a simulation, but the author does not appear to agree, since Figure 2 caption still claims that it shows actual observed permafrost areas for the 20th century. The author now agrees that FIgure 2 of this article was generated by WWF, but unfortunately it is still not clear what data WWF used. Although Agnostic reports that WWF told him that WWF generated the graphic based upon Lawrence and Slater 2005, even a cursory comparison shows that this is incorrect. ------------- As I said back in comment #20 "My initial interest was caught by the strange variations in the "actual" near-surface permafrost graph of Figure 2 in the early 20th century, and my initial comment, #5, was about this oddity. This has become a moot point since it has become clear that the data is not what the SkS article claims it is -- "actual"." (-snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] "unfortunately it is still not clear what data WWF used"

    What part of

    “we used the data from Lawrence & Slater, 2005, but created our own figures directly from the data, rather than reproducing the figures from the paper.”

    did you not read or understand?

    "even a cursory comparison shows that this is incorrect"

    Eyecrometers lack scientific accuracy.  FYI.

    "This has become a moot point since it has become clear that the data is not what the SkS article claims it is"

    Actually, it has become moot due to being superceded by the graph from Lawrence et al 2011, which you appear to have not yet read either.

    Tedious moderator trolling snipped.

  12. The Monckton Maneuver
    It bets the Monty Python Flying Circus denialism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO1T7b07I7E
  13. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    If you are not already aware, Monckton and his cronies dropped into Durban -- quite literally dropped in. See for yourself by going to "The Sky Is Falling! Climate Deniers Parachute Into COP17" posted today on DeSmog Blog. Click here to access.
  14. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    Te scientific community had better wake up and smell the roses then. It's not wise to let policymakers deal with climate issues on their own.
  15. The Monckton Maneuver
    The Monckton Maneuver has now become the Monckton Flying Circus -- literally! See for yourself by going to "The Sky Is Falling! Climate Deniers Parachute Into COP17" posted today on DeSmog Blog. Click here to access.
  16. funglestrumpet at 09:21 AM on 8 December 2011
    The Monckton Maneuver
    The problem is that short of a sudden ‘seeing of the light’, the next time Monckton dons his top hat and tails for yet another dance of deception two-step (first you say one thing, then you say the opposite), he will regurgitate the same old tripe that is the hallmark of his presentations, no matter how smart the bow tie (pity it doesn't rotate). Mention was made above of imposing some punishment. That will surely come for Monckton and those like him. There can be no excuse for not knowing the risks we face by not taking the actions that the scientific community are advocating, and the ‘precautionary principle’ is also so well established that people in their position can hardly be unaware of it. Many deniers can be excused (A single visit to WUWT should be enough to convince any decent court that leniency for the majority posting there is sadly wholly appropriate). However, I rather fear that the Moncktons of this world – the leaders of the pack – will be held culpable by the world population at some time in the not too distant future and leniency is the last thing they should get or deserve. Whether that time, and the urgent actions it will spark, will be too late to counter the harm they have already done remains to be seen. One thing I can say is that I would not like to be in their shoes, or the shoes of their descendants, when that time comes. It won’t stop at the level of the individual; whole nations will be judged and video clips, such as the above excellent example will be shown as evidence, especially the one where Monckton is introduced as a leading expert on climate change by an American congressman to fellow members of congress. Whether that judgement will be in some formal court will be decided by who's running the show at the time, and, of course, their behaviour now. One court that will definitely hand down a judgement is the court of public opinion, which will hurt in the only place some of these people understand : their pockets. How ironic that the main motivation for many deniers is the notion that action to combat climate change will hit them in their pockets.
  17. 2011 AGU Conference Day One
    Not that I'm aware of, John. But one is policy (Durban) while the other is science (AGU). Scientists wouldn't generally attend the former, and policymakers wouldn't generally attend the latter.
  18. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    John: try here. Comments are well worth a read, too.
  19. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    Where can I find a crtical review of "The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science"? I entered "Montford" into the SkS seach engine and came up with zilch. DeSomg Blog does not have Monford in it's listing of individuals involved in the global warming denial industry.
  20. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    A serial climate denial blogger posted the following today about Mann’s graph on the comment thread to the NPR article, “Can 'Carbon Ranching' Offset Emissions In Calif.?” [To access this article/comment thread, click here.] “Some of you really ought to read Andrew W. Montford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science" to get a thorough understanding of how the science underlying the totally unproven hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been manipulated. “The use of bristlecone pine tree rings as temperature proxies, questionable statistical methods and appending instrumental temperatures has been shown to be deliberately misleading.” Statements like the above should not go unchallenged. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time and effort to patrol the comment threads of media websites like NPR's. In many respects, it is a thankless job, but one that has to be done in my opinion.
  21. Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    26, Philippe, Agreed. Mervhob, Comments on models (but only if supported by references) should be made on this thread:
    How reliable are climate models?
    Response:

    [DB] "Comments on models (but only if supported by references) should be made on this thread: How reliable are climate models?"

    Make it so.

  22. Philippe Chantreau at 07:00 AM on 8 December 2011
    Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    On the subject of variability and short term "trends" (an abuse of the word, since short term with trend really makes an oxymoron): http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022 Foster and Rahmstorf refine the statistical methodology to separate short term fluctuations from long term trends.
  23. Philippe Chantreau at 06:52 AM on 8 December 2011
    Separating signal and noise in climate warming
    I see that mervhob continues to talk about something else than the subject of this thread and continues to throw unspported assertions. Considering the mathematical background he/she suggests having, it would be interesting to have an opinion on the subject of the thread. As for the rest, I am once again pleasantly surprised to see how tolerant SkS moderators are. A very quick search on "The Atlantic Conveyor has been weakening since the 1980s" returned these: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/atlantic20100325.html By none other than the denier's favorite ocean guy, Josh Willis. Quote "Combining satellite and float measurements, he found no change in the strength of the circulation overturning from 2002 to 2009. Looking further back with satellite altimeter data alone before the float data were available, Willis found evidence that the circulation had sped up about 20 percent from 1993 to 2009." Not sure if this speeding up has been confirmed by other papers, as I said, this was a quick, straight Google search. There is also Zhang et al for longer term behavior: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JC006812.shtml Meinen et al (2006) and Schott et al (2006) also failed to confirm the results of Bryden et al (2005). Doesn't mean that the slowing could not happen in the future but so far the evidence is not in the litterature. I am not sure what models forecast about that specific feature. I am sure that mervhob's statement was pulled out of you-know-where. I would like now to encourage all to discontinue the OT discussion (I know, I just added to it), as the subject of this thread is actually quite interesting, and should be even more so for someone with math background.
  24. The Monckton Maneuver
    meagain at 05:33 AM on 8 December, 2011 I agree about his influence, or at least about his potential influence. He speaks what a lot of people are eager to hear, and that just raises the importance of an effective commutication of proper information. I'm becoming a big fan of the Debunking Handbook...
  25. 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.
  26. 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?
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    My top tip on reducing your household heating bills... Hot water bottle.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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).
  35. 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?
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. It's Not About The Hockey Stick!
    #7 DSL- My guess is that many will say "Mistakes Were Made...But Not By Me".
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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?
  43. 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.
  44. 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
  45. 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?
  46. 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.
  47. 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.

  48. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Daniel @31, Thank you. Yes, that is the one.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.

Prev  1369  1370  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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