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  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  Next

Comments 69751 to 69800:

  1. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    129, tanahano, Seriously? You actually posted that comment? Please take the time to click on the "Intermediate" tab above, read that poast in its entirety, understand it, and then get back to commenting.
  2. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    "Whenever a scientist presents evidence (some is good, some is not) that casts any doubt on Global Warming, then they are savaged". um, please give evidence for SkS "savaging" a scientist for publishing evidence contrary to conventional climate science in a peer-reviewed publication. What does get savaged is misinformation, cherry-picking etc practised on the naive (eg Congress, public) in forums other that peer-reviewed science journals.
  3. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    The world has not warmed since 1998 according to UAH, RSS, and NOAA. Most weather websites have said that 1998,2005, and 2010 are a three way tie with no real difference therefore the world hasn't warmed since 1998. Even if it did...would only have been 0.02 c at most. Not significant at all.
  4. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 10:45 AM on 21 November 2011
    The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    Steve, I accept your comment as the proper clarification on insolation and appreciate your reply on the ENSO. :-) I consider this series to be unorthodox because it is so divergent from the typical article on this site. I took some heat (not surprising) for my comments about derision heaped on those that reach different conclusions, but a cursory glance at the front page of this site has plenty of articles like... Climate Denial Crock of the Week. Baked Curry Skeptics are anti-science Geologists and Climate Change Denial and so forth.... Whenever a scientist presents evidence (some is good, some is not) that casts any doubt on Global Warming, then they are savaged. Many articles on this site are simply attack articles that use derision of the opposition as a tactic. Your article actually discusses the science in a meaningful way and that is why I find it a breath of fresh air. Name calling is NOT how to encourage a constructive dialog. Your article rises above that and that is part of why I consider it unorthodox. Global Warming is a scientific hobby for me. My full-time job (which is what kept me from responding earlier) is R&D for semiconductors. It is certain that readers of this article have parts in their computer that use films or processes that I developed and more on the way. I did not deny science in developing those processes and in fact this week I created a new and vastly more complex process that could revolutionize large portions of semiconductor processing. The idea that I am anti-science would be amusing if it wasn't so foolish. When Daniel Bailey (#13) makes his comments about fake skeptics (while not sure if he lumps me into that group) and their abandonment of reason and logic, it is derision. Certainly there are people that are skeptical for the wrong reasons, but there is an equally large number of people who believe in global warming and don't understand anything about the science they are choosing to believe. That you had to reduce the technical content to make it readable is evidence of that. Just know that I appreciate your articles and look forward to anything else you might write in the future.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Savaged? Attack articles? Really?
    You should compare (silently) the type of 'savaging' that goes on at denial sites to the comments typically seen here. You will note, if you take the time to read objectively, that comments here are about the science, the data, the work done - not the individuals who do the work. If you object to such critical discussion of science, why are you here?
  5. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Michael & Albatross, although I have long been convinced that Norman's "objections" are not genuinely felt, and only raised to raise doubt, never-the-less visitors to this sight who do not have a background in statistics (which I suspect is most visitors) could be deceived by his claims, particularly if they do not see clear rebuttals. This is the old conundrum. As the purpose of this site is education, if we do not limit the posting of trolling comments, of necessity we must feed the troll by rebutting them. It is tiresome and frustrating, but no amount of moderators typing "DNFTT" will remove the conundrum.
  6. Climate's changed before
    Except... please see Its Cosmic Rays. That is the appropriate thread for the discussion but please read the article first.
  7. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    DrTsk#1 and funglestrumpet#2 I'm not generally regarded as stupid, but I am not a trained scientist. I spent my career as a successful computer analyst/programmer, indicating I have at least a logical and, I hope, open mind. I find simple information to be more easily digested than technical detail. For example, I would not know where to start in order to analyse satellite temperature records, but I do understand that the upper atmosphere is cooling because less heat is reaching it from the Earth's surface. It is not the pure science which informs me, it is the logical ideas extrapolated from the science. (I expect I could learn how to analyse the data, or even understand computer climate models, but I would still not be a scientist. In fact, I would be dangerous, as I might not notice if my results were wrong.) Of course, being unable to process the data myself, I rely upon those who can understand them to simplify their results for me in a reasonable, prudent manner. Being a cautious type, I like to see at least a second opinion and, preferably, a consensus. That is why I like following this site: I get to read many points of view and see plenty of discussion, so that I can come to my own decisions based on a weight of evidence. Moral: Keep it simple in order to inform the widest audience. You never know when your latest convert will become a leader of popular thinking.
  8. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Michael @88, "I reviewed your prior posts and I am going to remove myself from this discussion. I see no point in discussing data with someone who does not know how to look at data." You are not the only one Michael. Rightly or wrongly, I gave up trying to discuss the science and statistics with Norman a long time ago.
  9. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    apirate - what was posted in the article were some examples of issues which congressional Republicans apparently think are more important than attending a climate science briefing or holding a hearing on the issue. Among those was declaring pizza a vegetable (or 'vegetable dish', if you prefer). While I think that action is utterly stupid, and think it's astonishing that you would defend it (especially since, if I recall correctly, you're a teacher whose students' health will be adversely impacted by this decision), the point of the article was a) the discussion of climate science at the briefing, and b) the universal congressional Republican anti-science stance While it would have been nice for congressional Democrats to have attended the briefing, congressional Democrats have already voted to pass a climate bill, and have repeatedly tried to hold a climate hearing during this congressional session, only to be denied by the Republicans. Your focus on defending Republican efforts to categorize pizza as a vegetable dish - aside from itself being utterly ludicrous - only serves to distract from the anti-science stance of the Republican Party that is the point of this post. Henceforth I suggest we all abide by the policy DNFTT.
  10. Climate's changed before
    Solar activity doesn't just warm the earth, it can also COOL the Earth by solar winds, which are deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, and then divert cosmic rays. Normally, cosmic rays strike the oceans, increasing water-vapor in the atmosphere, and thus causing it to absorb more sunlight and warm slightly; but when solar-plasma ejection reduces, then the earth's water-vapor increases. And as your site says, solar activity has decreased. This means that the Earth is being subjected to greater cosmic winds, and this explains the increased water-vapor and temperatures.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Your information on cosmic rays is severely incorrect. Please read the thread scaddenp references. Also please note that this is a science-based site; claims such as 'normally cosmic rays strike the oceans,' which run contrary to much that is known about cosmic rays, must be substantiated - on the appropriate thread.
  11. actually thoughtful at 07:52 AM on 21 November 2011
    Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Apirate - this is actually a classic case of one party claiming the exact opposite of what is happening. Democrats, when they had control of the House, passed comprehensive cap and trade legislation (which had pros and cons). Now they are actively working to get America back to work. Republicans fought cap and trade, and publicly complain that the scientifically established fact of man-made climate change is a HOAX. So Republicans NEED the education offered at the committee meeting, while the Democrats, while they might benefit, don't NEED it. Meanwhile, whatever the Republicans are doing in the House, it is objectively true that it is not creating jobs (source: US unemployment level - unchanged since the Republicans ascent to power in 2010). You seem to be falling for the fallacy of false equivalence. While a pox on both their houses seems satisfying, it ignores the fact that one political party is actively against science, and one is not. I continue to be surprised that you, a science teacher, keep finding yourself more compatible with the party on record as against science.
  12. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    When all this denial leads to massive issues for the next generation, one wonders what the legacy of this generation will be. For Republican's especially, it would seem likely they will be regarded much as Germany's post-war generation regard (and disrespect) the wartime generation - "how could they be so deluded"
  13. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." Said by the Stupid
  14. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman: I reviewed your prior posts and I am going to remove myself from this discussion. I see no point in discussing data with someone who does not know how to look at data. For example, in your post 86 above you show two graphs which are clearly labeled [degrees C] anomaly and then you conclude "I still do not see an area twice as large for extremely hot in 2011 summer as compared to 1936 summer". Extremely hot is a designation of a variation of standard deviation. It is impossible to look at a graph of anomaly and reach an understanding of standard deviation. It has been pointed out to you previously on this thread that anomalies and standard deviations are different. If you cannot read the graph, accept that Hansen did it correctly and in 2011 there was twice as much "expremely hot" as there was in 1936. The hot areas were hotter in 2011 than 1936 (although they were similar in extent), the data proves you are wrong. If I look at a table of watermellons and I conclude that all oranges are the same, how far have I advnaced the discussion? You must understand statistical arguments to argue statistics.
  15. The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
    Keep It Simple for the Stupid
  16. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    michael sweet @ 82 I was looking at the month of July averages (not single days). I was not making an attempt with that post to any larger scale phenomena. I was using this data set to get a longer period standard deviation (over 350 points of data). The goal was to demonstrate (I guess autocorrelation.) that temperatures were not random under heat wave conditions and so normal distribution was not an effective way to determine probability. A reference that may convince you is found in the muoncouter post 85 link to the Barriopedro 2011 paper. In it they show how the heat wave slowly grew in time (the previous condition influenced the following conditions...this is not a random sample when this takes place). Also from that paper: "The most evident features associated with the 2010 event were (i) quasi-stationary anticyclonic circulation anomalies over western Russia (fig. S5) and (ii) deficit of January-to-July 2010 accumulated precipitation and early spring snow cover disappearance in western-central Russia (fig. S6). High-pressure systems are well-known to produce warm conditions at surface by enhancing subsidence, solar heating, and warm-air advection (19–21). The lack of water availability results in a continuous reduction of soil moisture and enhanced sensible heat fluxes that exacerbate the strength of summer heatwaves (20–22)." With normal temperature fluctations which would fall under random events, today's temperature will not have a great effect on the temperatures of a few weeks. A cold day today will not determine if it is still cold in a week (various random weather events of moving warm and cold around will be much more influential). But with the heat wave it is a pattern that will continue to heat as long as the pattern remains in place. Each warm day will build and make the continuous days warmer. The temperatures are connected and influence each other. I am not sure how these can then be considered random temperature fluctuations which would follow the normal distribution.
  17. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    muoncounter @ 83 "Perhaps a bigger question is this: If you do not understand something, do you automatically assume it isn't true?" I hope you don't believe I do this. I hate to automatically assume anything. I did look at all four graphs you posted. I saw on the United States graph that the 1936 heat wave was far less prominant than the 2011 heat wave in area covered (for extremely hot). Your graphs are on summertime hot area percentage. 2011 US shows 2011 summer as extremely hot in an area covering a bit more than 20% but the 1936 heat wave is shown only to cover around 10% of the area. I went to the GISS data base to investigate this and it did not seem the two graphs match. I took out the ocean temps (just land) and I lowered the smoothing to 250 km to check again and I still do not see that the 2011 summer covered twice the area for extremely hot temperatures as 1936 summer. The data set you included in your post was for the whole year. 1936 had one of the coldest winters on record so the overall temperature for the year was not that great. The graphs you posted are for summer time hot areas and have no bearing on the entire year. source. source. Even with these revised maps (no ocean temp included and better resolution on smoothing) I still do not see an area twice as large for extremely hot in 2011 summer as compared to 1936 summer. So I guess I still do not understand how the United States percentage graph, in your post at 30, was generated.
  18. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    And there's another example of so-called skepticism obvious from apiratelooksat50's use of copied 'facts', especially the use of the seemingly important

    "Source: Giovannucci, Edward et al., "Intake of Carotenoids and Retinol in Relation to Risk of prostate Cancer," Journal of the National Cancer Miracle Nutrient That Can Prevent Aging, Heart Diseaseand Cancer," Advanced Research Press, Inc. 1999. Hauppauge, N.Y.".

    This seems to be a hodge-podge of several different things plastered together by someone and copied willingly by another. apiratelooksat50's source may be tomatofest.com (who I'm sure are totally unbiased in this matter !), although several sites contain the exact same wording and grammatical errors. Edward Giovannucci's publication list contains nothing from the 'Journal of the National Cancer Miracle Nutrient That Can Prevent Aging, Heart Diseaseand Cancer' (unsurprisingly) and that 'Journal' is apparently printed by Advanced Research Press, which seems to be a one-man band operation involved in fitness & health magazine publishing in Ronkonkoma, New York. So it may possibly have been re-printed in that magazine in 1999, as suggested. The paper "Intake of Carotenoids and Retinol in Relation to Risk of prostate Cancer" was actually published in 1995 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, but Giovannucci did publish another paper in the same Journal in 1999 - "Tomatoes, tomato-based products, lycopene, and cancer: review of the epidemiologic literature." So, quite a feat of so-called skepticism involving no scepticism of the source whatsoever...
  19. Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
    uff, I got a small problem: using Debian Iceweasel does not accept this feature ... any solution?? Jörg
  20. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    In a strange way, this cherry pick of the lycopene content of tomato sauce is a good example of denial mentality. Choose a single isolated fact and ignore the rest of the evidence. In a single slice of frozen pizza:
    Calories 340 Sodium 740 mg Total Fat 18 g Potassium 0 mg Saturated 7 g Total Carbs 30 g Polyunsaturated 0 g Dietary Fiber 5 g Monounsaturated 0 g Sugars 1 g Trans 0 g Protein 17 g Cholesterol 25 mg
    Thus the denier can justify CO2 as plant food and black as white as long as the emissivity of the black object is greater than 0.
  21. Philippe Chantreau at 04:14 AM on 21 November 2011
    Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    I don't have the kind of time necessary to check impact factor and specific claims from a journal named "Journal of the National Cancer Miracle Nutrient That Can Prevent Aging, Heart Diseaseand Cancer" but if this is really the name of the journal, I'd be, a priori, a little skeptical of anything published in it. And indeed, calling pizza a vegetable is absurd by any stretch of the imagination.
  22. apiratelooksat50 at 03:40 AM on 21 November 2011
    Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Dana1981 @ 30 I was merely responding to what was posted in the article. Perhaps it was off-topic to even include that statement in your post. In regards to your post at #9. The Dems should have been there in force regardless of their perceived knowledge. Their absence, along withe the GOP, is an indicator of the growing indifference to AGW. Regardless, politics and science are strange bedfellows.
    Response:

    [DB] "The Dems should have been there in force regardless of their perceived knowledge."

    You continue to rationalize zero attendance by the Republicans, the anti-science party (by their own statements).  The facts remain that:

    • the world is warming
    • mankind, through it's fossil fuel emissions, are the cause of the majority of the temperature rise of the past 40 years
    • the country responsible for the largest portion of those fossil fuel emissions over that period is the United States
    • the leadership of one of the two largest political parties in the United States, the Republicans, denies the very science underlying most of the technological improvements of the past 100 years.

    That is denial of the fake-skepticism kind.  QED.

  23. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    apirate - nobody is disputing the nutritional value of tomato sauce. However, there is very little tomato sauce on a slice of pizza, and to allow pizza to be considered a 'vegetable dish', the Republicans had to decrease the amount of tomato paste that counts as a full serving [I believe it ended up being 2 tablespoons]. Defending a move to allow a slice of pizza to replace a serving of vegetables on our kids' lunches is kind of absurd, IMO. But regardless, this is quite off-topic. The pizza = vegetable issue was merely an example of the many things Republicans think are more important than climate change. Please stay on topic.
  24. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    A commenter in tamino's Extreme Heat post referred to Barriopedro et al 2011: The Hot Summer of 2010: Redrawing the Temperature Record Map of Europe. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are expected to amplify the variability of summer temperatures in Europe. Along with mean warming, enhanced variability results in more frequent, persistent, and intense heatwaves. They also note that despite increasing overall probability of additional heatwave, the 2010 heatwave was so extreme it is not very likely to be repeated in the near term. I suppose some will translate that observation into yet another 'what global warming?' headline: Forecast: Smaller chances of record-breaking heatwaves!
  25. apiratelooksat50 at 02:54 AM on 21 November 2011
    Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Actually, the tomato sauce on the pizza is what is considered the vegetable. And, since tomatoes don’t lose any of their nutritional value in high heat processing, canned tomatoes and tomato sauce are both just as viable and beneficial as fresh tomatoes. Maybe the Congressional Republicans know a little more than one might think. (Note: Technically tomatoes are a fruit since they have seeds.) "Cooking tomatoes in oil encourages intestinal absorption and results in a two-to-threefold rise in plasma lycopene concentrations," said Dr. Giovannucci. "Tomato sauce is one of the best lycopene sources." Source: Giovannucci, Edward et al., "Intake of Carotenoids and Retinol in Relation to Risk of prostate Cancer," Journal of the National Cancer Miracle Nutrient That Can Prevent Aging, Heart Diseaseand Cancer," Advanced Research Press, Inc. 1999. Hauppauge, N.Y. "The best food sources of lycopene according to the Tomato Research Council in New York City: ( Amount of lycopene in one ounce) Tomato Sauce, Spaghetti Sauce, Ketchup (5 mg); Tomato Soup, Canned Tomatoes, Tomato Juice, Vegetable Juice (3 mg); Minestrone Soup, Vegetable Soup, Pink Grapefruit (1 mg)"
  26. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    “As science writer Shawn Lawrence Otto points out in a tough-minded new book, Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, too many Americans are either plain ignorant of science or actively hostile to it, or both. And that's as true of political leaders and journalists as it is of ordinary citizens (to say nothing of corporate leaders who see action on climate change, say, as a threat to the bottom line). We think climate change is a hoax; we're convinced vaccines cause autism; we truly believe – as Newt Gingrich claims to – that embryonic stem cell research involves killing children.” Source: “How Ignorance, Greed and Ideology Are Warping Science and Hurting Democracy”, Rolling Stone, Nov 15, 2011 To access this timely and insightful article, click here.
  27. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    “Look at the 94 of 100 newly elected GOP members of Congress who have either said flat-out that they believe climate change is a vast hoax or that they have signed pledges to oppose any mitigation efforts. And this goes against all the evidence presented to every government around the world, including our own. This also extends to people like John Boehner, who has advocated in the past for teaching creationism in science classes, and who claims to believe that climate scientists are saying that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen.” Source: “How Ignorance, Greed and Ideology Are Warping Science and Hurting Democracy”, Rolling Stone, Nov 15, 2011 To access this timely and insightful article, click here.
  28. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Here are the salient points from tamino's Extreme Heat analysis referenced by Tom Curtis: ... the bottom line is that every degree Celsius increase in mean July temperature in Moscow, roughly doubles the chances of any given extreme heat wave. In fact Moscow temperature has increased as much as 3 deg.C since the early 20th century, and according to the extreme-value approximation model I computed, this makes a given extreme 8 times more likely than before. Without global warming, Moscow’s July 2010 would have been one for the history books. As global warming drives average temperatures even higher, present citizens of Moscow are likely to see multiple such events in a single lifetime. Which is scary. That post is well worth some study for anyone struggling with the notion of increased probability of extreme events.
  29. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman#78: "I do not understand how they have 2011 for US about double 1936 for extremely hot." Consider looking at the Northern Hemisphere Land graph (lower left), rather than just the US (lower right). Then note that the maps you produced include the oceans (LOTI=land ocean temp index); you are comparing that to 'land only.' Look at the GISS US-only average temperature anomaly data;
    1936: 0.134, 2010: 0.497, 2011: 0.477. Perhaps a bigger question is this: If you do not understand something, do you automatically assume it isn't true?
  30. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman, Your point that temperature data is autocorrelated is recognized by everyone. You have discovered something that everyone else already knows. Tamino discusses autocorrelation all the time. I read your deleted post. You use only 10 years of data at a single location(!!) for your average. Hansen (2011) use 30 years of data averaged over 250 km for their average. It is well known that short temperature records can have large variation. Can you provide a reference showing that a single ten year record of temperature is a Gaussian distribution? You then compare the highest single days from the hottest year to your average. Hansen compares the average temperatures over a three month period. If you look at single days you get a different result than if you look at the entire summer average. You then claim autocorrelation is significant without further analysis of the statistics. It is up to you to provide evidence of yor claim. Since you do not know how to show if autocorrelation in the hot years is significant, you need to learn statistical analysis or stop trying to make the argument. Take your issue to Climate Audit where they claim statistical knowledge and see if they can find a problem with the analysis. Do not bother putting up a cherry picked analysis of a single cities data over a short time period.
  31. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Rob Painting @ 79 I did generate a post to show (with math) the point I was making but the post did not get through moderation. I chose a station with 10 years of data to get a longer term standard deviation and then demonstrate that extreme heat waves do not follow the rules of random variables and demonstrate that these data points are not random variable by the definition of such. Normal distribution requires that the varibles be random.
    Response:

    [DB] Since others have already touched upon this there is no need to rehash the whole thing...but it must be reiterated:

    • nothing statisically useful can be learned from a 10-year trend of temperatures in a geographic datapoint of 1
    • nothing statistically useful can be learned by comparing 1 datapoint in time far removed from the first 10-year trend as there is simply no context for the comparison
    • you do not show the statistical significance of how looking at 1 geopgraphic datapoint (1 station's set of data - in an extremely truncated dataset) says anything about global trends (the subject of the OP)
    • you continue to ignore guidance about not cherry picking data by continuing to ignore using the full set of data available (something that climate scientists do all of the time); it is hard work that cannot be avoided in order to prove your point. 
    • Without the context of using the whole data range covered by the global datasets you will never be able to mount a coherent case that may withstand scientific scrutiny.

    As such your comment then simply amounted to further wasting the time of others, so it was moderated out.

  32. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    I have been a ‘follower’ of this site for a number of years and I avidly read every article you post here. Keep up the good work. I also ‘debate’ mostly Climate Change on a UK political forum – although ‘debate’ is a misnomer because those who are anti- AGW continually recycle the age old ‘doubters’ misinformation and just cannot accept their views represent the tiniest minority of science in the world. However, my reason for posting here is that I regard much of the US Republican leadership as falling into the same denier group and who will not be persuaded by logic. So, what’s to do about it? My opinion is that politicians are mostly motivated by ‘self-protection’ and should their fallacies be exposed publicly, they may start to change their tune. Again, imo, most people, even very intelligent ones, are influenced by respected experts in the media – e.g. newspapers and television. Therefore, I say that pro-AGWarmers should actively develop alliances with various media forms to find ways to ferociously denounce the deniers – especially politicians like the US Republican hierarchy. This won’t be at all easy – especially in the USA and maybe to a lesser extent in Oz. For example, currently on BBC in the UK they are showing programs fronted by Sir David Attenborough of life in polar regions, - (and as an aside, the quality is no less than astounding), - but I understand the last episode to be shown in a few weeks will address thinning of the ice due to AGW. Yet, the BBC announced this week that in selling this series of programs worldwide, this last episode will be left out in the USA, (& maybe Oz – not sure of that). Also, several years ago the BBC did a series of 3 programs by the geologist Iain Stuart called “Climate Wars” which showed many of the famous deniers ‘unfavourably’ for want of a polite description. The BBC has not published this series on DVD – draw your own conclusions. So, a fantastic site doing a really good job but realistically only a tiny proportion of the world’s population looking. If I could do something practical I would - but I hope there are readers here who may have some clout/media connections to fight back through the media against the silly and even malicious deniers.
  33. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman @77, Rob Painting @79, Tamino performed a detailed analysis the Moscow July temperature record and showed that the temperatures did not follow a normal distribution. In particular, he claimed that by performing a Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plot it is possible to determine if a distribution is normal by the fact that it will plot as a straight line. The upward bend above one standard deviation shows that warmer events are more common than we would expect from a normal curve. Taking the measured statistical properties into account, Tamino calculated a probability of the Moscow 2010 heat wave of 1/260 chance per annum assuming global warming, and close to 1/1000 without it. In other words, Tamino has clearly taken into account Norman's concern, and shown that global warming has made such events significantly more probable. Even this must be taken with a grain of salt, however. Because no event even close to Moscow 2010 is on record (in Moscow), we do not have statistical evidence showing that the divergence which makes warm events more common than the normal distribution will predict is not reversed at even higher levels. Indeed, we know it must be. Any standard statistical distribution will have an infinite tail, indicating that though 3,000 C days are very rare, they are possible. Cearly that is just as much nonsense as an expectation of rolling 19 on three six sided dice. So very extreme events such as Moscow 2010 may be even rarer than Tamino indicates, but are unlikely to be more common. Further, even if the distribution is not gaussian, shifting the temperature to the right will significantly increase the probabilities of warmer events unless the probability distribution is constant with increasing temperature. That is very clearly not the case - 50 degree C days are not as common as 40 degree C days in any part of the world. Norman ignores the significance of global warming on probability distribution, therefore, on no basis at all.
  34. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    Inconvenient Skeptic #12 "I was a bit surprised to see your comment that paleoclimate studies show that the insolation of the Eemian was sufficient to explain the higher warmth of the Eemian, when in the previous articles that was the comment I was making and you were saying that plants in the northern latitudes were respnsible. Clearly I agree that the greater 65N summer insolation was sufficient to explain the warmer NH climate during the Eemian." It's forcings such as orbital insolation that ultimately drive long term climate changes. I did explain in earlier posts that feedback mechanisms such as ice-albedo and vegetation changes serve to magnify those forcings. But those feedbacks wouldn't be initiated without the forcings in the first place. I'm quite happy to edit the post to make the wording more explicit for you, but I fear it may provoke accusations of fiddling the books and rewriting history from some quarters. Please accept this comment as a clarification. "The ENSO discussion isn't usefull because comparing a 40 year period of variability to a 10,000 year period is folly." You're concern over a 40 year period period not being sufficient to be useful may be valid. I made reference to it as it's a very interesting hypothesis, which may or may not have legs depending on future observations. Can I assume that you are equally critical of those who attempt to make hay about "global cooling" with less than 10 years of global surface temperature trend? "The 65N insolation anomaly went negative during the Eemian ~120,000 YBP. Using the EPICA ice core data, the rate of cooling in the 11,000 year period after that was -0.67C per 1,000 years...." Peak NH insolation in the the Eemian was around 129-128,000 YBP. This series of posts has focussed mainly on the warm Eemian climatic optimum 127-124,000 YBP. Tbe climate dynamics of the cooling phase into the next glacial period are irrelevant. "So the Earth cooled from a warm climate for thousands of years while CO2 stayed elevated at interglacial levels. In no way did the high CO2 levels appear to keep the Earth warm as the Eemian ended into the last glacial period." So what? CO2 is not the only driver of climate. "I applaud the effort you put into this series of articles. It is one of the best series this website has ever had. It does miss some important information, but I suspect that there were some challenges to the orthodoxy that you had to spend some time working through." Thanks! However, I didn't realise that this series was being unorthodox. I've never considered it to be anything other than a straight literature review of mainstream climate science research. The only criticism I've received from other members of the SkS team is purely down to some earlier drafts being too technical and not being pitched at the knowledge level of the average SkS reader. The guys have been nothing but supportive and constructive.
  35. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman &77- "The reason I am questioning the use of a Gaussian distribution is because I am not sure extreme temperatures fall under the concept of random variables" Rahmstorf and Coumou (2011) demonstrate that both global temperatures and Moscow July temperatures follow a Gaussian distribution. That comes about by doing the math, not by repeated handwaving. If you have some scientific literature that supports your notion, then post it here, otherwise your continued handwaving is tantamount to trolling.
  36. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    skywatcher @ 62 "You do realise that the graphs in Hansen et al 2011, posted by muoncounter in #30, directly contradict your above claim, and that these are observations?" I have looked into those graphs and I do not understand how they have 2011 for US about double 1936 for extremely hot. I will agree the eyeball is not the most accurate measuring tool but it can still easily distinguish areas that are twice the size of another. source. The 2011 grpah of the 2 to 4 C positive anomaly for the US does not look to be twice the size of the 1936 anomaly of the same temp range.
  37. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    It seems that the real powers in the American Republican Party are Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist. I don't think any of the current crop of their candidates are willing to alienate both these pundits. Since Limbaugh has proclaimed global warming to be a hoax and Norquist is opposed to tax increases or any non-rightwing-sanctioned government expenditures, there's no hope for progress if the Republicans take the Oval Office and keep their hold on the House. If that happens, only a revolutionary breakthrough in super-cheap, ultra-efficient, clean energy production will make a difference.
  38. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    muoncounter @76 "No, the key question remains unanswered: What's causing warm surface temperature anomalies? Do you deny that has anything to do with global warming?" At least some of the warm surface anomalies would likely be caused by carbon dioxide redirection of Long wave radiation, so I am not denying this condition. The point I am making on this thread is that I am not sure you can use normalized distribution when dealing with extreme temperatures Random Variable.. The reason I am questioning the use of a Gaussian distribution is because I am not sure extreme temperatures fall under the concept of random variables. When rolling a pair of dice, the outcome of the previous roll has no bearing on the current roll. Each roll is independent of any other roll and they are then true random variables. With extreme temperatures, what happened the day before has a huge bearing on what will happen today and the following day. With heat waves, the temp tends to build up over a period of time (lack of clouds and rain during the day) until reaching an equilibrium that is much warmer than the normal temps for that region. The hot day keeps the air warmer at night and allows the following day to become much warmer as well (as long as no fronts move in). That is why I am not sure it is valid to use normal distribution to calculate odds of extreme temps based upon a shift in the Guassian bell curve. That is why I am suggesting alternate approaches to determine the likelihood of extreme heat waves. I think the probablility of a heat wave taking place may be better determined by calculating the probability of a blocking pattern forming and then determining the odds a drought will become persistent which will help generate a very extreme heat wave.
  39. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman#73: "Once a drought has started it has a tendency to become persistent." Well, that sounds like a positive feedback to me. From your online book: The presence of high pressure centers for long times, therefore, provides a primer for drought occurrence, but they cannot explain why dry periods survive much longer than the anti-cyclone from which they originate. "a detailed explanation of what caused the current drought in Texas." Your 'drought explanation' is actually more of that anecdotal evidence you seem to prefer: ... our 12-month running total will be at about half the previous record low for any comparable period since rainfall records have been kept. ... The early 1950s drought lasted much longer than our current drought has existed so far, but the past year was worse than any single year during that five-year drought-of-record. ... We have already had highs of over 100 for 73 days this summer, with highs of 110 the past few days. The live oaks across the ranch are mostly leafless, and the post oaks, blackjack oaks, and Texas red oaks are brown and look like winter. Yep, that's extreme; it certainly debunks your 'this is nothing unusual' from prior threads. BTW, the author is a professor of biology. What was the point of that reference? No, the key question remains unanswered: What's causing warm surface temperature anomalies? Do you deny that has anything to do with global warming?
  40. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    From the bottom of that page: Update, 8 August 2011: We are in record territory, with a poor long-term outlook The early 1950s drought lasted much longer than our current drought has existed so far, but the past year was worse than any single year during that five-year drought-of-record. ---
  41. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Also from that "Texas drought explanation" link: --- The one thing that is clear is that global warming will produce major effects on precipitation patterns. Whether that means that central Texas will become wetter, drier, or more variable is not yet entirely clear, however. To date, recent global warming seems to have made central Texas wetter, but a switch point in the climate could end that trend suddenly. The following graph from NOAA documents the reality of global warming, and how quickly and suddenly it is happening. ---
  42. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    muoncounter @ 68 I found an online book that addresses your question: "Agreed, then, that 'a blocking event' causes stalled weather patterns; but this is apparently a short-term phenomenom. Do you associate a year-long mega-drought with events that last days to weeks?" Online book that answers muoncounter's good question. The blocking pattern starts the drought. Once a drought has started it has a tendency to become persistent. Ground has less moisture to supply that can result in rainfall with the right uplifting atmopheric front. Here is a detailed explanation of what caused the current drought in Texas. Texas drought explanation. One point this author Professor David M. Hillis brings up about Global Warming and Texas. "Will these long-term patterns continue in central Texas with increased global warming? There is considerable debate about that point, with different models showing different outcomes. A moderate degree of ocean warming is likely to increase El Niño events, which tend to make central Texas wetter. However, a major increase in temperatures could cause a shift in the Pacific jet stream, which supplies us with much of our moisture."
  43. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    One more excellent post from Skeptical Science this week that I just had to repost in full. Tellin’ it like it is: by dana1981 A number of climate not-so-skeptics have recently been exploiting global sea level data in their latest attempt to hide the incline. Skeptical Science readers will be very familiar with the tactics Source: “Hiding the Incline (Global-Warming-Denier Junk Science)” Zachary Shahan, Planetsave, Nov 18, 2011 To access thjs Planetsave post, click here.
  44. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Suggested reading: “When should we blame climate change for natural disasters?” by Brad Pulmer, Washington Post, Nov 18, 2011 To access this informative article, click here Pulmer’s article nicely supplements Rob Painting’s excellent post.
  45. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    THE PAST MONTH hasn’t been good for climate-change skeptics. At a congressional hearing Monday, Richard Muller, a former global-warming skeptic at the University of California, Berkeley, told lawmakers that, after a two-year review of historical world temperature data, he has verified the scientific consensus that the earth is warming — by about 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years. This is not surprising; as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last year, the warming of the planet, detected in multiple, independent lines of evidence, is “unequivocal.” Source: “A bad month for climate-change skeptics” Washington Post Editorial Board. Nov 18, 2011 To access this editorial in its entirety, click here.
  46. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Patrick Kelly @20 It appears that the 'elites' you complain about seem to have forgotten "the ways of making you do it." They have had to try convincing people by drawing conclusions based on facts.
  47. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Phila "It'd take another blog the size of this one to present the multiple lines of evidence demonstrating that the exact opposite is true." Well, one thing this blog provides for such a project is a handy indexed list of topics. All you need is to get a few people together and start with the top ten Climate Myths from the left hand column. Then work your way through to No. 172. No need to do Basic, Intermediate, Advanced versions. Just show us all how it's done.
  48. Increase Of Extreme Events With Global Warming (Basic Version)
    "Following up on my post earlier today about how climate change equals more extreme weather, here’s is a full repost of an excellent Skeptical Science article I’ve been wanting to share. Great content and well-presented:" Source: "Increase of Extreme Weather Events & Global Warming," Zachary Shahan, Planetsave, Nov 18, 2011 To access the article, click here.
  49. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    15, FundME, You are expressing a great number of false assumptions. Further study is advised. Specifically false assumptions:
    ...we can derive so little of use... ...can we even know what the TSI was... ...nothing is consistent to todays conditions... ...must be considered as speculation... We need to...
    Every one of these statements is anywhere from false to wildly false. You need to abandon every one of them and actually learn the material, and then come back and reconsider how each is wrong. The one true statement you made refers to the face that you need to learn more about paleoclimate. This isn't really a good place for you to start but to get some evidence of where your statements are wrong you might want to look at Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change by Hansen and Sato (2011).
  50. Lone Star State of Drought
    Sphaerica If you're looking for precipitation changes as evidence of expansion of Hadley cells, I'd take a long hard look at Perth. Perth is north of Sydney (just barely), on the other side of the continent. The only reports I remember are those from BOM showing the dramatic, and apparently permanent, loss of inflows to Perth's water catchments in the 70s. I've always regarded that fact as the canary in the coalmine of global warming. Not just for Australia, but for the world. The change is particularly devastating, mainly because Perth's evaporation rate is also the highest for any Australian capital city. I don't recall anything showing that the rate has increased, but I'd not be surprised if it had.

Prev  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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