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  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  Next

Comments 69901 to 69950:

  1. The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
    Jmurphy @7 You just pointed out what this blog is all about When educated people try to explain facts with a story to show others how inteligent they are the facts can get lost You ever heard the term to baffle someone with science A bit like what you said makes no sence just noise to me Science shouldn't be a foreign language When communicating to the public.
    Response:

    [DB] "When educated people try to explain facts with a story to show others how inteligent they are the"

    Umm, no.  Educated people try to explain facts with a story to show others because they are trying to help others learn.  You are projecting your perception of things onto others here.

    "A bit like what you said makes no sence just noise to me"

    If you do not understand the explanation, ask for a different one instead of pointing fingers.

    "Science shouldn't be a foreign language When communicating to the public."

    That is the entirety of why we donate our time here: to try and help communicate climate science to the public in clear, understandable words.

  2. The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
    If you want to make a lasting impact, try copying tabloid newspapers. They always attach short adjectives to persons and things to give a image which is reinforced with repetition. Instead of "Former Vice-President Al Gore believes in climate change", how does "Fat, balding Al Gore (64 years old) believes in climate change" make you think? Constant repetition of a negative association, even if false, undermines the message that a highly intelligent former US VP has studied climate change and accepts the science. I am not advocating the attachment of demeaning adjectives to people ... rather to things. Leave the personal stuff to Marc Morano. Nearly everyone has heard of "Climategate", but the permananent attachment of an adjective like "the faux-scandal Climategate" has a better chance of sinking in to the consciousness of the reader, particularly with constant repetition. My own opinion was that the climate science folks were too defensive about the faux-scandal Climategate, and that the amount of blogging-inches devoted to it probably backfired. However, this pseudo-scandal has probably died out in public consciousness, so that if it comes up (and there are whole sites devoted to it), mention it in no uncertain terms as the farrago of fabrication and exaggeration it really was. Associating the word "Climategate" constantly with words like "faux", "pseudo", "farrago" helps get the message across. We learn most things by repetition, so continuous word-association will boost replacing myth with fact.
  3. The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
    jmorpuss : "There are plenty of words that are power words like is we don't question when something IS . Another word that we should pay attention to is but it negates everything that was just said." If I state that that is simplistic, you won't question my statement ? And if I state that I disagree with you what you have written but that I accept your right to believe it, I am negating myself somehow ? jmorpuss : "Try and explain the word myth or fact to someone that has no schooling" Myth - A story Fact - The truth
    Moderator Response: (Rob P) All caps edited. Use bolded letters in future. Thanks. (JM) That has taken away the emphasis I was using to compare to jmorpuss's contention, so I hope it is alright for me to add in the emphasis (bold) now...
  4. The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
    101 vidoes for 101 cities with sea level rise linked to paleo data of Hansen 2011. http://vimeo.com/29474257 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK8BbOnvGJU
  5. The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
    Tom @ 5 so you dream in words do you You may like to think your differant But were not The thing that make us different is the choices we make and the habbits we have created Words have no meening without pictures Try and explain the word myth or fact to someone that has no schooling
  6. The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
    jmorpuss @5, so much for pop psychology. I actually took a survey of my friends and acquaintances on this point when I was very young (late teens, and updated on into my 30's). In fact different people have very different inner representations when they think. I, for example, typically think in words. Others, including presumably jmorpuss, think in pictures. My elder sister and my father thinks in "concepts", they are quite emphatic that it is neither pictures nor words. One friend I had had no inner representation associated with thought, and I knew one philosopher who had no inner representation even for sight, although they were quite literate and otherwise functional. That would be a very high level functioning blind sight. Just as there are a variety of forms of inner representation, there are a variety of ways of learning, with some learning best. Some learn best by reading, others by listening, and some by doing. I am sure there are other modes as well. The key point is that we are all different. People who generalize from their own experience (including some noted psychologists) merely demonstrate their lack of imagination. That certainly applies to jmorpuss' five step process to thought.
  7. The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
    Just remember we think in pictures not words and we can have a different picture to the same word. If I were to ask 10 people to think of a dog, there would be a good chance that they would all pick a different dog. When trying to communicate remember what you are actually doing is trying to paint a picture using words. Our memory is stronger when we are emotionally conected to the thought The saying "we learn things the hard way" is because when something hurts it sticks in our memory So next time we wont repeat the same mistake. There are plenty of words that are power words like IS we don't question when something IS . Another word that we should pay attention to is BUT it negates everything that was just said. There is a 5 step process to every thought 1st comes the thought it can come from anywhere 2nd Emote we wrap that thought with emotion and if we can get over ourselves and stop thinking emotionally we get to the 3rd step which is Seek & search were we can see ourselves in the picture and way things up and see both sides of the fence and then comes the 4th step Action were we can say or do something and what we end up with is step 5 knowing or Knowledge Most people get caught in the first 2 steps and get caught thinking emotionally about ones self and what is important to them and their emotional needs and whants and don't see the bigger picture. John what happened to my post to your first blog about Propaganda and it's conection to misinformation I didn't meen to upset anyone with facts
  8. The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
    Revolutionary!
  9. The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
    Nice graphical representation of the effect and proper approach.
  10. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    Great post. Post like these and the ongoing handbook information make this site invaluable!
  11. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    52, Fred, Thanks for that link. I can't stop laughing! Their credentials and laughable quotes are absolutely precious. It's just amazing to me how well-educated but sadly over-confident people can express such amazing ignorance in a field that is, sadly, outside of their area of expertise but, even more sadly, in which they clearly have not taken the time to achieve even a college level understanding, let alone any right to make such political and unscientific statements. Still laughing. Thanks. That will help me sleep better tonight, knowing that it is really now only the utterly foolish who fail to understand and continue to deny climate change.
  12. The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
    Nice. But I guess that means you will have to rejig the Myths sidebar?
    Response: [JC] Hmm, a case of do as I say, not as I do :-) Seriously though, that is a tricky question. How do you invoke and debunk myths without reinforcing them. The left margin could be restructured in the same way that most of the SkS rebuttals are now headlined with open questions rather than the myth. Something to think about.
  13. Philippe Chantreau at 15:24 PM on 18 November 2011
    Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    "Therefore the observed patterns are most likely the variations in spatial patterns of warming and cooling found in the models, rather than temporal variations in mean global temperature." I find that a better way to understand it indeed. A while ago, I took a look at the litterature on the SHALDRIL cores, of which a chief researcher was Milliken. He finds that "There is no compelling evidence for a Little Ice Age readvance in Maxwell Bay" and also asserts that "the current warming and associated glacial response in the northern Antarctic Peninsula appears to be unprecedented in its synchroneity and widespread impact." So indeed LIA and MWP seem to have been more likely regional than global in nature.
  14. Philippe Chantreau at 15:15 PM on 18 November 2011
    Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Marc Morano's garbage is as far as one can get from a compilation of scientific litterature. Anyone willing to be taken on a ride by a political operative deserves what they'll get. Morano is so pathetically illiterate in matters of science that nothing coming from him is worth any consideration.
  15. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Fred#52: This post is about a case in peer-reviewed literature, not the efforts of Marc Morano to compile a list of WUWT links, clippings from little known newspapers and fringe, unscientific blog posts. No soap.
  16. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Hi, Other papers where scientists disagree about the dangerous anthropogenic global warming hypothesis can be found at the website for the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority Page). See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d6d95751-802a-23ad-4496-7ec7e1641f2f Well documented and linked, it lists more than 1000 international scientists. Cheers, Fred
    Response:

    To further compliment muoncounter's sage advice below, you need to Meet The Denominator to gain the context that you lack: well-documented and linked, it reveals that even a paltry 1,000+ nay-saying scientists are no match for the millions that lie in the Denominator.  If you wish to pursue this, take it there.  Cheers, DB.

  17. Lone Star State of Drought
    Albatross, muoncounter, thanks for those two comments, very informative.
  18. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Mango "... to engage in conversation. I'm not saying you will convince me, I really think the AGW "theory" is flawed, but I'm open to being convinced..." One thing that slipped by me the first time I saw your post. "AGW theory" - no-one yet has asked so I will. Do you realise that there is no AGW theory? What we have is climate science - AGW is merely a predictable sub-set of the general science. The core contributors to the discipline are physics, geology, astronomy, meteorology, chemistry, biology, oceanography, glaciology and other cryology, and a good couple of dozen others. Given what we know from physics of the radiative properties of CO2 and other long-lived gh gases, and the geology of many regions tells us more, we know what to expect when the atmosphere has an increased concentration of ghgs. And the measurements are telling us the physics, geology, chemistry et al are taking us pretty well where we'd expect to end up. How far and how fast we push ourselves along that path is a problem of interpreting and analysing those measurements. But it really is pretty straightforward. (From the comfortable perspective of someone who's never gone to work on a glacier or done super dangerous things in stormy seas or remote jungles just to collect the data we use.)
  19. David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
    Folks, Evans is at it again with a new document dated September 2011. A Link to the pdf can be found here http://www.auscsc.org.au/home/1/limit/6 if you want to copy and paste into a browser or here it is an embedded hyperlink Time for an updated rebuttal please dana?
  20. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    skept.fr @44, earlier in the paper Mann et al wrote:
    "Both simulations give very similar estimates of the global mean MCA-LIA temperature difference (0.16° and 0.24°C for NCAR and GISS, respectively; the latter is identical to the proxy reconstructed mean surface temperature difference of 0.24°C). The spatial patterns of response for the two models (Fig. 3), however, are quite different, as discussed further below"
    The sentence you quoted comes from that discussion. Therefore the observed patterns are most likely the variations in spatial patterns of warming and cooling found in the models, rather than temporal variations in mean global temperature. It should be noted that changes in spatial patterns in temperature can make a small difference in TOA outgoing radiation, and hence there may also be some temporal variation in GMST, but it would be very small relative to the difference in temperature between MWP and LIA, ie, less than 0.06 degrees C (one quarter of the difference between MWP and LIA).
  21. Lone Star State of Drought
    There's some interesting research on these southwestern US droughts at Lamont Doherty. This figure reveals a very conspicuous decrease in drought area over the long term that has reversed during the 20th century. --source In the detail (lower panel), the red curve shows this increase. Please note this figure dates from 2004, so the current drought is not included in the assessment that 'the current drought is not historically exceptional.' Rather than focus on individual droughts, which may well be driven by oscillations, this research looks at the long term. The dynamical causes of imminent subtropical drying appear distinct from the causes of historical North American droughts such as occurred in the 1950s and during the 1930s Dust Bowl. ... In contrast to historical droughts, future drying is not linked to any particular pattern of change in sea surface temperature but seems to be the result of an overall surface warming driven by rising greenhouse gases. Evidence for this is that subtropical drying occurs in atmosphere models alone when they are subjected to uniform increases in surface temperature. Their short term projections do not look good: -- full scale GFDL's Isaac Held had a hand in this report, offering a great catch phrase: Warming of the global climate is expected to be accompanied by a reduction in rainfall in the subtropics and an increase in precipitation in subpolar latitudes and some equatorial regions. This pattern can be described in broad terms as the wet getting wetter and the dry getting drier -- emphasis added Note: here is the original source (Cook et al 2004) for the two-panel figure above. If the Z-C modeling results hold up, it is plausible that continued warming over the tropical Pacific, whether natural or anthropogenically forced, will promote the development of persistent drought-inducing La Nina–like conditions. Should this situation occur, especially in tandem with midcontinental drying over North America, the epoch of unprecedented aridity revealed in the DAI reconstruction might truly be a harbinger of things to come in the West.
  22. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    skept.fr @32, I reiterate my point @18 which I do not feel you have addressed. There is no doubt, IMO, that increased production of biofuels will lead to an increased cost of grains. That is a simple consequence of increased demand in the face of constrained supply. However, logically you cannot split apart the many sources of demand and say one is responsible for the higher prices while others are not. Given that, if you wish to restrict demand for one use of a good to keep prices down, the decision to do so represents a decision that the restricted use is less valuable than all the other uses of the good. In other words, restricting biofuels because of their price impacts on food, while not restricting grain use as animal fodder represents a decision that grain fed animal meat is more valuable than cheap grain for the third world, which in turn is more valuable than access to biofuels. What is more, this is a valuation that stands outside the market and imposes itself on it. While the meta-valuation that biofuel is less valuable than cheap grain for third world food production is one I agree with, the meta-valuation that grain fed beef is more valuable than either cheap grain for the third world, or biofuels is not. Please note that these meta-valuations are ethical, not economic valuations, which can be derived from the market itself. Therefore, allowing that increased production of biofuels increases overall demand for grains, and hence prices, it does not follow that the appropriate policy is to reduce production of biofuels. Rather, if you are going to interfere with market valuations at all, then you are faced with a range of possible policy responses including (but not restricted to): 1) Restricting production of biofuels; 2) Imposing a tax on purchases of grain for animal fodder (thereby decreasing effective demand for animal fodder); 3) Subsidizing purchases of grain for human consumption in the third world, thereby increasing the effective demand for human consumption of grain); or 4) Encouraging production of biofuels from plant material other than grains, especially plant material that can be grown on marginal land for grain production. Of course, various of these can be tried in combination. A tax on animal fodder could be used to fund subsidies on human consumption of grains in the third world. Regardless of the policy chosen, it represents an implicit moral choice. As it is fairly straightforward (to me) that western demand for more marbled meat is of significantly less importance, ethically, than future generations demand for the existence of major eco-systems such as the Amazon, and the Great Barrier Reef (both significantly under threat even with a 2 degree C increase in global temperatures) any response to an increase in demand for grains due to the production of biofuels that restricts itself to restricting biofuels represents a very selfish choice of minimal current convenience (for a select proportion of the world's population) over fundamental needs of the majority of the world's current population and future generations. Until you adress this issue, I have little interest in what (to me) appears like a very shallow analysis of the issue.
  23. Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
    John...the baby in the bathtub analogy is brilliant. In one image you capture variability on top of trend AND the idea that variability is simply redistribution of heat. It also appeals to family values to boot!
  24. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Suggested reading: “Monte Carlo versus blocking formations: why attributing heatwaves to climate change is still a gamble,” The Carbon Brief, Oct 27, 2011 To access this article, click here.
  25. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    “Climate change is likely to cause more storms, floods, droughts, heatwaves and other extreme weather events, according to the most authoritative review yet of the effects of global warming. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will publish on Friday its first special report on extreme weather, and its relationship to rising greenhouse gas emissions. “The final details are being fought over by governments, as the "summary for policymakers" of the report has to be agreed in full by every nation that chooses to be involved. But the conclusions are expected to be that emissions from human activities are increasing the frequency of extreme weather events. In particular, there are likely to be many more heatwaves, droughts and changes in rainfall patterns.” Source: “IPCC expected to confirm link between climate change and extreme weather,” the Guardian (UK), Nov 17, 2011 To access the entire article, click here.
  26. Lone Star State of Drought
    CW @1, Sigh, you are missing the point. I do not think that anyone in the know is entirely blaming the development of the drought and heat wave over the southern great plains on global warming. They are saying that the underlying warming trend made a bad situation worse (i.e., that the event was likely stronger than it would otherwise have been). Dr. Nielsen-Gammon has some interesting posts up on this. It is more than a little disconcerting that we are already seeing a discernible anthropogenic signal so early in the anthropocene. That chart you showed above is the teleconnection for the winter months, the drought peaked during the summer. This is a more appropriate image, for precipitation: [Source] Note that for JJA there is not a very strong La Nina signal at all for temperature: So just as it is wrong to entirely attribute the development and intensity of this drought and heat wave to AGW, it is just as wrong to claim that the intensity of the heat wave and drought were solely the result of La Nina. Hansen has showed using observations, that globally, the area affecting by marked warm events is on the increase. Likewise Dai et al. (2004), again using observations, have shown that the areas under the impact of drought or pluvial have increased: "The global very dry areas, defined as PDSI <-3.0, have more than doubled since the 1970s, with a large jump in the early 1980s due to an ENSO-induced precipitation decrease and a subsequent expansion primarily due to surface warming, while global very wet areas (PDSI >+3.0) declined slightly during the 1980s. Together, the global land areas in either very dry or very wet conditions have increased from ~20% to 38% since 1972, with surface warming as the primary cause after the mid-1980s. These results provide observational evidence for the increasing risk of droughts as anthropogenic global warming progresses and produces both increased temperatures and increased drying." It is very difficult to argue with such compelling observational evidence. In closing a comment by Dr. Nielsen-Gammon: "It is plain that heat records should and are increasing, and hot episodes should and are becoming more extreme, as the climate warms. In the specific case of the Texas 2011 heat, natural factors appear to have been so strong that it would have set a record even in the absence of climate warming, but it would almost certainly not have been so intense as to be four sigmas above the long-term average without the contribution of climate warming."
  27. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Perhaps because of the global patterns apparent, oceanic effects like discussed in Swanson and Tsonis 2009, also discussed here at Realclimate (guest post by Swanson, MAY have been a factor.
  28. Lone Star State of Drought
    So the Texas drought is, as the video identified, strongly correlated with La Nina: But La Nina is also correlated with lower ( than normal years or El Nino years ) global temperatures. This ( now double dip ) La Nina event is quite independent of the very real warming due to ghgs.
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] Fixed image width
  29. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    MangoChutney - "I'm not saying you will convince me, I really think the AGW "theory" is flawed..." With that as an opening statement, I would suggest reading through Newcomers, Start Here and The Big Picture pages, as well as looking at the excellent historical overview contained in The Discovery of Global Warming. As opposed to (for example) selecting one piece of information, arguing that it's problematic or unknowable, and from that claiming the entire theory of AGW, supported by multiple lines of evidence and the physics of the last 150 years, is flawed. There are uncertainties, there are multiple influences (in this case ozone, CO2, water vapor levels, etc.), and it's always important not to oversimplify or overgeneralize from your data...
  30. There's no tropospheric hot spot
    Mango, Nobody has asked you to confess your sins, can you please tone down the rhetoric and stop arguing strawmen. IIRC, Skywatcher was asking if you accept that you are wrong about the so-called hot spot in the upper tropical troposphere being purely an anthropogenic signal/signature/fingerprint. So what are you not convinced about in this regard? 1) That the hot spot is not purely an anthropogenic "signal"? It is not a fingerprint of AGW, it is a fingerprint of a warming planet regardless of the cause of the warming. 2) That the "hot spot" upper tropical troposphere not discernible in the observations? Please state your position clearly. This is exactly why I asked you on another thread to list your top three or so primary concerns, to avoid what is happening now. Now concerning the validation of the model simulations of the "hot spot". I suggest that you read the very latest literature on this by Thorne et al. (2011). They conclude that: "It is concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively." If that paper in addition to the other excellent papers cited in the main post do not convince you then nothing will I'm afraid. We can provide you with facts, but the rest is up to you. "thing as a graph showing the actual observed data" What is wrong with the data presented by Thorne et al. (2008)? Are you suggesting that the data from multiple agencies and data observation platforms are not trustworthy? And why do both "sides" have to agree on hard, cold facts? You have a very troubling idea of how science works Mango.
  31. Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
    Mankind's Power to Create and Destroy The title and opening remarks in Cardinal Pell’s speech encapsulate all that is deficient in his worldview. His reference to the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel indicates that, to him, the idea that mankind can change the climate of the Earth is as prideful and far-fetched as the tower builder’s belief they could reach heaven. This idea is profoundly wrong both in terms of the science and theology. As to the science, John has answered that well. As to the theology, Genesis chapter 1 states that man was made "in the image of God", and was given authority to rule (responsibly) over the Earth. This means that man, like God, has the power to create and destroy. Should Cardinal Pell doubt our ability to wreck the environment, we need to look no further than our power to split the atom in the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We came perilously close to nuclear Armageddon during the Cuban missile crisis of 1963. I believe by the grace of God, we were saved at that time by President Kennedy, who unlike Cardinal Pell, understood the destructive potential of mankind’s follies.
  32. There's no tropospheric hot spot
    #10 Mango, you like taking the emotive line, but I am after a scientific reasoning as to why you believe that the tropospheric hotspot is specifically an AGW signature. The 'advanced' tab clearly shows that it is by no means unique to AGW, so where do you think this is wrong, and upon what scientific basis? You have, elsewhere, insinuated that data has then been massaged to fit the models (much like Lindzen suggested as discussed above), yet clearly this is not the case. This area of the science is one that has significant uncertainties (as the Thorne graph above shows), yet is not fundamental to the validity of our understanding of the climate system. Lindzen, Monckton and others love to portray otherwise, and I'd hate to see you be taken in by their misinformation. Forget the emotion, or feeling hurt that you've been called out on these statements you've made, as you now have a great chance to present the science for your case.
  33. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Hi Mango @115, "appears to be really worried about why I am here" "or do you not want to engage in civilised conversation" Now you are arguing strawmen, and are also being paranoid. You still have not specified exactly which statements you have made that people are alleging are wrong. instead you now say Posters at the BBC blog are always telling me I'm wrong about everything". Regardless, I and others here, are happy to engage in a cvil scientific discussion with you. What are say your three primary issues/positions that you have, that you have been told are wrong, and which you believe refute or call into question the theory of AGW? We can then address them on the relevant thread. I was under the impression, going by your very first comments on another thread, that they had something to do with temperature trends in the stratosphere no? Specifically, you seem to think that because the stratosphere has not cooled recently that this is a significant flaw in the theory (no quotation remarks required) of AGW. Let us look at the big picture shall we, instead of cherry picked short-term trends that have no statistical significance and which, as such, cannot be used to accept or reject the null hypothesis. [Source]
  34. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    How about also considering that the effects of blocking patterns are more severe in a warmer world? (ie both more severe drought - higher evaporation rate, and more severe flooding - rain intensities are jigher so a prolonged pattern has greater effect).
  35. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    I've read the Mann et al 2009 paper linked above and I've a question. The authors compare the overall pattern of change between Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age, as reconstructed from proxies and simulated by models. And they conclude : « The observed patterns of change, even when averaged over multicentury intervals, are unlikely to be entirely forced in nature, as there is also a potentially important role for purely internal, natural variability. » Reference to the unforced natural variability is unclear for me. I have often read that such an intrinsic variability cannot create any long term trend. This is a typical Tamino argument : energy is redistributed, not created, by (unforced) natural variability so you do not expect from it any decadal-to-century trend in surface temperature, just a season-to-year signal, up-and-down noise. So, what are Mann et al alluding to when they mention such a « purely internal » variability which could explain part of the averaged multicentury pattern ?
  36. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    “Conventional wisdom has it that the next election will be fought exclusively on the topic of jobs. But President Obama’s announcement last week that he would postpone a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until after the 2012 election, which may effectively kill the project, makes it clear that other issues will weigh in -- and that, oddly enough, one of them might even be climate change.” Source: “Bill McKibben, Puncturing the Pipeline” TomGram, Nov 15, 2011 To access this insightful analysis, click here.
  37. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    I'll read through the comments and get back to you, (-snip-) OK, albatross, you read the comments, seemingly everywhere! Posters at the BBC blog are always telling me I'm wrong about everything and they tell me all the answers lie at SkS. I do read the links, even though I suspect the posters at the BBV never read the links from the opposing camp And that's why I'm here - to engage in conversation. I'm not saying you will convince me, I really think the AGW "theory" is flawed, but I'm open to being convinced and I have, on several occasions at the BBC and WUWT, stated that we shouldn't read too much into papers that, for example, show lower climate sensitivity than the IPCC would have us believe, because the papers are still based on models not on empirical data (-snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Welcome to Skeptical Science.  Here we focus on the science, not on rhetoric or ideology; that focus immediately separates SkS from the other sites you reference. Please familiarize yourself with the Comments Policy of this site.  Note that a continued focus on "camps" or "tribes" detracts from one's credibility here.

    Inflammatory snipped.

  38. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Mango @109, "AGW hypothesis" Actually, it is the theory of AGW. There is a significant/important difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory".
  39. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Mango, You see this is exactly why I asked my questions @10. I do not recall questioning why you are here. I am glad to here that you are willing to listen to the evidence, but we shall see. Now in order to help you and to focus the discussion I repeat, specifically, what statements have you made that "they" have told you were wrong. You made reference to that in your post @100 when you said: "People tell me i am wrong and point to SkS, so i thought i would ask here" Someone in the interim has replied to one of your other questions that asked after reading a post, but I am more interested in what you have been saying that people claim is wrong, the alleged real reason for you being here. Can we please help you address that?
  40. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Philippe : I agree, my first words were imprecise. Also, I understand and share your concern, but a larger debate on market-equilibrium models failure, short-termism in economy policy and illusion of infinite exponential growth in a finite planet (Bartlett from Bernard) would probably be off-topic here. (Note that IEA as well as IPCC SRES share a basic assumption of sustained economic growth for coming decades… non compatible for example with a fast fossil depletion.) Furthermore, I also quoted the correlates of energy so as to remind a fundamental fact : whatever your economic system is (capitalist, socialist, feudal, etc.), it’s very unlikely that a low production and consumption of energy will meet the common criteria of human welfare. Bolivia, Yemen or Haiti have an ideal energy consumption per capita for climate stabilization, but few people in developped or emerging countries would consider their HDI as their new ideal. There would be no debate if we can simply give up fossil fuels without any sacrifice, or if climate stabilization was the unique problem of humanity. Look at the Millenium Development Goals of United Nations : most of them are not energy-free in their achievement and no climate objective is sustainable that would worsen on short-term the vulnerability to non-climatic hazards or threats. IEA (and Andy) message is clear : we’re committed to act for climate stabilization, and to act now. So, part of the debate should now deal with the efficiency and security of present energy alternative to fossil fuels ‘other things beeing equal’, because if we condition our climate action to the instauration of a perfect economic and political world system, we will never act ! And similarly, if we choose the worst solutions revealing their negative side-effects for other human needs or concerns, a long-term policy will be very difficult to maintain. On biofuel in their current generation, I think there are all sort of reasons to consider they may be a local and partial solution (eg Brazilian way if enviromentally constrained), but to doubt and even to fear their global extension to the detriment of agricultural use. Most studies do find an influence on crops price, so we cannot just pick those which don't so as to conclude there is no risk at all. (Thereafter, a quite devastative assessment of biofuel by International Energy Forum, including the crop price risk) http://www.ief.org/PDF%20Downloads/Bio-fuels%20Report.pdf Edmh : hem, we're discussing IEA report, 450 scenario and choices in energy policy, not exactly your topic.
  41. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Mango, short answer... You are wrong in thinking that OLR has increased. There is a net 0.9±0.5 W/m2 imbalance... less, not more. The proper value is, I think, hard to detect reliably considering all of the noise inherent in the system and without better satellite measurements and longer time periods with which to accumulate averages (although Trenberth appears to have done so, and I'd have to look at his paper again to see how)... and sadly satellites keep failing to reach orbit and funding for them is rather dry with the Republican Party in power in the U.S. House. At the same time, however, KR's link to Is the CO2 Effect Saturated as well as this link to Have American Thinker disproven global warming? together show that while the total imbalance is difficult to detect, the expected changes in specific frequencies of OLR -- fingerprints not of any imbalance and warming, but of the effects of CO2 in particular -- are detectable and present. Your argument/question is not invalid. We simply don't have the resources to observationally support or refute the question of which substance, ozone or CO2, is more responsible for the cooling of the stratosphere. But we do have other observations that more than suffice to make us believe that answering that particular question is not all that important. No one really thinks for a minute, nor should they based on the wealth of other evidence, that CO2 is somehow not responsible for both warming the planet and cooling the stratosphere, exactly matching what is predicted by our firm understanding of the physics, but instead that ozone is cooling the stratosphere and some other mysterious, unnamed, unknown force is warming the globe, while CO2 is somehow surprisingly not behaving as all physics expects. So, you see, the proposition that ozone is responsible for cooling the stratosphere requires four huge assumptions:
    • Ozone is responsible for the cooling of the stratosphere.
    • Something else (as yet unknown) is responsible for global warming.
    • In spite of our good understanding of the physics and all other observations that support this, CO2 is somehow not warming the globe.
    • In spire of our good understanding of the physics and all other observations that support this, CO2 is somehow not cooling the stratosphere.
  42. Philippe Chantreau at 03:35 AM on 18 November 2011
    Eschenbach and McIntyre's BEST Shot at the Surface Temperature Record
    I'm going to need aspirin if I see more TLAs...
  43. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Actually, now that I look at the UNrounded values, it seems that Trenberth IS showing the radiative imbalance; 341.3 incoming - 101.9 reflected = 238.5 OLR + 0.9 imbalance The imbalance is labelled 'Net absorbed' at the bottom middle of the diagram.
  44. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    Mango, consider Trenberth's energy flow diagram; From this we can see that: 341 W/m^2 incoming solar radiation - 102 W/M^2 reflected solar radiation = 239 W/m^2 OLR Thus, we can also use this diagram to identify some things which could change the amount of OLR. For instance, an increase in OLR could be due to increased incoming solar radiation (which goes through a semi-regular cycle of about 11 years), increased surface reflection of solar radiation (e.g. due to higher snow coverage than usual), or increased cloud cover causing more atmospheric reflection of solar radiation. Thus, if you are angling for 'any increase in OLR for any duration disproves AGW' then you are incorrect... many things can and do cause short duration increases in OLR. Indeed, over the long term greenhouse gases have no impact on OLR. Energy out MUST equal energy in - though not immediately. An increase in greenhouse gases can cause an energy imbalance (note that Trenberth's diagram only depicts balanced flows) by temporarily decreasing the OLR rate until temperature rises enough that OLR becomes balanced again.
  45. Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
    @Albatross Does it really matter why I'm here? As long as I am prepared to be convinced (and I am prepared), isn't that enough? @All We seem to agree that there could be 2 reasons for the cooling stratosphere, CO2 and / or ozone depletion. The answer seems to be where in the stratosphere the cooling is happening, so do we have the records to show if the cooling affects the whole of the stratosphere or just the upper stratosphere? ----- The AGW hypothesis suggests outgoing longwave radiation should decrease. I've read the post: http://www.skepticalscience.com/American-Thinker-claims-to-have-disproven-global-warming.html which, as the author of the AT article confirms in the comments, shows that OLR has remained constant over the period to 2006 "We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere about 17% from 1970 to 2006 (328ppm vs. 383ppm) and the OLR appears to have remained constant when you look at the raw data from these three papers". Essentially we have over 30 years of satellite data which seems to show no overall decrease in OLR and possible an overall increase (didn't read all the comments) My understanding is OLR has increased over the full satellite period, but I could be wrong, so: Has OLR slightly decreased, slightly increased, decreased significantly, increased significantly or stayed the same over the satellite period? If OLR has increased to any extent, what are the possible causes? If OLR has increased to any extent does this invalidate the enhanced green house effect hypothesis? TIA
  46. The Debunking Handbook Part 1: The first myth about debunking
    John... This looks to be a great resource that I'd like to hand out to a few people. A suggestion, please consider adding permission to the PDF to be duplicated as many commercial copy shops will not allow copies to be made by them without it.
    Response: [JC] Good idea, thanks for the suggestion.
  47. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    Or "is worth a thousand words". But Grandma was french.
  48. World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
    "A picture is worth than a thousand words" (Grandma et al.)
  49. There's no tropospheric hot spot
    Is there such a thing as a graph showing the actual observed data - not prepared by Monckton that both sides can agree on?
  50. There's no tropospheric hot spot
    @9 Can't win, can I? If I ignore links to SkS I'm condemned as a "denier" for not listening to both sides and if I engage with readers of SkS I'm immediately pounced upon to confess my sins. In answer, yes I have read the advanced tab and no I am not convinced, hence the questions

Prev  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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