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  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  Next

Comments 70001 to 70050:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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!
  6. 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)"
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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?
  21. 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. ---
  22. 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. ---
  23. 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."
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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).
  31. 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.
  32. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." Winston Churchill
  33. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Sphaerica @ 03:17
    I have always contended that the term "conventional wisdom" is an oxymoron.
    This little gem embodies all the offensively elitist attitudes that are so offputting to so many people. You, the great unwashed are dumb. We, the elites, are the only ones who can "save the earth." You will do as we say and we have ways of making you do it. Shades of 1930s Russia, the modern day European Union and everything Orwellian.
    Response:

    [DB] You have yet to post even one comment here that has added to the dialogue in any way.  It is tiresome and unoriginal.

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

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

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  34. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    @Minglewood at 12 You can respond to such a "skeptic" by rejoining that the AGW community is well aware of the small number of peer-reviewed papers that are in opposition to mainline AGW. You can then point him to the two articles on this in SkepticalScience- Here: Powell Project 1 and Here: Powell Project 2 Then you can ask your new friend if he knows how many papers there are supporting the mainline view, and ask how he can flippantly dismiss those thousands of papers. Then you can start getting mean. You can ask him which of the papers he's read, and why he agrees with them. The odds are 1) he hasn't read any of them, and is running a bluff with numbers. 2) that there is an established debunking of the paper. Look- it's isn't Congress' job to squelch myths...and it wouldn't be a free country if it was. It's our job. Keep up the good fight! Remember that the goal isn't to convert him, but to make clear to bystanders that our side can stand up for itself in any forum.
  35. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    John Hartz - typo fixed, thanks.
  36. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    @Rob Painting: Second sentence of initial paragraph: "(IPCC))" should be "(IPCC)"
  37. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    oxymoron fight!
  38. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    “Maybe if the rest of the world understood a bit more about our experience authoring this report, they’d stop blaming us for trying to give warning to a warming world. Maybe then, they’d join in educating themselves about their own risks and prevent the worst.” Source: “Managing the Extreme Impacts of Climate Change” by Sabrina McCormick*, Culture of Science, Nov 18, 2011 *Sabrina McCormick is a lead author on the IPCC report, “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX).” McCormick, PhD is Assistant Research Professor at George Washington University and Senior Fellow at the Wharton Risk Center. She is also President of Evidence Based Media.
  39. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    16, Phila
    ...promoting common-sense solutions...
    A useful definition...
    Common Sense (n.): 1) Not well thought out. Based on over-simplified logic and a dearth of facts. 2) A thought process representative of the mistakes made over and over by people who don't take the time to learn and understand things just a little better. 3) A term used to make the ignorant and inadequate feel as or more powerful than those who put serious effort combined with substantial intellect into solving problems properly.
    As a side note, I have always contended that the term "conventional wisdom" is an oxymoron.
  40. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    Although the study of paleoclimate is interesting, we can derive so little of use from these studies, apart from saying that conditions were different. Disregarding the orbital characteristics can we even know what the TSI was in the past. It seems that nothing is coincident to todays conditions and therefore any predictions on future climate based on the past must be considered as speculation. We need to study the behaviour of the oceans more with regard to the present position of the land masses if we wish to gain any predictive skill. Nonetheless It is still very interesting for me to learn more about the paleoclimate.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "Although the study of paleoclimate is interesting, we can derive so little of use from these studies, apart from saying that conditions were different."

    Actually, climate science derives a great deal of understanding of the present climate through its studies of the past, in particular the paleoclimate.

    "Disregarding the orbital characteristics can we even know what the TSI was in the past."

    Umm. no.  Essentially you are goalpost-shifting here.  This new tangent more properly belongs on the A detailed look at climate sensitivity thread.

    "It seems that nothing is coincident to todays conditions and therefore any predictions on future climate based on the past must be considered as speculation."

    Shorter version: 'Because I haven't read enough of the literature everything I don;t know is speculation.'  I.e., handwaving dismissal.

    "We need to study the behaviour of the oceans more with regard to the present position of the land masses if we wish to gain any predictive skill."

    Climate scientists are doing this very thing, in great detail.  But very much off-topic for this thread.

    Essentially, your entire comment amounts to 'It's not Bad'.  So as you were advised before, please take your concerns to the It’s not bad thread.

  41. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    The Republican justification for missing this briefing was that they are focusing “on creating jobs and promoting common-sense solutions that protect both the environment and the economy.” It'd take another blog the size of this one to present the multiple lines of evidence demonstrating that the exact opposite is true.
  42. Lone Star State of Drought
    Bernard J, Here is Figure 5 from Hu and Fu, the changes in OLR for the Southern Hemisphere. Note Australia's precarious position between about 15˚S and 35˚S, and the Hadley cell's large role in creating and maintaining the vast deserts in Australia's interior... and hence the serious implications for Australia of an expansion of the Hadley cell.
  43. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    For the casual reader attempting to follow Fred's misunderstandings, here is Trenberth's energy budget diagram: And here is the simplified version, presented by Petty and based 100% on Trenberth's diagram (simply converting W/m2 to percentages, and removing most of the atmospheric layer interaction which complicates the image -- to simplify it for the reader in the very introduction of his book):
  44. The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
    DB#13: The question is not whether pizza is a vegetable, it is the tomato sauce that is the vegetable. This is time-honored policy, dating to the days of the patron saint of today's Republicans.
  45. Lone Star State of Drought
    32, muon, Thanks for the reference, but in this case I'm actually looking specifically for attribution of precipitation changes to changes in Hadley cell poleward expansion, not climate change in general. I don't expect to find any, because the changes are so small and hard to detect (heavily influenced by short term weather variations), and attribution is so difficult, even though a mere 2.5˚ change in latitude could, in fact, be greatly affecting conditions in Texas because of it's location so near to the edge of the Hadley cell and the associated arid area. I think in about 5-15 years we may well see just such a study, demonstrating that this drought and future precipitation changes in Texas are among the first directly detectable impacts of the expansion of the Hadley cell as a result of climate change. But for now... I think finding actual scientific detection and attribution of the proposed effect is probably not possible.
  46. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Norman#67: So its 'blocking' time again. This seems to be a very complex meteorological phenomenon, but let's see what we can learn from a few minutes with the google machine. Here's another snippet from the same NASA article: Blocking events occur when one of the jet streams ... pinches off large masses of air from the normal wind flow for an extended period. These kinks in the jet stream typically last at least five days but can persist for weeks. They can cause weather patterns to stall over one area and fuel floods, droughts, and other extreme weather events. 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? From Mendes et al 2008, Table 2 shows that Atlantic blocking events are most frequent in May and Sept (at a whopping 6% or 2 days per month); blocking in the Pacific southwest peaks in July/Aug at 27% (8 days per month) and Oceania peaks in July (25% or 8 days per month). From Barriopedro et al 2004: The long-term analysis in blocking frequencies has shown a downward (upward) trend in blocking days over ATL and EUR (WPA) sectors. ... These results suggest that those observational trends could be partially explained by simultaneous changes in the forcing factors responsible for blocking formation (ATL and WPA) and maintenance (EUR), respectively. ... regional modes have shown to modulate blocking occurrence through the anomalous TCP-associated temperature distributions. Thus, recent trends in surface temperature could be partially responsible for the observed trends in blocking occurrence. --emphasis added This paper also discussed blocking duration, producing a graph (their Fig 10) with the most commonly observed duration on the order of 7 days. If blocking frequency and duration are modulated by surface temperatures, it would be incorrect to conclude on the basis of superficial evidence that 'blocking causes warming.' If blocking formation responds to 'forcing factors,' then it is those forcings that must be investigated. Croci-Maspoli and Davies 2009, studying the European winter of 2005/6: ... the occurrence of the blocks was sensitive to, and significantly influenced by, the warm surface temperature anomalies upstream over the western Atlantic Ocean and North America. So the question appears to be: What's causing warm surface temperature anomalies?
  47. Lone Star State of Drought
    Sphaerica#17: "I'm questioning whether or not these effects are already being felt and working" Kysely 2010 is very revealing on that question: Analysis of the long-term temperature series at Prague-Klementinum reveals that the July 2006 heat wave, covering 33 consecutive days, was the longest and most severe individual heat wave since 1775. ... Owing to an increase in mean summer temperatures, probabilities of very long heat waves have already risen by an order of magnitude over the recent 25 years, and are likely to increase by another order of magnitude by around 2040 under the summer warming rate assumed by the mid-scenario. Even the lower bound scenario yields a considerable decline of return periods associated with intense heat waves. Nevertheless, the most severe recent heat waves appear to be typical rather of a late 21st century than a mid-21st century climate. -- emphasis added The future is upon us.
  48. Lone Star State of Drought
    Bernard J, Not that I would push anyone into the lion's den, but I wish you'd express such clear and vivid fears to Jo Nova on her site. She seems to feel that she is a lone, valiant, heroic defender of truth, freedom and The Australian Way, and that in her golden heart of hearts and courageous will to speak out against (in her mind) climate change fraud she has the best interests of all of Australia as her goal, but primarily those of the poor, downtrodden farmer under the thumb of the greedy, irresponsible politicians. It would be interesting to see how she responds to her imagined defense of the poor Australian farmer when she learns that at least some of you recognize that her attitudes are hurting, not helping, your futures.
  49. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    “Once again, people want something for nothing. “According to a poll by The Economist, 79% of respondents say that they who would support political reforms combating climate change if those changes had no effect on their real income. But the number completely collapses when you ask if they have to take a 5% reduction in income through higher taxation in order to achieve that. When some sort of carbon tax is introduced to reduce carbon emissions, support for climate change policies goes from the vast majority saying yes, to the vast majority saying no. Only 26% say they would support reform if it led to a decline in their real income of more than 5%. “The online poll was taken by participants at The Economist’s online Global Energy Conversation conference. The virtual event took place in London, Washington and São Paulo on Friday.” Source: “Climate Change Policies OK, So Long As It's Tax Free, Poll Says” Forbes, Nov 18, 2011 To access the entire article, click here
  50. Lone Star State of Drought
    Bernard J. @29, I take it your part of Australia is Victoria?

Prev  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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