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  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  Next

Comments 70101 to 70150:

  1. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Good to see that the poopdreck list has been thoroughly trashed! Sadly "the most desperate" (comment 48) covers pretty much every denier on the planet...
  2. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    I think the article should mention that "skeptics" were making similar claims about the previous "pause" in 2008.
  3. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    23, apiratelooksat50, Check your e-mail.
  4. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    victull @24, the inverse correlation between the Southern Oscillation Index (an index of the ENSO oscillation) and detrended GMST is evident not only in 1998 and 2010, but also during the La Nina's of the period 1999-2001, and 2008. It is also evident during the El Nino's from 2002-2007. They only place it seems significantly depressed is during the early 1990's, ie, when the global energy budget was dominated by Mount Pinatubo. What is clear from the chart is that there is (at least) one other source of natural variability in detrended sea level of similar magnitude to the effect of ENSO events of ordinary magnitude. As to past data, I have not particularly searched, and am not sure the error in estimates from tide gauges are sufficiently small to make effects of that size meaningfully detectable. Finally, a simpler explanation of the "step change" between Jason and Topex is the concurrent "step change" in ENSO states. Or is that due to calibration error too?
  5. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    @Pirate #24: Reread my post #22. You're smart enough to figure it out on your own.
  6. It's waste heat
    jmorpus @102: 1) You claim that:
    " I do see and have a basic understanding of the green house effect and in NO way am I dissputing the theory"
    but in an earlier post on another thread (now deleted) your wrote:
    "You state in your last paragraph that CO2 is the primary driver for global warming Well I cant see it as the main driver it is only reacting to the radio waves that are ejected from the sun and man has been pumping man made noise into the atmosphere for more then a centuary When you guys start looking down the radiated electromagnetic path then I'LL start taking you seriously."
    Ergo, your claim to have not disputed the theory of the greenhouse effect is proven false; as also is your claim to understand it. 2) I make no apology if I have misunderstood your theory, because to the extent that I have it is because you have refused to elaborate it. Instead you have merely posted unexplained links and made cryptic comments without further elaboration. The former is in clear contravention of the comments policy which states:
    "No link or pic only. Links to useful resources are welcome (see HTML tips below). However, comments containing only a link will be deleted. At least provide a short summary of the content of the webpage to facilitate discussion (and show you understand the page you're linking to). Similarly, images are very welcome as they can be very useful in explaining the science. But comments with pictures in isolation without explanation will be deleted."
    (My emphasis) That has been explained to you several times, but still you persist, with your most recent post being the most recent example. What is more, failing to elaborate your theory is a doubly obnoxious behaviour. Obnoxious because it wastes the time of anybody who attempts an honest discussion with you. Obnoxious also because it constitutes a cowardly method of protecting your theory from criticism. Left to your devises you can always claim we have misunderstood your theory whenever the rebutal destroys what that theory appears to have been. Given my very low opinion of people who resort to such tactics (-snip-), unless your next response is a clear and direct statement of your theory, I would suggest moderators simply bar you from polite company, as you would clearly not belong in it. 3) Finally, having read your link, I can again report that it has no relevance to any theory that can be reasonably comported of the few vague hints you have deigned to let out. If you disagree, quote the relevant passages, and explain why they are relevant to your theory. 4) Given that past evidence indicates that you will not explain your theory, I will simply observe that the connection between the effects of cosmic rays and radio waves that you believe to be important in climatology is not so. Cosmic rays form precursors to cloud condensation nuclei because they ionize atoms with which they collide. In contrast, microwaves and radiowaves are not ionizing radiation. Therefore they can have no meteorological effect other than through transfer of energy, and as we know the energy they transfer is to slight to be of consequence.
    Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

  7. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Tom Curtis @ 22 The SOI and Detrended GMSL only appear to show strong opposite correlations in the most extreme cases - the 97-98 El Nino and the 2010-11 La Nina. Do you have any data on past extreme ENSO events showing such negative correlations? Also the linear trend line of Topex and Jason readings appear to be more of two distinct trends. Jason 1 and 2 seem to be on a lower trend line of about 2mm/year with a step between the two trends. This could be explained by calibration error between the satellites.
  8. citizenschallenge at 01:03 AM on 16 November 2011
    Bigger, Badder Atlantic Hurricanes In the 21st Century
    Well heck I know how to look up some of this stuff: Modeled Impact of Anthropogenic Warming on the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes Morris A. Bender, Thomas R. Knutson, Robert E. Tuleya, Joseph J. Sirutis, Gabriel A. Vecchi, Stephen T. Garner, Isaac M. Held Science, 22 January 2010: Vol. 327. no. 5964, pp. 454 - 458 DOI: 10.1126/science.1180568 ================== Bender (2010) - More intense Atlantic Hurricanes in the 21st century An Overview of Current Research Results 1. Has Global Warming Affected Atlantic Hurricane Activity? Thomas R. Knutson Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA Sept. 3, 2008; Last Revised August 26, 2011 A. Summary Statement "Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following: Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity? What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from current IPCC models? In this review, I address these questions in the context of published research findings. I will first present the main conclusions and then follow with some background discussion of the research that leads to these conclusions." ================== Global warming and United States landfalling hurricanes Chunzai Wang and Sang-Ki Lee GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L02708, doi:10.1029/2007GL032396, 2008
  9. It's waste heat
    muoncounter @103, what can I say? I'm a charitable person ;). I particularly liked the claim in one of the links that microwaves heated the ice and water, and IR did not, because IR was absorbed by the ice and water, while microwaves passed through them. (Your quote expresses a similarly bizzare sentiment.)
  10. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Sorry, forgot to include the link for the last piece of data, which is from Church et al, 2008. Specifically, figure 3 C.
  11. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak @21, it is a convenient myth of AGW deniers that climate scientists ignore natural variability. As can be seen in the figure 1 above, there have been periods of zero or negative sea level rise in the past, a fact climate scientists are well aware of. Those periods are consequences of natural variability set against a background, accelerating long term trend. As also are periods of very rapid rise in sea level, as occurred in 1998. This interest in natural variability is why Church and White 2011 draw attention to a plateau in sea level rise probably due to Mount Pinatubo. It is why the CSIRO draw attention to the relationship between ENSO and detrended Global Mean Sea Level: What climate scientists do not do is take those periods of natural variability and inflate their importance well beyond what the data will bear. That is intolerable to deniers. Any account of natural variability that does not call the whole theory of AGW into question is insufficient, in their opinion. Which is why those sites trumpeted the fall in sea level in 2010, without discussion of the cause beyond the ultimately vague term of "natural variability". And why they will not be giving the same prominence to the recovery of sea level since then, which is now above the recent trend (3.2 mm per decade) once more (See graph @1). And what they absolutely never do is point out that a GMSL rise of 3.2 mm /decade is more than 2 Standard Deviations higher than the mean of 20 year trends of GMSL since 1880 (Mean: 1.45, 1 SD 0.79). Because that would let the cat out of the bag.
  12. It's waste heat
    TomC: You are being very charitable in calling these 'theories.' No such formal structure exists in that world: Microwaves scatter THROUGH the atmosphere whereas solar radiation does not. As the microwaves penetrate to the surface, the water, ice, and atmosphere have microwave frequencies passing through them. This causes friction in the ice and water at the molecular level. This friction causes heat which is called Radio Frequency Heating. This is the basic principle behind the Microwave Oven. Speaks for itself. Perhaps we should put microwave towers in corn fields ... and grow popcorn already popped!
  13. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:03 AM on 16 November 2011
    Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    First, almost identical posts (with the same graphics) appeared a few months ago, eg. this Secondly, I have reviewed a lot, even extremely skeptical - "aggressively" opposition - blogs. None of them says that: warming has no effect on sea level rise, or that the current decline is certainly the beginning of the long-term trend. For them it is just proof of underestimation of natural variability - and overestimation of the impact of GHGs manmade on the climate sensitivity, which seems to confirm this, and this figure and this comment: “... the hypothesized "accelerating" global warming has not caused the hypothesized "unequivocal" increase in mean sea levels, as the chart clearly indicates. In fact, mean sea levels have actually decreased, counter to all IPCC expert and climate model predictions - literally, a stupendous scientific fail. Although linear trends don't necessarily make for very good long-term predictions, this empirical evidence is suggesting a far less worrisome, non-catastrophic increase in sea levels ...” - which is in opposition to this comment Hansen (coauthor) of this year: “Gravity satellite data, although too brief to be conclusive, are consistent with a doubling time of 10 years or less, implying the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise this century.”
    Response:

    [DB] "In fact, mean sea levels have actually decreased"

    Defend this statement with a citation to a substantive source (reputable, not some "skeptic" blog).  Add in the appropriate context for why this change is significant.

    "Although linear trends don't necessarily make for very good long-term predictions"

    Indeed, it is just the fake-skeptic blogs, like those you cite, that maintain this canard that SLR is, and will continue to be, linear.

    If everyone can refrain from responding to this comment until Arkadiusz addresses the above points, I'd appreciate it.

  14. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    apiratelooksat50, if you want to avoid the truth about Climate Change (the topic of this post), keep perusing WUWT on a regular basis. If you are more interested in facts, evidence and reality, you really need to stop perusing WUWT on a regular basis.
  15. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    For the sea-level rise (and energy budget) on a longer term, the most recent analysis from Church et al. 2011 (GRL) can be read here : http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/2011gl048794.pdf There is also an overview from Cazenave et Rémy 2011, but no free access : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.139/abstract
  16. apiratelooksat50 at 23:31 PM on 15 November 2011
    How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Hartz @ 22 "You really need to stop perusing WUWT on a regular basis." Please clarify.
  17. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    How about a yellowish glare over the athmosfere ever-present on all images, even without auroras? I guess itr could be the mesopause, as auroras seem to apear above it and ISS flies at some 350km. So is this yellowish a "true colour" of mesopause or some artificial enhancement? Perhaps it is an enhancement, maybe an invisible spectrum, pickedup by hisense camera. With that in mind, brighter/broader lights might be a result of the same.
  18. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    apiratelooksat50, that website is wattsupwiththat.com, as I believe you very well know.
  19. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    Beautiful.
  20. apiratelooksat50 at 23:12 PM on 15 November 2011
    How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Sphaerica @ 21 I've actually been waiting on you. I did take a pause in our communications near the end of swim season, but right after that I e-mailed you and have not heard back. Maybe it went to your spam box, but I truly want to continue. Thanks
  21. apiratelooksat50 at 23:08 PM on 15 November 2011
    Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Sailrick @ 7 What website is W(-snip-)UWT?
    Response:

    [DB] See my admonition to Sailrick.

    Also, be advised that sock-puppetry is a bannable offence here.  The Comments Policy will be revised to reflect that. One presence per person should be sufficient for anyone.

  22. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    46 monkeyorchid For an alternative take on 'Consensus' discussion in general, and popdreck's list in particular, may I recommend the new video from climate skeptic Barry Bickmore.. being a scientist who spent a lot of time feeling there was no consensus.
  23. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Has anyone calculated how long it takes the extra precipitations to endup back in ocean by river runooffs? It's fairly easy to find for example: Rainfall anomaly for last 18 month in AUS which is about 500mm nationaly, to my eye. Now if I new the runoffs and extra evaporation rate, I guess I could easily calculate the time needed for this water to get back to ocean.
  24. Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
    Really good. Are the lights of the cities enhanced??
  25. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    I don't like that 'denominator' argument. The denominator isn't actually the number of US science grads - it's the number of people who were asked to sign the Oregon petition who would have signed the opposite petition.
  26. It's waste heat
    Tom Curtis Fist up I'm not here to disrail anything as you know I've just created my first post here and had you guys jump all over it and If you were to take the time to see were I'm coming from you may get a clearer picture I do see and have a basic understanding of the green house effect and in NO way am I dissputing the theory I also lived through the 70's when our emissions were even more toxic to our health and the enviroment and if we kept going on like we were back then and didn't clean up our lead and sulfur emissions when there was only a third of the population then who knows were we would stand today. Anyway I was just about to watch a movie that has to go back But I do want to get back to you after it finishes with a heap more info I'll leave you with this. I'm more concerned about our com's and radar systems affecting the weather patterns then creating global warming I would like it if you would read this so we can create some common ground http://www.ips.gov.au/Category/Educational/Other%20Topics/Radio%20Communication/Transequatorial.pdf It's not the absorption but the exitement Do you remember when man had to re enter the atmosphere for the first time the fear was all about the angel of re entry to shallow and they would bounce off and to steep and they would burn up well thats what I'm getting at HOT spots created by forcing And the higher the frequencies the less is absorbed and can be reflected I'll get back to you And as you can see I'm not that well educated but I do pride myself on being smart enough to learn Cheers be back soon (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory snipped.  Please focus on the science.  And a suggestion:  Paragraph breaks and periods at the end of sentences would add to the readability of your comment.

  27. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    The following is an even better evaluation of Poptech's little list : Meet The Denominator More here and here. Basically, that list is worthless and only the most desperate would ever bring it up.
  28. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    G'day monkey, take a look at this evaluation and following links.
  29. It's waste heat
    Thank you Tom for steering this in the right direction. The two "theories" are probably outliers even in the bizarre world of pseudoscience.
  30. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Jim, have you seen the list of "peer reviewed" papers at http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html they claim 900+ peer reviewed papers dissenting on climate change. Looking down the list, some are published in such recognised climate journals as "Iron & Steel Technology" and "Missouri Medicine", some date back to the 1980s, and others are by the likes of Michaels and McKitrick, Pielke x2, etc. One or two are listed as simply "submitted", i.e. not yet peer reviewed at all. I'd be very interested in your take on these, and it might be a useful resource to add obscure papers to your database
  31. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    dana1981 and Kevin C: Thanks for the extra info. Makes the situation clearer. Having fun getting into all this, even though with no scientific training. This site makes learning merely a matter of reading and assimilating; much less technical than I had first thought. Thank you all for the information aimed at people on my level of understanding.
  32. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Doug@11: A quick by-eye metric. On Cynicus' graph you see one other excursion from trend comparable in size to last years - 1998. So our first guess should be that we might see excursions like this on a 1-2 decadal basis.
  33. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    In order to complete the rebuttal of jmorpus, while not dragging this thread off topic, I have responded on an appropriate thread.
  34. It's waste heat
    jmorpus has been disrailing the discussion of a new tool to handle clouds in climate models. His discussion has been inchoate, so until muoncounter and oneiota linked to websites expousing similar views, I did not know where jmorpuss was going, only that he was trampling the evidence in the dirt to get there. Having a better idea now, I now recognise jmorpuss' claims as a variant of the claim that global warming is caused by waste heat, hence my response here. The websites linked to by muoncounter and oneiota are very explicit. According to them, global warming is caused by heat generated by the absorption of radio waves from humanities many radio transmissions. Of course, human energy emissions as radio waves is a very small subset of total human energy usage. Therefore total power emissions as radiowaves is a very small fraction of the 0.028 W/m^2 waste heat by humans as calculated by Flanner, and hence an even smaller percent of the 2.9 W/m^2 GHG forcing as indicated in the article above. This is an insurmountable barrier to such theories.
  35. Sea level fell in 2010
    Thanks Keith. We''ll see how well that stands up against the peer-reviewed literature, when the paper by Carmen Boening is published.
  36. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    Doug @11 - as noted in the post, the satellite sea level record begins in 1993 (so that's where I started the data). We've got tide gauge measurements going back more than a century though, as I recall.
  37. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    And not only hard drives, apparently blank spectacle lenses are in short supply (in Australia)as also flooded.
  38. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    dana - You made it happen, kudos to you. The fact that the animations have appeared on a dozen or so other blogs/newsites/etc is because they make the point, using data you have compiled.
  39. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    I know the global temperature record should be looked at over a period of +/- 30 years, to get the trend. Is the same time scale appropriate for sea level data? I intuit that it should be, but that is an 'assumption', not a 'peer reviewed analysis'. How long have we been taking reliable sea level measurements?
  40. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    alan @5 - actually they're my GIFs, but thanks. KR @9 - thanks to you too.
  41. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    @Pirate #18: You state: "All too often I've seen that discounted based on their viewpoints, political affiliations, or funding sources." You really need to stop perusing WUWT on a regular basis.
  42. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    I have to say the animations really reveal and clarify the difference between "skepticism" and "running from reality". Thanks, dana1981, great post.
  43. actually thoughtful at 14:42 PM on 15 November 2011
    Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    apirate - I am quick to point out your errors, so I should probably point out your analysis of sea level rise is correct. Thanks for sticking with this site.
  44. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    @apiratelooksat50 " I don't know of any skeptics making a claim that sea level rise has ended" I guess you haven't seen the Steve Goddard posts at W(-snip-)UWT Of course, you did use the term "skeptic", so you may have a point.
    Response:

    [DB] Please emulate the standards of this site.  Inflammatory snipped.

  45. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    19, muoncounter, A second requirement that pirate omitted is to take the time to actually learn the disparate parts of the science, rather than to stop short and make an early appraisal based on an insufficient understanding of the science. This appears to be particularly true of the heavily Dunning-Krugered among us, who believe that because they have mastered [insert-field-here] they are in turn more qualified to pass judgment on other fields without the same investment of time and energy that earned their standing in [insert-field-here]. 18, Pirate, Along those lines... Pirate, we together reached an understanding that, contrary to your initial beliefs, there is no doubt whatsoever that elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere are purely anthropogenic in origin. Are we ever going to resume our discussion which will help you to understand the rather trivial issue of understanding why CO2 lags temperatures in past records, yet can and will lead temperatures in our current scenario? I think that appreciating the breadth and depth of the science is critical to being able to "make valid judgments." I'm ready to continue when you are.
  46. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    pirate @18, anybody with a logical mind can understand AGW, but not everyone will. Many will be held back by an unwillingness to study, a reliance on non-expert, and ideologically biased instructional material, or by their own ideological biases. One reality check on whether you do in fact understand AGW is your level of agreement with experts. In any branch of science it is easy to make mistakes, either through lack of relevant knowledge or because you accept plausible but misleading arguments. The process of science winnows out those arguments, and in doing so expands the knowledge base. Thus science makes its practitioners in a field experts, ie, people who know the easy mistakes to make in a field, and how to avoid them. If you disagree with the experts (and you do), odds are it is because you are making one or more of those simple mistakes. What then, are you doing to rectify the situation?
  47. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    WheelsOC - that's a good point. I hadn't thought of using the current HDD shortage as evidence of the sort of impacts climate change can have (by increasing severity of flooding).
  48. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    pirate#18: "anyone with a trained mine that can analyze and process data logically is capable of understanding the AGW theory" One requirement you omitted: The ability to put aside one's preconceived notions and ideological agenda. That, unfortunately, is the area that finds many pseudo-skeptics sorely lacking.
  49. apiratelooksat50 at 12:53 PM on 15 November 2011
    How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    DrTsk @ 15 I wholeheartedly agree with you about science and truth and fact. And, I am complete agreeance with Biblio's comment @ 12: "You don't have to be a climate scientist to acknowledge the validity of anthropogenic global warming anymore than you have to be a biologist to acknowledge the validity of evolution." I think anyone with a trained mine that can analyze and process data logically is capable of understanding the AGW theory and/or evolution. That would apply to most trained scientists along with a healthy dose of creativity and imagination. None of that makes one a "climate expert", however. But, it does validate that other scientists, or engineers, can make valid judgments that have merit. All too often I've seen that discounted based on their viewpoints, political affiliations, or funding sources.
  50. Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
    I love these animated GIFs. Thanks, jg!

Prev  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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