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  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  Next

Comments 70501 to 70550:

  1. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Eric-224 1) Isn't this off-topic for this thread? 2- This is what Eschenbach says he is doing
    . In other words, we may be able to find a simple function that provides the same output as the black box.
    This isn't a model. It's mathturbation. There's no physics in it. You can't validate CO2 or anything with it. Suggests to me that you don't have a clue...precisely the naive target of a (-Snip-) such as Eschebach.
    Response:

    [DB] While I can certainly sympathize with the thought process & the emotion, please substitute euphemisms such as "fake skeptic" or dissembler for the snipped text.

    In Eric's defense, he has previously demonstrated a capacity for understanding some of the many complexities of climate science, so let us please grant him the benefit of the doubt in this instance of perhaps not having put a lot of time into reading & comprehending his linked blog post.

  2. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Eric#24: "The runs contain natural variation presumably with the same statistical properties as measured natural variation. The mean of all the runs is what I would call the prediction." Granted that each run has its natural variation, containing an element of pseudo-randomness. An ensemble of these models will average out this randomness and thus your 'prediction' - a mean - will appear simple. That's not a good way to see if models model natural variation -- by design. Tom C makes the same point. One must conclude that there is no basis in this experiment for saying that models are inaccurate predictors. By the nouveau logic we hear these days, that means they are accurate.
  3. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Your data base of peer reviewed papers appears to be highly incomplete. You show David Douglass having only one paper. When I search Web of Science for "Douglass D" only one climate paper comes up. But if I search for "Douglass DH" I get 17 climate papers. I'm not suggesting that these papers are correct. Many will recall the 2008 smackdown with Realclimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/tropical-tropopshere-iii/ Another problem: when I click on a name in your database, nothing happens.
  4. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
    Is this a reasonable way to look at Hansen's prediction? It shows the slope at the time Hansen made the prediction against the slope from the same point till now. He was wrong about some of the numbers but his claim that the rate of warming would considerably increase certainly bore fruit.
  5. 9 Months After McLean
    I return from the G and T thread with the suggestion that the only plausible theory of AGW, the “higher is colder” theory, might be tested against the available data. “Higher is colder” is an effect high in the troposphere whereby increasing CO2 reduces outgoing emissions to space, allowing the sun to warm the system, and shift the atmospheric lapse rate to the right. The relevant data, satellite and radio-sonde temperatures, is collected far above the complications of urban development, and in the case of satellites covers the globe. The satellite data has been collected since 1979, a date when the CO2 effect, if any , should have been well established. The Mauna Low average then was 309ppm. Before that, the available data, will all its uncertainties, shows a steady rise from the little ice age, peaking in the forties, and a slow fall thereafter to 1979, the start of the satellite era. So, global temperatures than showed no significant sign of AGW, and temperatures were somewhat below the previous peak in the forties, which were well above the Little Ice Age minimum. Over the next 19 years, in the satellite era, CO2 increased steadily to 363ppm, or by 18%. What happened to the troposphere temperatures? Nothing happened to the troposphere temperatures. The average anomaly over the period was -0.12 degrees, and the averages for the first and last five years periods were -0.10 and -0.092 respectively. The least squares trend line was 0.038 degrees C per decade, and the probability of this having been registered by chance was 49%. That takes us to 1997 without observing AGW. What happened next? The famous 1998 peak increased the annual average by half a degree, to 0.43 degrees C. The fall in 1999 reversed this increase, to – 0.05 in 1999 and -0.06 in 2000. No one, so far as I know, attributes these changes to CO2, so we arrive at year 2001 without the CO2 increases in the 20th century having made any discernible difference to troposphere temperatures. CO2 at the end of the century had reached 370ppm. Then something really strange happened. The average global temperature moved up suddenly by about 0.2 degrees, which is substantial by climate science standards. Apart from the year 2008 (when it fell back to -0.04, you see why McClean had a chance) it has stayed up from 2002 to date. That step change is entirely responsible for the positive trend in the data from 1997 to date, which is 0.139 degrees per decade, and highly significant (the calculated 5% confidence limits are 0.85 to 1.92 degrees C per decade). Are the temperatures still rising? No. Although the period this century is short you can get an idea by asking how far back we must go to see a significant trend. The answer is 17 years, to 1994. The years from 2001 are nowhere near significance. So, to sum up, the UAH evidence for any global warming trend rests on the step increase from 2000 (-0.06degrees C) through 2001 (0.11 degrees C) to 2002 (0.22 degrees C). Are we really certain that that change had anything to do with rising CO2 levels? Would you like to try to persuade the Chinese to give up their industrial revolution on that evidence? Will the American shut off their air conditioning?
    Response:

    [DB] "Before that, the available data, will all its uncertainties, shows a steady rise from the little ice age, peaking in the forties, and a slow fall thereafter to 1979, the start of the satellite era."

    Incorrect.  For convenience, I have demarcated the point at which all the wheels fell off your logic-wagon by striking out the subsequent logical fallacy avalanche. 

    Please use the Search function (really, as a participant in this forum since 2010, you should have learned to use this valuable resource long ago) to find out more about the multiple errors in your statement I've quoted above, not to mention those in the fallacy cascade that follows.

  6. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    mouncounter, not contradictory since he purposely built a model with limitations that matched GISS-E; with the caveat as Tom points out that it matched the average of a large number of runs. The runs contain natural variation presumably with the same statistical properties as measured natural variation. The mean of all the runs is what I would call the prediction. Eschenbach showed that the prediction was simple. His inference that the model is therefore simplistic is disputed by Tom. Either way, an individual run is likely not a valid "prediction" of reality even with real world initial conditions (chaos gets in the way).
  7. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Eric #18: "questioned the predictive power of models using his model of the GISS-E model:" Isn't that an inherent contradiction? 'I do not believe in models so I will use a model to show that.'
  8. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Eric @21, if that is Eschenbach's concern (natural variability not predicted), then the game is given away on his method by Steve McIntyre of all people, who describes his "target" as "An ensemble of GISS Model E global temperatures is used as a target." The ensemble is of course the average (mean) of a large number of runs. Because natural climate variations, which do appear in the individual runs, do not all occur at the same time and strength, the cancel each other out in the ensemble mean. Consequently only known forcings will effect the ensemble mean, even though natural variability is modeled in any given model run.
  9. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Eschenbach's result appears to match GISS-E and also validates CO2 warming as implemented by GISS-E (using HITRAN results). What it does not do (his major complaint) is model or "predict" natural variations.
  10. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Camburn: " I will pull the quote from WG1 Section 8 concerning the predictive power of the models." I think he meant to say "I'll quote mine WG1 ..." Camburn, if you don't supply a quote in full context I think people will be disappointed in you.
  11. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Eric- From reading just that article, I wonder if Eschenbach ever built a computer simulation of anything....anything at all. I have....and if you tried to do what he did to climate models to my reactor model systems you'd get garbage out. In fact sometimes I wonder if that's what some clients of mine did, deciding that they could shortcut some work and not pay me. They blew up the plant.
  12. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Eschenbach questioned the predictive power of models using his model of the GISS-E model: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/life-is-like-a-black-box-of-chocolates/
  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1124, Fred, If you wish, you can cheat. Visit this page and read through it, step by step. In chapter 12 he has the same problem that you do with effectively the same numbers, 302K for one layer, 334K for two. Unlike you, however, he takes the thinking further and resolves the issues by recognizing that there is more to the problem than this, rather than assuming at that point that all climate scientists and physicists have it wrong. If you read and understand it to the end, you will find that you do, in fact, get the right answers. At that point, you'll need to reevaluate your conclusion that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of physics and cannot exist. At that point I will then, again, be interesting in hearing your opinions on the subject.
  14. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Unfortunately, while trying to get some first-hand accounts of the Alaskan storm, I read a comment stream at weather.com. Sigh. There are reports of pieces of my head being found as far away as the west end of Valles Marineris. Whenever I get hopeful about the possibility of people waking up, I always seem to encounter a mass of sleepwalkers. They're not even zombies. They just want to be left alone with their illusions.
    Response:

    [DB] Please check your email.

  15. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Camburn @16, I would have thought for such a strong, and surprising claim, the quote would have to be very familiar to you, and hence producible by you in just a few minutes. Afterall, it takes just a few minutes for me to quote the AR4 WG1 chapter 8 as saying:
    "There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."
    (FAQ 8.1, my emphasis.) And:
    "The atmosphere-ocean coupled climate system shows various modes of variability that range widely from intra-seasonal to inter-decadal time scales. Successful simulation and prediction over a wide range of these phenomena increase confidence in the AOGCMs used for climate predictions of the future."
    8.4, my emphasis.) These, along with Skywatcher's quote (@12) from 8.1.1 directly contradict your assertion. Why then the delay in correcting your blatant falsehood.
  16. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    And at the same time, a late season TS forms in the Atlantic. When it rains, it pours. Ocean temperatures are near 26.5°C (80°F), which is right at the boundary of being warm enough to support tropical storm formation. Water temperatures off the SE US coast are indeed a few degrees F warmer than normal this year.
  17. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Tom: I don't have time today, but within 48hrs I will pull the quote from WG1 Section 8 concerning the predictive power of the models.
    Response:

    [DB] Please do not post any other comments in that 48 hour window until you have found the actual quote you referenced.  Or concede that you simply fabricated the quote.

  18. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Also worth noting is the first tropical-like cyclone in Northern Mediterranean ever.
  19. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    @ adelady ... thanks for the pointer to the "Interactive History" ...
  20. Sudden_Disillusion at 18:25 PM on 9 November 2011
    Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    @DB: honestly you should get a Pulitzer not for your brilliant in-your-face answers to "skeptics" but just for your patience with them. /hats off
    Response:

    [DB] Thank you for the kind words, but the brilliance is displayed daily by the regular participants here.  I try to make my small contribution in my own particular...idiom.

  21. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Just a note on the current storm in the Bering Sea. Meteorologists are pointing out that the effects of the 940mb storm are much, much worse than they would have been 30 years ago because of the diminished sea ice extent. While the storm intensity itself may or may not be related to AGW, the resulting damage will certainly be directly attributable to AGW.
  22. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    jimb#14: "the impression that he accepted the assertion that climate models were leaving out a key variable." There's a fairly extensive discussion of modeling on this thread.
  23. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    #9 muoncounter-Thanks for the link to the online article, which, as you noted, does not refer to climate science- not sure why he included the quote from David Colander re clouds and climate science- in the print edition that I received today the paragraph I referred to left me with the impression that he accepted the assertion that climate models were leaving out a key variable. Maybe I just read too much, or too little, into it.
  24. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    1124, Fred,
    These results are absurd, but they are derived from the original greenhouse “explanation”.
    Yes. Which means there is something drastically wrong with your model. A skeptical person would sit back and think "okay, that can't be right. What am I doing wrong? What am I misunderstanding? Which assumptions have I made that are incorrect?" Hmmmmm. A skeptical person would do that.
  25. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Tom & Sky, Camburn has said many an outrageous thing in his time commenting here since September 2010. But he also has had time to be fully aware of the consequence for the egregious transgression he has just committed here. So let us await an answer, on the off-chance that all of us have missed something in the relevant text that Camburn can enlighten us on. But if no answer is given - or more obfuscation - then that will be sufficient for resolution to then follow.
  26. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    #10, Camburn, do you have evidence for your claim? In AR4 WG1, Section 8 is to do with the construction and evaluation of climate models, in 8.1.1: "In climate change simulations, on the other hand, models are used to make projections of possible future changes over time scales of many decades and for which there are no precise past analogues. Confidence in a model can be gained through simulations of the historical record, or of palaeoclimate, but such opportunities are much more limited than are those available through weather prediction. Without getting into the semantics of projections vs predictions, we can see that Section 8 does not support a view that "they do not have predictive ability". We then have a whole section, Section 10, on "global climate projections".
  27. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Camburn @10, I'm going to call you on that. Your claim is so contrary to the general tenor of the comments in section 8 that I cannot see how you came to that conclusion. What is more, chapter 10 repeatedly uses climate models to make projections, ie, because they are presumed to have predictive power. Therefore I must conclude that your claim is in direct contradiction of the IPCC WG 1 report. In fact, it is so far in contradiction of the report that, if you do not produce the quote where Chapter 8 of the IPCC AR4 WG 1 report says that models have no predictive power, I will have to conclude that your statement is a flat out lie.
  28. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Build it, and they will come.
    Response:

    [DB] Flippancy is not becoming nor called for when people are trying to engage you sincerely, apiratelooksat50/Sasquatch.  FYI, sock-puppetry is "frowned upon" in this establishment.

  29. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    WG1 Section 8 is quit plain when referring to models. They do not have preditive ability.
    Response:

    [DB] "WG1 Section 8 is quit plain when referring to models.  They do not have preditive ability."

    Yes, it is plain.  And it plainly says the opposite of your assertion.  So substantiate your assertion.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-4-11.html

  30. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    jimb#5: "David H. Freedman, makes a comment about modelling, and referring to climate science he says" Here's another take on the Freedman article: Freedman builds off a 2005 paper (pdf) by earth scientist Jonathan N. Carter et al. from a conference on Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output; the paper's titled "Our Calibrated Model has No Predictive Value: An Example from the Petroleum Industry". The SciAm article starts with this geophysical model, draws conclusions about economic models, and mentions climate models not at all. The model in the Carter paper is a petroleum reservoir; the model has difficulty reproducing actual production results. Freedman concludes: "That financial models are plagued by calibration problems is no surprise to Wilmott--he notes that it has become routine for modelers in finance to simply keep recalibrating their models over and over again as the models continue to turn out bad predictions. ... But in finance they just keep on recalibrating and pretending that the models work." What does this have to do with climate science? Here's the big insight: No matter what the application (economics, geology/geophysics, climate modelling, etc) a simple axiom applies to computer models: garbage in, garbage out. Only one response to that is worthwhile: "Wow."
  31. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    jmorpuss - you seems to be under the misapprehension that GHGs affect radio-frequency radiation or that radiowaves affect climate. This is not supported by data.
  32. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    jimb @5, if that is what David Freedman says, he is simply wrong. Outrageously so. He may be confused by the fact that clouds are not a single variable. Rather they effect both incoming SW radiation both by reflection, scattering and absorption, and outgoing LW radiation by absorption and emission. How clouds effect these factors depend on their altitude and type. Climate models also track convection and latent heat transfer, important factors often associated with clouds. So, looking at a global circulation model it would be hard (indeed) impossible to point to a single variable and say "that is clouds", but the effect of clouds is integral to operation of the models.
  33. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    jim - this is plain flat out wrong. Where on earth do you suppose he got that idea? Some info on treatment of clouds in models can be found here.
  34. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Just got the current issue of Scientific American. In the article "A Formula for Economic Ca laity" the author, David H. Freedman, makes a comment about modelling, and referring to climate science he says" Omitting a key variable seems egregious, but scientists do it all the time....That is a problem for climate science, Colander says, where models often have no terms to account for the effects of clouds. " Clouds control 60 percent of the weather, and models usually ignore them," he notes, "When you can't model a factor that has that kind of influence on the outcome, you have to use a lot of judgment in whether to believe the results."" I am very much an amateur with respect to this, but this quote seems to throw more doubt on the models than is justified.
  35. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Fred Staples @1124, you jump too quickly from "it is not a multi-layer emissivity 1, zero convection atmosphere" (my summary) to it is "a top-of-atmosphere effect". In fact climate models (or at least Line By Line models, and Global Circulation Models) are multi-layer models. Importantly, they include terms for transmitted radiation, and energy transfer by convection and latent heat at each layer, and require energy balance at each layer. It is possible to develop an "effective altitude of radiation" plus lapse rate model of the atmosphere. It has the advantage of being very simple, and giving approximately correct results. It is, therefore, far better than the slab model you used in 1120 above, but it remains only approximately correct.
  36. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    "We have some evidence..." Fred, you might want to add to that evidence, the observations from surface, aircraft and satellites of longwave radiation being scattered at GHG-specific wavelengths (some presented in the Intermediate tab). Add to that the observations of an increase in downwelling and a decrease in outgoing LW radiation at GHG-specific wavelengths observed over the past few decades. Where does the increase in downwelling radiation from GHG-specific wavelengths go?
  37. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Just stumbled upon this; summarizes the state of things quite well.
  38. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Here NZ - close to 80% renewables and should cruise to target of 90% by 2020. Add hydro and geothermal into the mix. However, the answer to reducing CO2 emissions is not just renewables. They are just part of the solution. What bothers my is the logic that goes from "I cant see how to live without coal, ergo AGW is false".
  39. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Thanks for the comment, Sphaerica, but my post was intended to be a simplified version of so much that is posted about “back-radiation” theories. (You will find a complicated version in Eli Rabetts rebuttal of the original G and T paper). As such, it is not remotely realistic. There is no reason to believe that outgoing radiation will be absorbed only once. If we add another absorbing layer, radiating W to space at a temperature of 255 degrees K, we fill find that the surface temperature must rise to radiate 3W, at a temperature ratio of the fourth root of 3, or 335K. The absorption distance in the atmosphere means that there will be many such layers, and every layer will absorb the incident energy and re-emit half downwards. Repeat the calculation and you will find: One layer – Fourth root of 2 = 1.19. Tsurf = 1.19 x 255 = 303K Two Layers - Fourth root of 3 =1.315 T surf = 1.315 x 255 = 335K Three Layers - Fourth root of 4 = 1.415 Tsurf = 1.415 x 255 = 360K Four Layers - Fourth root of 5 = 1.495 Tsurf = 1.495 x 255 = 381K and so on. These results are absurd, but they are derived from the original greenhouse “explanation”. As I and several others posted here long ago,(1000) the only plausible theory of “greenhouse” warming which supports AGW is the “higher is colder” theory. The temperature difference from the surface to the 255 K effective emission level then depends on the lapse rate, which in turn depends on gravity and specific heat; it has nothing to do with radiation. AGW is then a top-of-atmosphere effect. The argument is that adding CO2 (or any other absorbing gas) will elevate the emission level to higher, and therefore colder, temperatures, so reducing the outgoing radiation, and allowing the sun to warm the entire system. We are, in fact, conducting a global experiment to test this theory. We are on course to double the CO2 content of the atmosphere. We have some evidence, satellite and radio-sonde troposphere temperatures, which we can relate to the increasing CO2 levels. In my opinion, DB, this is what is important, not more and more expensive attempts to model the heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation, and evaporation) from the surface through the chaotic weather systems. It might be instructive to return to the McClean thread and see what can be learned from the available data.
  40. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    The most recent justifications I've seen from Curry seem to involve the "but they did it too" defence. She has been writing things like : 'the WWF are/have/would do the same'; 'the IPCC spread disinformation...probably'; 'Mann is political'. Basically, it's : 'It's not me, or if it is (which I deny or have been misunderstood about), what about them over there...' It is so juvenile, I don't know whether to laugh or cry - probably a bit of both !
  41. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Sasquatch"When the wind doesn't blow enough, or blows to hard; or the sun isn't shining - from what source are we going to draw power?" Actually the problems that renewables create are similar to the problems encountered when electricity was first developed on a grid wide scale. The issue is not individual sources of generation, the main issue is management of the whole grid system. Back then they were faced with the issue of load balancing (this is actually the ONLY issue when you take a system approach to the problem). When you generate to much or to little, or if you look at it from the load side and you find that demand is to high or to low, then you find the frequency across the grid goes up or down. The engineering solutions are to have standby generation sources that range from hydroelectric gas turbines. So to suggest that renewables cause a problem, misses the point that we have always had a problem with variability in the system! The reason we think we have some stable system is because engineers in the past have spent years developing systems to deal with variability in load, and we now take for granted. Today we are faced with new engineering problems and the difference today is that we also have science and technology that can also vary load intelligently to better match a more variable generation side.
  42. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    I still haven't found a way to list the various questions that I've touched on this site. When I refer to 'ice age' I'm talking about the ice ages that occur on the 100,000 year period, as revealed by the ice core data. Chris Shaker
    Response:

    [DB] Read this post:  Milankovitch Cycles

  43. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    If your going to use data collected from satalites and ground based units then you nead to at least understand these processes (-Snip-)
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Please do not link-dump without providing context for why you are providing the links and what the reader can be expected to take away from the reading of the links.  You provide neither in this case, so the links have been snipped.

    As an FYI, you presume that the author doesn't understand the processes behind integrating satellite and ground-based measurements.  That is a false presumption.

    Edit:  Please note that a subsequent comment of yours to this was deleted due to multiple violations of the Comments Policy.

    Please take the time to thoroughly acquaint yourself with it in order to fully comport your comments with its strictures.  Understand that, by commenting at this site, moderation is an implicit condition accepted by the person commenting when posting a comment.  Thanks in advance for your understanding and compliance.

  44. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    The fact that global warming continues despite anti-science groups trying to impose cooling trends on global temp graphs is obvious when you look at most the anti-science graphs. This was the point I was trying to get across in my previous post in part 1 of this series, though I obviously worded poorly. Of course, most anti-science types won't show the whole warming trend, just the decade they've cherry-picked for the purpose of "refuting" the majority of climate scientists. Thanks for these articles exposing the deception, dana.
  45. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    95 Sphaerica, But they are not hiding; some have gone deep underwater, where they cannot be measured. And anything that cannot be measured does not need to be hidden. It is sufficient to say that we have no evidence of their lack and hence, they must not be lacking.
    `Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly. `I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, `so I can't take more.' `You mean you can't take LESS,' said the Hatter: `it's very easy to take MORE than nothing.'

    In any case, until we have enough turtle measurement floats deployed, to say they are 'missing' would be a travesty.

  46. KeefeandAmanda at 08:37 AM on 9 November 2011
    Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Yes, as you point out, the skeptic attempts to blame the Sun are falsified. But the other main claim of the skeptics is also falsified, and this falsification does not seem to get a lot of press, and this falsification is this: The skeptics deny what mainstream peer-reviewed climate science has to say on the greenhouse gas activity of non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2 as forcers and water in the atmosphere as an amplifier (feedback). And so those that admit that the Sun's output has not changed enough to cause all or almost all the recent warming say that essentially only less reflected light has caused all or almost all of the recent warming. (Note that the claims of Svensmark and Spencer et al. with respect to cosmic rays or oceans or clouds ultimately reduce to the claim that essentially only less reflected light has caused all or almost all of the recent warming.) There is a book that is partially available online as a Google e-book "Solar activity and earth's climate" by Rasmus E. Benestad, who obtained a Ph.D in physics from Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics at Oxford University. (He is one of the many real climate scientists who contribute at RealClimate.) Go to page 176. We read, "Any mechanism involving the albedo implies strongest response in the daytime temperature. Observations, on the other hand, suggest a reduction in the diurnal temperature range where the night-time temperature has increased more than the daytime temperature (Houghton et al., 2001). According to Svensmark's hypothesis, the warming is due to the reduction in Earth's albedo (reflected light), and therefore a long-term reduction in the low-level planetary cloud cover appears to be inconsistent with the observations." That is, what Benestad says above is simply a polite way of saying that the reduction in the global diurnal temperature range where the global night-time temperature has increased more than the global daytime temperature strongly falsifies the skeptic hypothesis that essentially only less reflected light has caused all or almost all of the recent warming. That is, if CO2+H2O greenhouse gas activity is as weak as the skeptics claim and the warming is entirely or almost entirely due to less reflected light, then there is nothing to keep enough heat from escaping out into space at night globally to avoid a global diurnal temperature range increase such that the global daytime temperature increases faster than the global nighttime temperature. But the opposite has been happening. And note that this falsification of the skeptic claim that essentially only less reflected light has caused all or almost all of the recent warming is a strong falsification. That is, even though a constant global diurnal temperature range would suffice to falsify the skeptic claim, a decreasing global diurnal temperature range strongly falsifies it. And depending on its rate of decline and on whether this rate of decline is changing and how it is changing, one could argue that this falsification is not just strong but very strong or even very, very strong. How do skeptics deal with the fact of the falsification of their denials of what mainstream peer-reviewed climate science has to say on greenhouse gas activity? They deal with it in two ways: They either ignore it or they try to use *local* phenomena to try to refute fact about *global* phenomena. That is, on the latter point, they try to use the fact that there has been an increase in the diurnal temperature range in some *local* climates to try to argue against the fact that the *global* diurnal temperature range has decreased. But since this is all about *global* climate and not about the climate of only cherry-picked parts of the planet, this attempt is just an embarrassment to those skeptics who try this. By the way, if a skeptic tries to say that increased water in the atmosphere by itself with no or almost no forcing from non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2 will save the day for the skeptic denial of what mainstream peer-reviewed climate science says about these non-condensing greenhouse gases, then consider this: The equations in physics providing the calculations that fit reality on this one are where? Answer: Nowhere. Everyone in the skeptic community who does not try to confront this problem in some meaningful way (like Svensmark) know full well that they cannot even begin to make the numbers work to their favor on this one, and so rather than embarrass themselves trying to make the numbers work to their favor they elect to just ignore this problem when confronted with it.
  47. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    Actually, the most significant number is the missing denominator, for without it the turtle budget cannot be balanced...
  48. Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
    94, muoncounter, Are you admitting to having used Mike's Nature trick to hide the turtles?
  49. Eschenbach and McIntyre's BEST Shot at the Surface Temperature Record
    @citizenschallenge The conclusion in Fall et al. is that errors in the temperature record mostly cancel out in the averaging process, without significantly shoving the trend to either cooling or warming. From their paper: "The opposite‐signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well‐sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes. For 30 year trends based on time-of‐observation corrections, differences across classes were less than 0.05°C/decade, and the difference between the trend estimated using the full network and the trend estimated using the best‐sited stations was less than 0.01°C/decade." They also found that poorly sited stations tended to have a slightly cooler trend, rather than the higher one Watts wanted to find. These findings are in agreement with the conclusion reached by Menne et al. (which preceded them). BEST likewise found that the Urban Heat Island effect didn't significantly alter trends either, another conclusion that had been previously reached in the literature. The surface temperature record is apparently pretty robust against siting influences or UHI effects according to all these studies.
  50. Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
    "Oceanic cycles don't create or retain heat, they simply move it around. So if these climate shifts are causing the surface air to warm, they should also be causing the oceans to cool." This claim is repeated dozens of times around the pages of SkS. It is not strictly true, however. Long term changes in oceanic flow can indeed cause the global mean temperature to warm without causing the ocean to cool. The reason being that changes in the distribution of heat can change the distribution of clouds, water vapor and ice, which can, in tern, cause a global radiative forcing. There is quite a bit of research published on this but the following paper is a good place to start: Herweijer C., R. Seager, M. Winton, A. Clement (2005) Why ocean heat transport warms the global mean climate. Tellus, 57A, 662-675 can be found here: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/herweijer/herweijer_swc_2005.pdf Note that I am not arguing that changes in ocean heat transport are responsible for 20th century warming. Instead I am simply advocating that SkS be a little more careful in the wording that they use to rebut the 'internal variability' argument.

Prev  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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