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  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  Next

Comments 70701 to 70750:

  1. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    cjshaker @54, it is fairly clear from their output that E&E is not currently peer reviewed, whatever their former status. To put the list above into context, I am currently reviewing the supporting literature in the IPCC Assessment Report 4, Working Group 1. I have not yet eliminated all duplicated references so I cannot give you an exact number, but the number of references after duplications are removed will be greater than 5000. Nearly all of those would be suportive of AGW. Ignoring the fact that many of the articles listed above have multiple authors, and hence are duplicated, there are 100 anti-AGW peer reviewed papers listed, or just 2% of the total number referenced by WG1. Al Gore was probably basing his claim on a study of peer reviewed papers on climate change by Naomi Oreskes. Oreskes found no peer reviewed papers that rejected the consensus view of AGW. As such, he was warranted in his opinion, even though with fuller data it turns out to be a slight exaggeration.
  2. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Reading the post about The Denominator now. Where would be an appropriate place to ask why Climate Science Journals appear to have no retractions at all? Or, have there actually been article retractions which I have not been able to find. Been reading the Retraction Watch blog. Most journal retractions appear to be in the areas of medicine, biology, and in chemistry. I haven't found any in Climate Science yet. Why is that? Thank you, Chris Shaker
  3. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Went to Google Scholar, found tons of articles by Craig Loehle. This one seems applicable. Is it peer reviewed? Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V005/74TOASCJ.pdf This article about historical CO2 records may be applicable? The estimation of historical CO2 trajectories is indeterminate: Comment on “A new look at atmospheric carbon dioxide” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231010001561 Another article that looks interesting Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380003003600 Are these peer reviewed articles? Reputable journals or forums? Chris Shaker
  4. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    Excellent article. Small nitpick though, in your third graph the units of the y axis should be ppmv, not ppm/yr.
  5. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    For others who had not heard of the web of science, Wikipedia has an entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_Science Regarding Craig Loehle, I found a site claiming this is one of his peer reviewed papers: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/dxk28g4662481342/ The site that pointed me at it was http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Appears that previous comments under this question denigrate that journal, Energy and Environment. The Wikipedia entry claims that it is peer reviewed, but also includes some negative comments about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment In any case, after reading your list of peer reviewed articles that argue against the CO2 primacy, it appears that Al Gore's claims that NO peer reviewed articles cast doubt on AGW were incorrect. Chris Shaker
    Response:

    [DB] Chris, an FYI: 

    1. Energy & Environment is not considered a peer-reviewed publication (by far the vast majority of climate scientists would never allow a paper to be published in it)
    2. The vast majority of PopTech's list is not peer-reviewed nor are many indeed papers as is traditionally defined in science.  See this post for more info:  Meet The Denominator
  6. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    Dikran: Thank you very much for the link! Works like a champ for me. Chris Shaker
  7. Ice age predicted in the 70s
    Dikran: I would appreciate very much knowing how I can look at my own posting history. So far, I do not see any way to access my own posting history to see what questions I have posted under. It does not appear that Google is allowed to index the comments under the questions on this website? Thank you, Chris Shaker Dikran Marsupial said at 21:33 PM on 23 October, 2011 CBDunkerson I have just looked into cjshaker's posting history, and it appears that he asks many questions, but rarely replies to the answers.
    Response:

    [DB] I'm not sure if you can access this link, but your posting history can be found here.

  8. 9 Months After McLean
    sylas, you are quite correct. Thankyou for the correction.
  9. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    First off, you are correct that I did not catch which section those papers were under. I did not notice that they were under 'Popular Papers'. Sorry about that. Chris Shaker
  10. 9 Months After McLean
    Tom, you say "Tamino has dissected similar nonsense from Bob Tisdale"; but the link goes a dissection of similar nonsense from Bob Carter.
    Response:

    [DB] Perhaps that is due to the multiple (here, here and here) takedowns Tamino has performed on Tisdale.

  11. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    2011 is further proof that a new era of extreme weather is dawning -- and it's about to get much, much worse. Source: “Stop pretending it’s not climate change.” Heidi Cullen, Salon, Nov 9, 2011 To access this article, click here. Note: This article includes a slide show and links to relevant material.
  12. 9 Months After McLean
    Fred Staples @48 indulges in some serious misrepresentation of the temperature record which requires a serious response. He begins by characterizing "all available data" as showing "a steady rise from the little ice age, peaking in the forties". The best available data set for that period is the HadCRUT3v temperature index which commences in 1850. (BEST is land only, while GIStemp starts in 1880, making neither suitable.) The plot of HadCRUT3v below (from woodfortres.org)shows the trends from 1850 to 1910, 1910 to 1940, 1940 to 1975, and 1975 to 2010. Trends where plotted to encompass known inflection points, and to ensure that they were at least 30 years long to ensure statistical significance: Fred correctly describes the period from 1940 to 1975 (actually '79) as a slow fall. Given that, his description of the period between 1850 and 1910 as part of "a steady rise" is not only false, but shows clear bias in interpretation of the data. This fall in temperature from 1850 to the early twentieth century is a feature of almost all temperature reconstructions over the last 1000 years: Indeed, most also show a rise in temperature from the end of the Little Ice Age to a peak around 1790 which is as hot as, or hotter than 1850, before a sharp fall for the Dalton Minimum and Mount Tamora Eruption, before a further rise to 1850 (actually closer to 1865 on HadCRUT3v). The temperature record is anything but a gentle rise from the LIA to 1940. Rather, it staggers around like a drunken miner under the influence of known changes in forcings - while post 1975 it rises sharply under the influence of other known changes in forcings, primarily due to changes in Green House Gas concentrations. Fred's characterization of the period from the LIA to 1940 as "a steady rise" is, of course, an attempt to feed into the fake "skeptic" meme of a "recovery" from the LIA. That idea is nonsense as an explanation, and contradicted by the data. Turning to more recent times, Fred immediately changes his data source. If you look at my first figure, you will see why. Desperate to avoid clear evidence, Fred Cherry Picks the UAH data set, which he characterizes is containing to flat intervals separated by "step change". In other words, having cherry picked his data set, he also needs to cherry pick his intervals. He tries to go down the up elevator. Tamino has dissected similar nonsense from Bob Tisdale: (Note, Tamino's second trend is from 1999, whereas Fred cherry picks 2002 as the start date for his second trend. That does not prevent the trend from being towards increased warmth, but it does reduce it.) Given the extent of Fred's cherry picking, the obvious thing to do is to check alternative sources of data to see whether the low trend from 1979 to 1997 is just a result of short term variations. Fortunately radiosondes have taken temperature series from approximately the same altitude that is measured by the TLT "satellite" channel: Clearly the rise in temperatures around 1981-3 is just a short term fluctuation, and the long term trend from the mid 1970's to 1997 is rising. In addition to his explicit cherry picking, Fred is highly dependent on the truncated nature of the satellite record to make his case. Finally, we are frequently told that posting here is a privilege, not a right. Abusing data as Fred does shows his clear intent to abuse that privilege.
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed html hash tag.

  13. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    That reminds me. I have not chased up getting our rebuttals of the "not acidic" claim posted. 1-line, beginner, intermediate, and advanced rebuttals are posted at the link posted in the "basic rebuttal thread" http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2659&r=4 Can who ever does the wrangling of such things please post them in the appropriate places.
  14. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    We have posted Part 2--the “takeaways”--and I am working on Part 3, an analysis of these papers by argument and by year. Stay tuned.
  15. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Just a reminder: we do have the total number of cites in the database, underneath the title of the paper.
  16. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Humlum has no papers in the WoS under Meteorology Atmospheric Sciences, the criterion that I used.
  17. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Eric (skeptic) @29, your claimed "relevant point" is false. The multi-run mean is not the only prediction made by climate models. A second prediction is in fact the standard deviations of the variability between each individual run. That standard deviation predicts the variability from year to year due to natural variations in the climate system. Consequently, any prediction of future temperatures (for a given future forcing scenario) by a model is properly given as the multi-run mean plus the standard deviation of all runs. The reason models must give future predictions in this form is because some aspects of climate are chaotic. We cannot reasonably hope to predict this far in advance whether 2050 will be an El Nino year, or a La Nina. But we can predict a range of temperatures such that, if it is an El Nino the temperature will be at the top of that range, while if it is a La Nina it will be near the bottom. Clearly Eschenbach's method cuts the second part of the prediction out of the equation. Having excluded the model predicted natural variability from his discussion, he then complains that the models make no prediction about natural variability.
  18. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Chris Shaker, Ole Humlum's been publishing for a great many years, often not specifically on climate, or specifically skeptical of it. If the article is not explicitly negative or doubtful of human-caused global warming, it's not icluded, so nearly all Humlum's papers don't count for this purpose. Recently he's become prominent in Norway as a skeptic, and regrettably he seems to have dropped his previously excellent science standards along the way. Humlum's most recent paper probably does count for the list; sadly it's a tragic case of regional curve-fitting climastrology that has little basis in science. That fits nicely with the list above.
  19. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    43 cjshaker: "He has 86 of them" Papers about 'rock glaciers' and terminal moraines have nothing to do with climate change, let alone CO2. Perhaps you can translate "Klima og CO2 - Uenighedens kerne"? His website isn't peer-reviewed and he's been debunked elsewhere. Use Search to find the correct thread.
  20. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    cjshaker, No one is questioning what he thinks. The question is "has he published any peer-reviewed papers on the topic?"
    Response:

    [DB] This is a good time for Chris to demonstrate that he can uphold his end of a discussion rather than his wont of posting drive-by comments.

  21. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    43, cjshaker, But not in any of the peer-reviewed papers. On the link you provided CO2 appears only in the section "Popular Papers" (whatever that means), "Interviews on TV and Radio" and "Lectures." Do you have some specific peer-reviewed papers that you feel should be looked at more closely?
  22. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    How sure are you that this list is accurate? Just looking at Dr. Ole Humlum. He is listed as having 0 peer reviewed papers which cast doubt on the AGW hypothesis. Found a list of his peer reviewed papers. He has 86 of them, according to this reference: http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGRAPHY%20OLE%20HUMLUM.pdf I find something that looks like 'CO2 hypothesis' in several of them. Chris Shaker
  23. CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    @Chuckbot: Please add a source citation for each graphic in your article.
  24. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Dave123, on your #1, yes it is off topic except for how to define what models "predict". On #2, I agree with the explanation by Kevin C that the complexities of a model can be simplified to a linear function as lots of model runs are averaged. The relevant point to this thread is that models predict the climate response to natural and manmade forcings when multiple runs of the model are averaged. They don't "predict" natural variations, but can demonstrate various possible natural variations from run to run.
  25. 9 Months After McLean
    48, Fred, Go back to the G&T thread where I have replied to you, with a link to someone who has explicitly and very clearly, step by step, taken your failed model one step further, added the missing elements and corrected the misconceptions, and arrived at the correct theoretical earth mean global surface temperature -- and he explains very clearly how he does so. After you absorb that, you can then admit that you jumped the gun, that you have failed to disprove GHG theory, and that the remainder of your discussion and points therefore require more thought and consideration, and will take you in an entirely different direction than the flawed and indefensible path that you are currently following.
  26. Dikran Marsupial at 05:00 AM on 10 November 2011
    CO2 Problems: Parallel concerns breed parallel denial
    I don't think it is fair to say "And he’s doing it in the face of a clear upward trend at longer timescales!", the growth rate is so noisy that even over longer timescales the trend is not statistically significant (indeed isn't that Knorr's key finding?). However Everett's error of trying to say that a short term non-significant trend means something is far worse.
  27. Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Eric: Let's look at the structure of Eschenbach's argument. It has the following form:
    Premise 1: The ensemble average response of climate models to forcings is linear. (Evidence: multiple pages of blog postings, graphs, and excel spreadsheets). Premise 2: Climate is non-linear. (Evidence: "Me, I find the idea ... a risible fantasy). Conclusion: Climate models are unrealistic.
    I think Eschenbach has unintentionally committed a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, by his preoccupation with his first premise. His mistake in his second is a variant of the confusion of weather and climate. Just because the internal variations of the system are chaotic and non-linear, doesn't mean that the response of the equilibrium state to external forcing must also be so. With a little more research, he could have saved himself all of the calculation. Climate scientists have know about this for years, and have written about it extensively. See Held's Simplicity of the forced response, the IPCC TAR which used a more sophisticated version of this approach for its centennial projections, and this recent paper.
  28. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    CNN is posting a running commentary on the Alaskan storm. Click here.
  29. 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.

  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.

  34. 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).
  35. 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.'
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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/
  41. 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.
  42. 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.

  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.

  46. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Also worth noting is the first tropical-like cyclone in Northern Mediterranean ever.
  47. 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" ...
  48. 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.

  49. 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.
  50. 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.

Prev  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  1413  1414  1415  1416  1417  1418  1419  1420  1421  1422  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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