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  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  Next

Comments 71551 to 71600:

  1. Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
    Thanks for the article Peter. Do you have an opinion on the magnitude of positive feedback entailed in having an essentially ice-free Arctic Ocean? Presumably as time goes on we will see more energy going into raising the temperature of the water rather than melting ice, and albedo will be reduced for longer and longer periods of the year (I'm assuming that for a while at least, the ice will return each autumn).
  2. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    itscoldoutside: How about providing us with a link to the comment thread you are referencing.
  3. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    They are making "we never denied the earth was warming" statements not because that is true, but because they don't want to admit they were wrong. The best example of what they had been saying about the global temperature record is in the PDF "SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY-DRIVEN DECEPTION" published in 2010 by the SPPI, authored by Watt's and D'Aleo: "Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century" What BEST has done is not simply show there was warming, warming which "skeptics" doubted had happened, but it showed the pattern, timing and magnitude of warming was similar to what GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 already had demonstrated. In short it simply told us what we already knew - the false skeptic doubt was false doubt. They won't stop. They have only been forced to admit the planet has warmed temporarily as their response to being called out. Even now they are making the same old tired claims. Post #24 is a great example of this continuing. See if "skeptics" knew the world had warmed why is post #24 implying that maybe it hasn't. It was never about facts for them, or else they would have at least been consistent. They simultaneously cite the little ice age as a fact and cry outrage at the prospect of it being "removed", even as the muse that maybe the world hasn't warmed significantly since..the little ice age. Both views are convenient to them, so it doesn't matter that they are completely inconsistent. They aren't trying to be consistent. They are trying to sow doubt and when they have to they will try to cover their tracks. I think SkepticalScience should add a new skeptic claim for "skeptics never doubted the earth had warmed..."
  4. Philippe Chantreau at 06:08 AM on 29 October 2011
    Not so Permanent Permafrost
    I do not totally agree with you Hans. First, because the aggressivity and ruthlessness of the so-called skeptics mandate a tone that's very firm. The time for being nice is over. From FOIA abuse to hacking to relentless accusations of fraud, to abuse of judicial powers, to lies and distortions, the war is on and it's very real. The source, whether original or intermediate, of the graph matters less than the data quality itself. I doubt that WWF came up with that graph, since there is so much ongoing study of the permafrost loss. Even if they did and the data are accurate and reviewed, then it is acceptable. It is a common pet peeve at SkS that data used by skeptics are presented out of context or distorted to suggest the opposite of what they actually show. Where the data come from is not nearly as much of a concern than where a certain interpretation will come from, as the data are often fine by themselves. I will add that many have presented here stuff as poor as opinion pieces from think tanks and equated their value with real factual information. The loss of permafrost and its relation to climate change in the Arctic is so far beyon doubt that quibbling about data sources is just that. I guess it is flattering in a way. SkS is being scrutinized for adherence to the strictest standards, which means that it has become a reference influential enough that skeptics will try to discredit it by all possible means. Meanwhile of course the "skeptic" outlets go on merrily misleading their audiences with the usual outrageous lies and distortions. Oh well. Perhaps Agnostic yielded to the convenience of graphs that showed most of the information in an at-a-glance format. Nonetheless, if we really want to consider the question of permafrost loss and climate change, there is so much info available: Interesting take here on a regional influence of snow cover: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/permafrost-loss-in-peatlands-of-northern-quebec-1957-2003 Model results here: http://www.mendeley.com/research/permafrost-zonation-and-climate-change-in-the-northern-hemisphere-results-from-transient-general-circulation-models/ Vladimir Romanovsky certainly is an expert in the matter, here is take at NOAA, with a wealth of further references: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/permafrost.html
    Response:

    [DB] "Perhaps Agnostic yielded to the convenience of graphs that showed most of the information in an at-a-glance format."

    Something that most authors do on a fairly regular basis - myself included.

    A request for clarification has been sent.

  5. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    Well, I did follow the link to greenpeace, but obviously I wasn't diligent enough
  6. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    itscoldoutside: Assuming you have cut & pasted this fine commentary from a response to one of your own comments, I was amused to see your interlocutor's comment "Except, anyone who takes meteorology knows, the violence of a storm is based on the temperature differences in weather fronts." I'm sure he or she was a professional or dedicated hobbyist. :)
  7. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    Dave123, And here. I particularly like the picture of the boat resting on the dried up river bed.
  8. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    Dave123, Look at the pictures here.
  9. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    Dave123, If you follow the link to the Greenpeace page, you find that's a picture of the Rio Negro during its lowest ever recorded level. If you look at the Rio Negro, you find it's in the very heart of the Amazon (see map below). As such, the "ocean" you see in the distance is tropical forest.
  10. itscoldoutside at 05:09 AM on 29 October 2011
    Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    @Hyperactive, NP. BTW, They were asked to post their response here. They declined; instead posting that rant (which even I can even see is wrong at so many levels); thought you might all appreciate the reaction this site is getting :-) And, having a table of standard arguments makes things much easier; appreciated.
  11. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 04:52 AM on 29 October 2011
    Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    Ah, sorry I got a bit confused by your post.
  12. itscoldoutside at 04:35 AM on 29 October 2011
    Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    @Hyperactive A response [quoted verbatim, hence the italics and caps, I encountered] to this page being cited; [as you can see they are] not a happy camper. The same author is citing CO2science as a "scientific" resource ....
  13. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    31, Sasquatch, Visit this page and play with the options for any selected temperature record (in particular "mean" and "linear trend"). You'll probably want to look at a mean with a # of samples of 240 months (i.e. 10 years). Example
  14. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 04:00 AM on 29 October 2011
    Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    itscoldoutside, "The evidence is clear, there is NO evidence of weather extremes changing." Really? Here is an interesting article that disagrees with your statement. Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas. And another article, this time focussed on England and Wales. The precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases ourmodel results indicate that twentieth century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.
  15. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    For what it's worth, my take on that picture is that the blue patch in the upper left is ocean. This then would be is a beach/delta area, and for all I know the white stuff is sand. This picture is also the opposite of what I'd expect, in the sense that in the American desert, vegtation clusters around a river, while at a distance the ground is bare. This is in no way a criticism of objective efforts to track Amazon drought or the reality of it....I'm just wondering about the picture itself.
  16. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Is there a source with annual temperature data that can be viewed on decadal or other user defined criteria? It's readily apparent that the global temperature has been rising. No surprises there. It appears to have stalled, or at least slowed down in the past few years. But, I don't know where to look to see that. Any help would be much appreciated.
  17. itscoldoutside at 03:31 AM on 29 October 2011
    Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    A response to this page being cited; not a happy camper:
    I looked through your link, an UNSCIENTIFIC source. First there was NOTHING in there that showed any changes is because of our CO2, all it shows is there is changes in the climate system. DUH!!! OF COURSE. As they ADMIT they CANNOT attribute any of those events to AGW. Only that AGW might cause amplification of extreme weather events. Except, anyone who takes meteorology knows, the violence of a storm is based on the temperature differences in weather fronts. The warmer the cold air mass is, the LESS violent the storm. The evidence is clear, there is NO evidence of weather extremes changing.
    Moderator Response: Clarification: The italicized text is a quote from someone other than itscoldoutside.

    Why do they think AGW causes only cold air, not warm air, to get warmer?

    [Sph] blockquote added to clarify intent.

  18. 9 Months After McLean
    With regards to the short-term trend (whether you refer to it as marginally cooling or a warming hiatus), a nice summary of the competing theories is summarized here: http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1
  19. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Beautiful written piece, however I don't think we should stoop to the deniers level in our comments and gloat.
  20. Dikran Marsupial at 00:18 AM on 29 October 2011
    9 Months After McLean
    Fred Staples wrote "The trend from 2000 to 2009 is marginally (not significantly) negative." This is not in the least surprising; If the magnitude of the long term trend is small compared to the variability, then one ought to expect to be able to cherry-pick short term trends with a negative slope. This is even more true of sub-regional datasets (e.g. CET) than it is for global datasets as the variability becomes larger the smaller the spatial scale you look at. This is "analysis of climate data 101". If you want to show that this is interesting, then you need to show that such an observation is unlikely assuming that warming has been taking place at the same rate as the long term trend. This basically amounts to estimating the statistical power of the test, see the discussion with Prof. Pielke on this issue.
  21. 9 Months After McLean
    43, Fred, Really? You're just going to continue as if nothing has happened?
  22. 9 Months After McLean
    No, Skywatcher, and you won't find the CET thread either. Tamino is ruthless with errors. Speaking of which, DB, glance again. The trend from 2000 to 2009 is marginally (not significantly) negative.
    Response:

    [DB] "No, Skywatcher, and you won't find the CET thread either. Tamino is ruthless with errors."

    Actually, I linked to the CET thread earlier in my response to you.  That post, and many more, are available from The Archives.

    And Tamino is only ruthless with those who so lack a grip on the science that they cannot even understand that they are wrong.  "Not even wrong" wrong.

    "The trend from 2000 to 2009 is marginally (not significantly) negative."

    And what of it?  That is like noting that "the air is cool today".  You yourself note that there is no significance to it.  You are simply and tediously wasting everyone's time here.  Desist.

  23. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    The casual reader is invited to read Dale's comment at 24, and to determine for themselves if this represents truly rational, skeptical thinking or instead a desperate need to very simply ignore the facts and the science, to cover one's eyes, and the say over and over "it isn't there, it isn't there, it isn't there..." This behavior has been repeated over and over... a constant, irrational and often comical interpretation of facts and events. They can make it look good for a little while, and dress it up in so much complexity and obfuscation that it makes even an intelligent person stop and give it consideration. But as the evidence mounts... [Let me see if I can summarize the two positions... Dale: A new temperature study shows warming at 2/3 of the land stations which only represent 1/3 of the globe, so that only represents warming on 20% of the globe, so there is no warming. Science: 6 temperature studies (GISS, HADCRUT, NOAA, RSS, UAH, BEST) based on multiple data sources (including satellites and land and sea observations), all compiled and analyzed independently using entirely different (and in one case, UAH, even secret) methods all demonstrate clear and unequivocal warming. Two of those six records were produced by self-described skeptics. Simultaneously, Arctic, Greenland and glacial ice is melting at ever accelerating rates, and has reached historic lows. Historic floods, droughts, wild fires and heat waves are also being recorded in record numbers (a record squared!). The seas are rising consistent with both ice melt and thermal expansion. Humidity in the atmosphere has risen 4%, consistent with warming temperatures, increased evaporation, and an increased capacity of a warmed atmosphere to hold water vapor.] Sooner or later people have to catch on, and then to be themselves embarrassed that they ever took these people (Watts, Nova, etc.) and their followers seriously.
  24. 9 Months After McLean
    The casual reader is invited to consider the absurdity of Fred's position, and to take this into account when reading any brand of denial tripe. No matter how good it looks at first, if you dig just a little, you find the man behind the curtain, telling you to ignore that man behind the curtain.
  25. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    My impression of the 'conflicting' SkS articles on these issues has been, 'we do not know... it could be this or it could be that'. Which is precisely what I'd think we should be doing. We've discussed both at length. Noted the uncertainties surrounding them. Where exactly is the 'conflict' or 'one-sided' presentation. At that... claims of conflicting and one-sided presentations are directly contradictory to each other. :]
  26. 9 Months After McLean
    Fred, why would anyone take anything you say seriously when you come in with nonsensical claims about a detailed thermometer record dating back a century before the invention of thermometers capable of generating it... and then don't even admit to the mistake? Just continue on with the same ridiculous claims as if they weren't founded on pure fiction. Sorry, but you ignoring your mistakes (to preserve a fictitious belief system) does not mean that everyone else will.
  27. Bad, Badder, BEST
    The video shows portions of an animated world map with the BEST study temperature reading coverage over time. Does anyone know the source of that animation? I couldn't find it on the BEST site.
  28. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    I feel that the last paragraph in your response to Charlie is totally inappropriate. He raises a valid question about using figures from an activist organization in a supposedly scientific post. Given the flack generated recently from the use of such information in other supposedly scientific reports, I would think that extra care would be taken to avoid such actions. The use of WWF information is perfectly appropriate for other political or activists purposes. However, scientific accounts should relie on the most accurately available, peer-reviewed data. If this was not intended as a scientific review of the permafrost issue, then please forgive my rantings. Trying to focus on scientific research, rather than activist postings, does not equate to "burying ones head in the sand."
  29. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 20:45 PM on 28 October 2011
    The BEST Kind of Skepticism
    How long will the BEST papers clear peer review?
  30. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    I suggest to Moribato and his friends on WUWT that "skeptics" need to give attention to these three questions: What is the equilibrium sea level rise for a warming of 2, 3 or 4 degrees C? Can the 40 percent of the world's human population living in the tropical zone (as opposed to more comfortable latitudes in the USA) tolerate a rise of 2, 3 or 4 degrees C? What percentage of the world’s biodiversity will be destroyed by a rise of 2, 3 or 4 degrees C? Honestly, they haven’t got a clue, have they?
  31. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Thanks for posting this. From my perspective, I have noticed many deniers in my own corner of the world have lapsed into (stunned?) silence, at least temporarily, since the BEST results. They have danced all over "hide the decline" so often, it is hard for them to get the words out. It is important to re-iterate the reasons for the warming of the planet, as the fallback position are "is it man-made?", and "it is natural variability" etc.
  32. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Charlie @14, Sorry my post is too long for your liking, but please read my post again, you seem to have missed a couple of important points that I made. But I'll reiterate. The data in Figure 2 above are in all likelihood from model simulations presented in Lawrence et al. (2008). Specifically from their Figure 5 for one of the traces for SOILCARB simulations (which they find are superior than the control), most likely SOILCARB_DS125, the most 'optimistic' simulation. I am willing to bet that Figure 2 above is a digitized version of the SOILCARB_DS125 trace shown their Figure 5. "The difference is around 2 million sq km for most years, and the projected graph shows decelerating loss in 21st century whereas the SkS/WWF graph show accelerating loss for the 21st century." No, both Fig. 2 above and Figure 5 (SOILCARB simulation) in Lawrence et al. (2008) show a deceleration in the rate of loss after ~2060, with the greatest loss shown to occur between about 2040 and 2060. Also, both show an expected decrease from near 10 million km^2 circa 2000 to about 1 million km^2 circa 2100. That is what is important here, and something you seem intent on avoiding accepting. I have already stated that I agree the caption needs amending, perhaps you missed that. Agnostic will fix the caption, once they have heard back from UNEP and have confirmation. So some patience please. "In further research though, it appears that early 20th century variations are artifacts of how the model was initialized." It would help everyone a great deal if you back up such assertions with a citation. You also now appear to be giving excuses to dismiss the model data. The early 20th century peak and subsequent decline (associated with the warming in the early 20th century), is evident in all traces shown in their Figure 5 and in their Figure 1b. It is unlikely anything to do with how the model was initialized, as it is a robust feature in all versions of the model output. Additionally, all versions of the model used the same forcing in the 20th century, what changed (what was improved) was the land-surface scheme as is explained in the paper. None of your attempts to undermine the post changes the fact that we are losing permafrost. I understand that fact is unsettling, but that is not an excuse to bury ones head in the ground or try to wish it away or dismiss reality.
  33. Dikran Marsupial at 17:58 PM on 28 October 2011
    9 Months After McLean
    Fred Staples wrote: "The CET record is a reasonably close proxy for the Northern hemisphere". You obviously don't know that the temperatures in the U.K. are strongly buffered by the thermal inertia of the Altantic ocean due to the gulf stream and due to the prevailing wind direction being from the west. This means that Central England Temperatures are not even representative of Central European Temperatures, nevermind the Northern Hemisphere!
  34. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Do you need any extra straws to clutch, Dale, or will that one do? Scientifically, this study was largely irrelevant before it even started, as its 'results' have already been repeatedly demonstrated by different independent groups. We already knew the Earth was warming, that UHI was largely irrelevant, and that the HADCRU record was probably on the low side. But unfortunately, certain nice people like Anthony "I'm prepared to accept the results of BEST even if they prove my premise wrong" Watts and his ilk simply refuse to accept that the good people at NASA, NOAA and the Hadley Centre could possibly do good science. It is for showing exactly the kind of cognitive dissonance going on in people like Watts, Nova, and others, that the BEST study was worth every one of its Koch-funded dollars.
  35. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    ...QED
  36. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Since BEST only used land data (30% of the surface) and also found 1/3 of all stations cooled, all they proved was that 20% of the planet's surface warmed. Is that reason for all your celebrations? ;)
  37. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Yep, Nova's post is such an absurd jumble that I though I was looking at a title/precis page for series of posts, and kept re-hitting the title link to see the article on BEST. Then I realised this dog's-breakfast was the article!... Nobody could be persuaded by this nonsense, surely? Then you read the comments below. I think it's fair to say that the BEST results have finally winnowed away pretty-well all of the flighty chaff (any susceptible to being borne aloft on the winds of evidence) and left behind only the true grit; they're right, evidence notwithstanding, and they'll never be persuaded otherwise...
  38. Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
    The BEST trend since 1978 is also 0.29°C per decade. We've got a post in the works on the subject. The BEST trend over that period is also identical to the NOAA land-only trend.
  39. 9 Months After McLean
    Fred @36:
    "The CET record is a reasonably close proxy for the Northern hemisphere"
    Wow, you have a very different definition of "reasonably close" than me. I wouldn't call any one geographic location a reasonably close proxy for an entire hemisphere. That's kind of whacky.
  40. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    @13: the long post by Albatross that doesn't address basic questionw of what Figure 2 of this article is supposed to be showing, and the provenance of that data. Perhaps the author of the article can comment on the following points. 1. Figure 2 of this article is from a WWF report, not a peer reviewed article. More specifically, the source appears to be Figure 5d from chapter 5 of Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Global Implications , Correct? 2. Although the caption of SkS Figure 2 is "Fig. 2 Actual and projected loss of permafrost.", both the 20th century data and the 21st century data are computer simulation rather than actual data. The caption in the WWF report is "(d) Time series of simulated global permafrost area (excluding glacial Greenland and Antarctica)" Please confirm whether Figure 2 is actual data or simulated data. 3. Although the World Wildlife Fund report includes references to peer reviewed articles, the relevant reference (see inline response to comment #5 for link) has significantly different data for near-surface permafrost north of N45. See figure 1B of that article. The difference is around 2 million sq km for most years, and the projected graph shows decelerating loss in 21st century whereas the SkS/WWF graph show accelerating loss for the 21st century. 4. My comment on this article was in regards to the very rapid rise and fall of near-surface permafrost in the early 20th century. If the graph were what SkS says -- "actual" -- then we could learn much by looking at these past variations. In further research though, it appears that early 20th century variations are artifacts of how the model was initialized.
  41. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Sphaerica I have in the past commented on both WUWT and JoNova. Anthony's crowd is generally straightforwardly nasty, Jo's sometimes has folks who are honestly looking for information - either way, I have found it worth my effort to (on occasion) put some of the actual science up, as I know it. But now?!? After the BEST publicity/papers both Anthony and Jo have gone into tinfoil hat mode. They're posting truly stunning collections of (unprintable adjectives here) that have zero connection with reality. It's like they're not even trying. Not much to do in the face of that kind of outright denial - except laugh, and suggest psych evaluations and possibly medication...
  42. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Spherica @20, I'm glad you got a laugh. I couldn't even fathom whatever it was she thought she was rambling on about. Mercury based life forms, encroaching ice age quotes from the '70s......
  43. 9 Months After McLean
    37, skywatcher, Maybe Fred needs to stop taking his "free pass" and instead admit to cherry picking in order to warp the discussion in his favor. [Sorry, I've grown very tired of outright, outrageous denial. Coming up with something resembling a remotely decent argument is one thing. Cherry picking distortion of this sort by this point is just plain unacceptable.]
  44. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    19, Stevo, I saw that and was going to comment, but I fell off of my seat laughing. I never even got to the comments. Nova's post was just too funny to get past. Man, talk about desperation. Of course, she still clings to the CO2-lags-temperature and "hot spot, hot spot" stuff, so what can one expect? She's probably the most embarrassing of all of the denial bloggers, because she doesn't even try (and her legion of followers fit that bill perfectly -- co2isnotevil hails from there).
  45. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    For those ineterested in how climate denial spin is reacting to BEST, then have a look at Jo Nova's site. If you do go there could you please point out any links to peer reviewed science you might find there? I'm not saying there is no sound science there, just that I haven't been able to find any.
  46. Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
    The BEST time series data are now available at Wood for Trees. That '2002 change in trend' looks even less robust with these data: The short line segment (mid 2001-mid 2008) appears parallel to the 40 year trend. The only way to make it look like a change in trend is to include the last 2 1/2 years; at that point the short linear fit is (still) just about meaningless. If anyone is counting, that 40 year trend is very close to 0.25 deg C/decade.
  47. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    Karamanski @ 5 - as CBD has discussed, Malhi & Wright suggest it may be related to ENSO, but other studies also suggest the cutting down of large tracts of tropical forest (lower evaporative cooling) may play a part. I've not read anything definitive on it. logicman @ 6 - many Amazon River systems were at their lowest level ever recorded. I tend to have a bit more faith in Greenpeace than you. Stephen Leahy @ 8 - thanks. I've a few more posts lined up on the Amazon over the coming months. I'll eventually link them together via a summary at the end, and this will serve as a rebuttal. Hopefully this will help public understanding when the next extreme drought occurs, because it is definitely not appreciated by the public at large that tropical rainforests (and the many insects and animals that live in them) are in great danger. They have evolved to thrive in a cooler climate, have a very narrow heat tolerance threshold, and are now having to adapt to unprecedented change. Their future is hugely uncertain.
  48. 9 Months After McLean
    Maybe Fred needs to follow Dikran's excellent step-by-step lesson on how the presence of a cooler body can add heat to a warmer body. Can't recall which thread it was on though? Fred, I dread to wonder how you got on debating timeseries Tamino (couldn't locate your handle there?), given the depth of your understanding shown here. The latest 30-year trendline, including the last decade, for the CET shows a slope of 0.03C p.a. in my graph. Evaluating trends over short time periods, e.g. a decade or less, is a fool's errand as you'll get the slope of the noise, not the signal, especially in a very noisy dataset like the CET. The departure that the CET moving average makes from the Northern Hemisphere moving average over the past few years, notably 2010, is large, driven in part by the anomalously cool winters that occurred locally to the CET. There are some interesting possible reasons for that (local cooling during global warmth), one idea being the loss of sea ice affecting early winter weather patterns. But using a short timeseries (last decade) and a small region (CET area) is classic cherry picking. Here's my cherry - the warmest CET anomaly... April 2011. And we didn't start emitting CO2 in 1949!
  49. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    adelady, KR - not so much on ice (it will melt too soon), as on roller-skates :D
  50. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    Exogenous factors aside, my expectation of the combined Land+Ocean temps is that there would be less of a decadal variation than is seen, provided we had the spatio-temporal network in place to adequately monitor the ocean deeps for a long enough period of time. If so, I would then expect the LOTI to have shallower valleys in some places and no valleys in others. Then we would have essentially a closed global energy budget, provided we also had better quantification of aerosol forcings. Thus the periods in the LOTI now that some point to, post-2002 for example, and say "See! It's flattening!" wouldn't actually be there as they are an artifact created by an incomplete measuring network (and yes, this is, succinctly, my position). But this is all magic-wand-fueled speculation. Hence the differing opinions & hypothesis' to try and close the global energy budget.

Prev  1424  1425  1426  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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