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  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  1442  Next

Comments 71701 to 71750:

  1. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Well that settles it. No-one should ever accept any kind of physical challenge from any of these people. The muscle development from all that goalpost shifting must be absolutely massive.
  2. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    DB#44: "The narrowing differences between the positions of Trenberth and Hansen will be worked out, in time." No doubt time will tell; but we are currently taking a conflicting - and confusing - position. Here we say "we may currently be in one of these decade-long hiatus periods." Yet here we agree with tamino: None of the [most recent] 10-year trends is “statistically significant” but that’s only because the uncertainties are so large — 10 years isn’t long enough to determine the warming trend with sufficient precision. Given that dichotomy of views, David Lewis' comments are very appropriate.
  3. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    Charlie @5, Yes, when it warms ice, including permafrost, tends to melt. Base don your comment a@5, you seem to agree then that as the planet warms, especially the land area in the northern high latitudes, the permafrost will melt and/or the active layer will deepen. By accepting the decrease in the early 20th century, you then also by default accept the modelling results of Lawrence at al. (2008), as their simulations captured the decline in permafrost response to the early 20th century warming. AGW is about where we are heading, the past is telling us that permafrost is sensitive to relatively small amounts of warming (at least relative to what awaits us). So the fact that the permafrost is melting on account of the observed warming does not bode well for the future does it? Especially when said permafrost contains CH4, a strong greenhouse gas (e.g., Schuur et al. 2008 and Tarnocai et al. 2009). Is that what you are hoping to try and distract people from here? As for your questions about the source. Agnostic actually says "Courtesy UNEP/GRID-Arendal ", not "Source UNEP/GRID-Arendal". Regarding the caption for Figure 2, "Actual and projected loss of permafrost" is probably referring to the following in the paper, "The original CCSM3 20th century simulation was forced with observed natural and anthropogenic forcings (greenhouse gases, sul- fate aerosols, volcanoes, ozone, solar variability, halocar- bons, and black carbon aerosols), whereas the 21st century simulation was forced with the midrange SRES A1B emission scenario. Regardless, the data presented in Figure 2 do appear to be based on data from a peer-reviewed paper in Journal of Geophysical Research by Lawrence et al. (2008). I agree though that the caption should be more specific and clearer. "The only observations estimate in that referenced paper is table 2, which shows an estimate of 11.2-13.5 million sq km for the 1970-1989 period while the simulations for that period range from 8.5-10.7 million sq km." You are not accurately reflecting the work of Lawrence et al. (2008). The focus of their paper was an improved model version, they say in their abstract (and show in Table 2 that): "When forced off-line with archived data from a fully coupled Community Climate System Model (CCSM3) simulation of 20th century climate, the revised version of CLM produces a near-surface permafrost extent of 10.7 X 10^6 km^2 (north of 45°N)" Their improved model agrees much better with the observed estimates for continuous and discontinuous permafrost area (11.2- 13.5 x 10^6 km^2). They conclude that: "The rate of near-surface permafrost degradation, in response to strong simulated Arctic warming (∼ +7.5°C over Arctic land from 1900 to 2100, A1B greenhouse gas emissions scenario), is slower in the improved version of CLM, particularly during the early 21st century (81,000 versus 111,000 km2 a−1, where a is years). Even at the depressed rate, however, the warming is enough to drive near-surface permafrost extent sharply down by 2100." Hardly encouraging news or reason to keep emitting GHGs.
  4. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    @Daniel Bailey (44): Well said!
  5. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    NewYorkJ @9, Great sleuthing. Yup, Singer is stuck in 1997, McIntyre is stuck in 1998.... rdr95, Actually I do not think Pielke Sr. is doing what he is doing for the money at all, I have a pretty good idea where he is coming from, but won't get into it here. Unless you can cite evidence for your claim, I would encourage you to retract it as it actually breaks the site's Comments policy.
  6. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    " It baffles me that R.P. Sr would want to be associated in even the loosest way with this miserable display." Money talks, apparently.
    Response:

    [DB] Please clarify your point.  If you are implying that RPSr receives untoward compensation for the positions he takes then that is a violation of the Comments Policy & you will have to rescind that implication.

  7. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    When some folks at WUWT say with confidence that the earth hasn't warmed in the last 10 years... it makes me think that they look at scientific inquiry through the smallest of lenses - one that is truly ignorant of the hard work put in by people all over the world. If they don't believe climate change experts in the US, or the UK ...fine... trust the ones in Japan!
  8. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    The Fred Singer claim is perplexing. It's similar to his claim in 2000. "But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming." "The surface record continues to go up. But you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites." PBS Interview with Singer Now this interview was around the time all the big errors (diurnal drift, orbital decay) were being discovered and corrections made. Some of the corrections may have been applied earlier than his interview, and while that might lead one to believe Singer wasn't up-to-speed on the latest findings, what in the world is his excuse now? It's like he's stuck in 1997. Science moves on. Deniers are left behind.
  9. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Mal Adapted and JMurphy, Great find @23 JMurphy. Oh dear, so I guess that Singer has, like Anthony Watts, reneged on his statement that he will have an open mind when it comes to the BEST results. But Ian Forrester on another thread shows what Fred Singer had to say in response to a Nature editorial on the BEST findings on 26 October 2011 (he was the first person to post a comment on that Nature editorial thread): "Why are you so jubilant about the findings of the Berkeley Climate Project that you can hardly contain yourself? What do you think they proved? They certainly added little to the ongoing debate on human causes of climate change." And Singer then makes a series of demonstrably false statements: "But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that climate models, run on super-computers, all insist that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface? And so does theory. And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called "proxies", tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. They don't show any global warming since 1940!" He also says this: "One last word: You evidently haven't read the four scientific BEST papers, submitted for peer review. There, the Berkeley scientists disclaim knowing the cause of the temperature increase reported by their project. They conclude, however, "The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated". I commend them for their honesty and skepticism. " Now that is a blatant distortion and misrepresentation of the BEST findings. Singer has evidently not read the paper, but is simply repeating a meme that originated with AGW denier Benny Peiser and which was propagated (uncritically) on WUWT by Anthony Watts. This latest misrepresentation and abuse of the science by those in denial about AGW has been dealt with here. So on the one hand Singer trashes BEST, and then when they say something that he wants to believe (which is not even necessartily true), he commends their "honesty". Singer speaking immediately after Muller and Rohde is priceless.
  10. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Ian @4, That is interesting, because on another thread poster JMurphy found this quote by Fred Singer when referring to the BEST global temperature results: "I applaud and support what is being done by the Project — a very difficult but important undertaking. I personally have little faith in the quality of the surface data, having been exposed to the revealing work by Anthony Watts and others. However, I have an open mind on the issue and look forward to seeing the results of the Project in their forthcoming publications." But Watts and Delingpole et al. assure us that real 'skeptics' never doubted that the planet has been warming. So we know what that makes Singer then.
  11. Philippe Chantreau at 05:19 AM on 28 October 2011
    Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Every month that goes by makes WUWT reveals itself for what it is. The efforts made by moderators there to give it an appearance of scientific relevance are a little pathetic. It baffles me that R.P. Sr would want to be associated in even the loosest way with this miserable display.
  12. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    The satellites show no warming trend? Somebody should let RSS and UAH know their data is wrong. We've got a post in the works on the ratio of lower troposphere to surface warming over land in response to an error-riddled Eschenbach post on the subject at WUWT.
  13. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    @ David Lewis (41) Seeing as the others have already weighed in on this to some degree, let me add a couple of things: First of all, let me thank you for your efforts in the realm of policy to help stabilize the composition of the atmosphere since 1988. Policy and politics are thankless endeavors and your efforts in that arena are appreciated. Secondly, blog posts at Skeptical Science are fairly narrow in focus, with the average post coming in between 800 and 1200 words. Trenberth's latest guest article clocked in at about 2500. One of Hansen's would be closer to 4000. Attempting to resolve the two sides in a blog post, and to do it justice, is outside the scope (and mission parameters) of Skeptical Science. Thirdly, the relevant works by Trenberth and Hansen in question have not yet completed their journey through the realm of academic peer-review. To say at this juncture that one is right and the other not is to avoid the more likely answer which is both will be found right to some degree. Lastly, science advances by filling in the grey areas on the map of our understanding of the world and universe in which we live. In this particular case, the pencil of science is busily erasing a picture of a sea monster so it can sketch in a clearer picture of an area. In this case, it is the global energy budget. Since it is just at the preliminary sketch phase with no paint yet applied to the canvas it is a bit premature to say with any certainty what the final inked picture will look like with exactitude. But we do have a sketch. Science is rolling back the fog and narrowing the bands of uncertainty roiling mist-like around the global energy budget. Today there still exists some myopia; given time, a better and more precise ocular prescription will bring greater clarity. But that is only a detail. From a policy perspective little has changed from the basics: 1. The climate, so long stable that civilization was able to appear, has been destabilized by the massive bolus of man-made GHGs injected into the carbon cycle. 2. The radiative physics of that bolus of GHGs dictate that the energy balance of the planet must change. 3. The polar regions of are world are particularly susceptible to energy budget alterations, with the Arctic Sea Ice being uniquely susceptible. 4. Long-predictable weather patterns, trade winds, polar jets, oceanic currents and even the Hadley Cells themselves have already been shifted out of their "normal" status. 5. This will continue to change for essentially the next hundred years. Even if we cease output of GHGs and hold emissions to zero for the next 40 years, the change will continue but then begin to level off. If we continue BAU, change will continue, but the rate of change (already 10X the rate as occurred during the PETM) will continue to increase. 6. We have already ensured that the world our ancestors lived in is gone. From a geological perspective we have ushered in a new age. What survives that transition, for that is what we have just embarked on as a species, is up to us. Whether the survivors include homo sapiens is still within our control. For now. So please continue your participation in policy discussions. The narrowing differences between the positions of Trenberth and Hansen will be worked out, in time. But time is fleeting, and our window to exert control over our destiny as a species dwindles...
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] PETM: The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was a period of natural global warming that took place almost 56 million years ago.
  14. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Heh! Singer follows Muller and Rohde on the program at the Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate Change next Tuesday. Singer's topic: "Is the reported global surface warming of 1979 to 1997 real?"
  15. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Ian wrote: "There is still one AGW denier who is denying that temperatures have risen since 1940." Oh, there are lots of them. Over on the McLean thread there was a guy claiming temperatures haven't risen since 1659. :] Of course, you'll also find alot of the exact same people also saying that nobody ever claimed temperatures weren't rising. Heck, I bet you Monckton will make both claims in the same speech.
  16. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    Karamanski, I didn't see a proposed explanation for the accelerated tropical warming on a quick skim through Malhi & Wright 2004. However, note that while ice albedo feedback would obviously be much less in the tropics than in the Arctic the reverse would be true for water vapor feedback. So long as Arctic temperatures remain near freezing there will be virtually no water vapor feedback in that region. 100% relative humidity at 0 C is about 4.8 g/m^3 100% relative humidity at 5 C is about 6.8 g/m^3 100% relative humidity at 40 C is about 51.1 g/m^3 100% relative humidity at 45 C is about 65.4 g/m^3 An increase from 0 C to 5 C yields only an additional 2 g/m^3 of possible water vapor... while an increase from 40 C to 45 C yields an extra 14.3 g/m^3. Thus, we can see that the amount of water vapor which the atmosphere can hold increases in both total amount and rate of increase as the temperature goes up. Of course, the greenhouse warming of water vapor is logarithmic and thus DEcreases in rate as the total amount increases... and the figures above are for maximum possible humidity while actual values would usually be lower. So there are considerable complexities around the water vapor feedback. However, it might be the case that the polar regions will experience accelerated warming due to the most pronounced ice-albedo feedback while the tropics do due to the most pronounced water vapor feedback. Or maybe it is something else. The paper seems to suggest that tropical temperatures are highly influenced by ENSO. Perhaps ocean heating is causing stronger ENSO swings which in turn caused the recent pronounced tropical heating.
  17. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    There is still one AGW denier who is denying that temperatures have risen since 1940. In a recent comment to a Nature editorial Fred Singer claims:
    But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that climate models, run on super-computers, all insist that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface? And so does theory. And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called ?proxies?: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. They don?t show any global warming since 1940!
  18. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Yes, I've always thought that the simplistic "skeptic" mindset must be a very comforting way to view the world. Warmer is better. Wetter is better. Everything climate scientists say we should worry about is nothing to worry about. Then again, they also think global warming is a massive conspiracy for climate scientists to get rich, and for the government to take all their money away via carbon taxes. They worry about imagined threats, and dismiss real threats. A very strange mindset.
  19. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    David Lewis wrote: "I wonder why you report on the science as if one of the organizations did not exist." and "why do you write as if NCAR's view is the only one?" and "I wonder why you write as if he doesn't exist." All of these quotations contain statements by you which are false. Nobody has claimed that there is only one view on the issue. The first sentence of the article above clearly indicates that it was written specifically to clear up information about the Meehl study. Thus, your repeated 'concern' that it does not cover an entirely different study seems somewhat... odd. Particularly given your participation, with Rob no less, in other threads where the 'ignored' view was being discussed. "You people should lighten up and understand that all discussion of ideas you may not agree with or understand is not malicious." In that case, perhaps you could skip the condescending (and false) accusations? Just on the off chance that someone might think they were 'malicious'.
  20. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    The caption of Figure 2, "Actual and projected loss of permafrost." is incorrect. The source of Figure 2 is not the UNEP show by SkS, but is from a non-peer reviewed report by the World Wildlife Fund. The 20th century "actual" appears to be simulated data rather than observational estimates. SkS shows the source of that figure as UNEP. UNEP gives as a source "WWF Arctic Feedbacks Report". That link leads to another WWF reference (I assume this is World Wildlife Fund, not the World Wrestling Federation). Following back another step leads to another WWF graph with 4 sections. The section with the graph used by SkS has the caption "Time series of simulated global permafrost area (excluding glacial Greenland and Antarctica)." http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/area-with-near-surface-permafrost-north-of-45-n In the inline comment in #5, moderator DB gave this paper as the source, but that paper also has only graphs of simulated permafrost area. The only observations estimate in that referenced paper is table 2, which shows an estimate of 11.2-13.5 million sq km for the 1970-1989 period while the simulations for that period range from 8.5-10.7 million sq km. Please clarify what is actually shown in the bottom half of Figure 2 of this article, and the source for that data.
  21. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Even the belief that "a warmer world is predicted to be a wetter world, which overall can only be a good thing" is a continuation of simplistic so-called skepticism (aka denial), as yet another study shows : Rivers and streams in the United States are releasing substantially more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than previously thought. The paper, titled "Significant Efflux of Carbon Dioxide from Streams and Rivers in the United States," also indicates that as the climate heats up there will be more rain and snow, and that an increase in precipitation will result in even more terrestrial carbon flowing into rivers and streams and being released into the atmosphere. If only life was as simplistic as those so-called skeptics believe it to be...
  22. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    @David Lewis: I found your comments/questions to be quite thoughtful and sincere. I suspect the issues you have raised will be thoroughly dicussed at the upcoming AGU meeting.
  23. Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
    Kudos on an excellent synthesis of the key elements of climate change and why the major arguments made by deniers are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
  24. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    Rob Painting: I brought up my understanding of what appear to be contradictory ideas held by some scientists so I could hear what you or others had to say, if they had anything to say, so that I might, perhaps, get a deeper insight. I participate in policy discussion and I like to understand what the generally accepted "science" is as accurately as possible. In order for me to understand what is generally accepted by leading scientists, it is necessary to understand where the best scientists disagree. I also like to understand what the disagreements are as I form my own view of climate science. I'm not trying to undermine your credibility, the credibility of Dr. Trenberth or NCAR, or anyone else. For all I know, 99% of working climate scientists accept NCARs view and Hansen is out there all alone. It happens that I recently studied a number of Hansen's papers, and I've also studied a number of papers either authored or co-authored by Trenberth. So when I saw you were writing about the ideas Dr. Trenberth and NCAR have, I commented, in an attempt to find out more. I explained what I thought I understood in order to give you a starting point to explain to me where I've gone wrong, if you can. You've dismissed me as insincere, i.e. I'm trying to make a big deal out of something that isn't a big problem. I don't see where anything I'm writing about could possibly "alter anything about the underlying causes or the severity of the problem", as "skywatcher" ended his remark with. You people should lighten up and understand that all discussion of ideas you may not agree with or understand is not malicious. I have been calling for stabilizing the composition of the atmosphere since 1988. If Hansen's ideas are correct, the "Faustian bargain" that he has been concerned about for some time is far worse than his best guess as submitted to the AR4 was. (He's increased his estimate for the aerosol forcing to -1.6 W/m2 from about -1.3 W/m2, and he has reiterated his call that the actual value be measured, i.e. by saying "continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable"). If Trenberth's ideas are right, the "Faustian bargain" may be "only" as dangerous as most thought, but in that case there is "missing energy", i.e. heat is already in the system hidden in the ocean about to come back to haunt us. Either of these scenarios is disturbing.
  25. 9 Months After McLean
    Defense number 10: But you weren't supposed to followup with my prediction. You are supposed to get distracted by the next pseudo scientist claiming global cooling for 2012.
  26. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    I don't deny that the rainforest is in stress from multiple causes. That said, I would not have used the image from Greenpeace unless it could be linked to a 'boots on the ground' study of that exact location. The Rio Negro has what is probably the world's most spectacular meander system. The flood plain / meander system is constantly migrating, so it will always be possible to find drier and wetter areas. Compare for example these Wikimapia images of a farming area and an area from which the river is in retreat due to the meander system dynamics. I repeat: I do not dispute the central theme of this SkS article, I merely point out that Greenpeace may well have cherry-picked the images shown on its web site. I would have shown images of areas away from the river which show stronger and less ambiguous signs of drought stress.
  27. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    "With temperatures in the tropics rising at a rate twice that of the global average (0.26°C per decade) since the 1970's" I'm confused. I thought it was the polar regions that were warming twice the global average. I read many global warming articles that said the tropics are warming more slowly than the rest of the planet. Why are the tropics warming faster than the rest of the planet if they don't have the same feedbacks like the retreat of snow and ice that the Arctic and mid-latitudes have?
  28. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Another one added to the database : "I applaud and support what is being done by the Project — a very difficult but important undertaking. I personally have little faith in the quality of the surface data, having been exposed to the revealing work by Anthony Watts and others. However, I have an open mind on the issue and look forward to seeing the results of the Project in their forthcoming publications." S Fred Singer
  29. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    jyyh - agreed. I couldn't find any pics that I was really after. A before and after montage would be great. No go with tree die-off pics either.
  30. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    David Lewis - ditto what Skywatcher wrote.
  31. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    On the greenpeace image, it would be nice if they had before and after images. Negro River looks like being a quite shallow one, one can't really see the perspective (or the height of the sant/silt banks) on that image.
  32. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    David Lewis, perhaps Hansen's ideas are not mentioned here because this post is largely about the Meehl 2011 paper, not about Hansen? You've written quite a few posts IIRC trying to make a big deal about the disagreements between Hansen and Trenberth, yet so far as I am aware, the disagreement is not really a big problem. Scientists disagree when the data is insufficient to point clearly to one conclusion - this happens all the time. There is a data discrepancy. Two research groups have opposing ideas on how to resolve the discrepancy. In time, one will likely be right and one wrong. It's actually possible that both are partly right here. This issue is one which will be resolved with better data, and crucially, it does not alter anything about the underlying causes or the severity of the problem.
  33. Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
    The comment of mine you link to was written to attempt to discuss a different issue, i.e. that a lot of confusion is being sown as people discuss a ten year "slowdown" of "global warming", or as in this post of yours, "hiatus" decades, when, for instance, the AR4 says the shortest period over which the global warming signal emerges from the noise is 25 years (Meehl himself seems to think 17). Scientists arguing about how to advance the science so that more can be explained about shorter time periods aren't using words precisely enough and deniers are making hay out of it. I did not offer an opinion about aerosols in Asia, although I mentioned the Kaufmann paper, in the comment you link to - perhaps you were thinking about another comment? But neither of these issues were what I was commenting on this time. I brought up Hansen's view of the potential accuracy of TOA measurement by satellite and contrasted it with Trenberth's assertion that TOA measurements are not the problem as my study of the ideas of these two scientists indicates this is the heart of the disagreement. NCAR obviously does not accept Hansen's view that the TOA measurements can't be taken as potentially accurate. Why? Instead of dismissing me as simply repeating the same thing over and over, (try to find me writing about Hansen's view of TOA measurement, anywhere, ever), you might explain why you believe Hansen is wrong about this. Or if you don't have a position on whether Hansen's critique of NCAR is correct, why do you write as if NCAR's view is the only one? This isn't like some dispute between a know nothing denier and a view of the data, i.e. the planet is warming, that is shared by every reputable scientist working actively in the field today. Hansen thinks all climate models send too much heat into the deep ocean, and all models have assumptions about aerosols that have them reflecting not enough heat out to space. All the models including his own at GISS calculate a planetary energy imbalance that is too high. NCAR scientists like Trenberth believe completely different things. Perhaps the strongest reason I have to persist in trying to get an answer out of you is I don't know what the average climate scientist actually thinks of Hansen and his current ideas. I wonder why you write as if he doesn't exist. His views are clearly diametrically opposed to yours and to the authors of the Meehl paper you are discussing. Yet you haven't commented on one of his strongest arguments against the NCAR view, and presumably, yours - i.e. what about the TOA measurements? Was the CERES data just massaged into line with preconceived beliefs, as Hansen asserts?
  34. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Jon Stewart is covering BEST on the the 10/26 Daily Show -- "Global warming is real: the debunking of ClimateGate got a total of 24 seconds of news coverage."
  35. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Agnostic - Keep in mind the distinction I described here. Evaluating arguments, finding them lacking, and making judgements about the people pushing those arguments is not a logical fallacy: it's simply a personal judgement call. Folks are 'fair game' to be judged disingenuous, uninformed, or a wee bit mad, depending on the arguments they propound. What's not 'fair game' is to dismiss all arguments from that person based on past history or personal opinions of their character - that becomes an ad hominem fallacy.
  36. Bad, Badder, BEST
    There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic - though I assume that referring to people who question science as septics (cynicus @ 10) is a typo? Anyway, we do need to distinguish between the person and the views expressed. The latter is fair game. The former is not.
  37. Not so Permanent Permafrost
    @7. You are exactly right. The rate at which temperature is increasing now will affect the magnitude of the final temperature deviation. So comparing Eemian and now, the ratio of maximum global temperatures are a higher-than-linear order function of the ratio of the forcing.
  38. Test your climate knowledge in free online course
    Skipped straight to the exams and got one third of one question wrong in the first module by leaving out 'contribution in year to year variability in the climate system' for the question, "Which of the following is associated with the el Nino phenomenon?" As la Nina and el Nino were distinguished from each other in the exam section, I figured el Nino wasn't present every year. Ba-boww. But not too shabby for an arts dude who dropped science after 3rd year high school - thanks to realclimate, SkS, Coby, Grumbine, Tamino etc and a whole lot of generous commenters out there.
  39. Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
    That sounds scary!!
  40. 9 Months After McLean
    @ Composer99 @ 33 No, I think you pretty much have the right of it. Iams trying to turn over a new leaf and NOT deal with ALL of the softball-sized tender vittles served up by some of our visitors like Fred, thus leaving ample fancy feast for the rest of y'all. If anyone wants to partake, full portions of Fred-speak are served up on the glorious "2nd Law" thread, starting about here. Meow.
  41. Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
    Thanks John, and others above for comments. The thermal inversion paper is interesting and counterintuitive, but maybe helps explain the strong change in decadal temperature gradient towards the North Pole, as well as the pronounced winter increase in temperature over recent decades. For those interested there's a no paywall supplement to that paper here.
  42. 9 Months After McLean
    Yet another "silver bullet" against AGW turns out to be a dud (or a can of Coors Light). And really, Fred Staples: you think John McLean would be better served by cherry-picking two data points from a cherry-picked regional dataset (in lieu of a global dataset) to attempt to disprove a global phenomenon? (If Fred Staples is satirizing the "skeptic"/denier position in an ironic, non-obvious way (e.g. Poe-ing the comment thread), consider me fooled.)
  43. 9 Months After McLean
    21, Fred Staples, Let us recap the series of clearly skeptical points made by Fred et al (fill in your own definition of "skeptical" in that sentence):
    1) Longest record in the world measured by thermometers
    Except it's not. The actual measurement he quotes wasn't even a measurement at all by an instrument of any sort, but rather a guess by reading weather diaries. No thermometer involved, in spite of his implication to the contrary.
    2) 1659, 2010
    The numbers work quite well for him, but by looking at surrounding years, we find that 1659 was roughly average, with the ten year average from 1659 to 1668 being 9.11), while 2010 was anomalously low, with the the ten year average from 2001 to 2010 being a whopping 10.22.
    3) Central England
    As always, location, location, location. Central England has the marvelous attribute of being so civilized that it could include temperature readings that far back in time, which is supposed to impress us and add weight to the selection. Unfortunately, too, Central England enjoys a climate that is anomalously warm for its latitude, being heavily influenced by the Gulf Stream and warmth brought in from the tropics. More importantly, it is only one location when we're talking about the entire globe -- the most favoritest cherry pick of all for skeptics citing temperatures. But this is all far too far off topic for as much time and words as I've put into it, so my apologies. I got carried away.
  44. 9 Months After McLean
    Sphaerica#27: "a salient, yet dull and empty, point." Fred's is indeed a very robust result, especially when something as straightforward as a five year moving average makes it go away. Skeptics are dedicated to scientifically robust results, aren't they?
  45. 9 Months After McLean
    Fred Staples - What a fantastic and illustrative cherry-pick! 1659 had the same temperature as 2010, a difference of 0C Hey, look, I can do it too: 1740 had a temperature of 6.84C, while 2006 had a CET temperature of 10.82C - a difference of 3.98C! Of course, neither Fred's difference of 0C or mine of ~4C is an accurate representation of a noisy signal. Going from 1800 (reasonable accuracy on the records) to 2010 using a 30 year moving average, I get a temperature increase of ~1C in the CET values. That's a reasonable, statistically supportable estimate, based on a sufficient amount of the (noisy) data. Fred - Thank you, you have clearly demonstrated the skeptic/denier tactic of cherry-picking (and the skeptic/denier willingness to do so) for anyone reading. It's always better to show a demonstration of such tactics rather than just describing them - and you have just provided that demonstration.
  46. 9 Months After McLean
    28, CBDunkerson, To elaborate on your points, Manley's paper is available here. From that paper:
    For the first six decades to 1720 the figures are printed in italics as an indication that they must be considered less reliable, based as they are on extrapolation from the results of readings of highly imperfect instruments in uncertain exposures at a considerable distance, generally in south-east England; or on estimates based on interpretations of daily observations of wind and weather. Until June 1666 and from October 1667 to October 1668 daily observations are largely lacking. Before 1671 instrumental readings are few.
  47. 9 Months After McLean
    I dug around for the source of the data JMurphy identified and it comes from a 1974 analysis by a G. Manley. Apparently he estimated monthly temperatures for the region from descriptions of snowfall, wind direction, et cetera in weather diaries and some early instrumental readings. So, not (as Fred claimed) "measured by thermometers"... which seemed fairly clear given that it pre-dated the invention of accurate thermometers.
  48. 9 Months After McLean
    21, Fred Staples, 26, JMurphy, JMurphy... you are correct, but the value is a mean, so of course it can be computed to any precision. Here is the actual data from the two years in question (note that all readings in 1659 were to a precision of just one degree, as well as the anomalously cold January and December in 2010): YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MEAN 1659 3.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 11.0 13.0 16.0 16.0 13.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 8.83 2010 1.4 2.8 6.1 8.8 10.7 15.2 17.1 15.3 13.8 10.3 5.2 -0.7 8.83 Here are the next ten years after 1659: 1660 0.0 4.0 6.0 9.0 11.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 13.0 10.0 6.0 5.0 9.08 1661 5.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 11.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 13.0 11.0 8.0 6.0 9.75 1662 5.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 11.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 13.0 11.0 6.0 3.0 9.50 1663 1.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 10.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 13.0 10.0 7.0 5.0 8.58 1664 4.0 5.0 5.0 8.0 11.0 15.0 16.0 16.0 13.0 9.0 6.0 4.0 9.33 1665 1.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 10.0 14.0 16.0 15.0 13.0 9.0 6.0 2.0 8.25 1666 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 11.0 15.0 18.0 17.0 14.0 11.0 6.0 3.0 9.83 1667 0.0 4.0 2.0 7.0 10.0 15.0 17.0 16.0 13.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 8.50 1668 5.0 5.0 5.0 8.0 10.0 14.0 16.0 16.0 14.0 10.0 6.0 5.0 9.50 1669 1.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 11.0 15.0 17.0 16.0 14.0 10.0 6.0 2.0 9.00 And the ten years before 2010: 2000 4.9 6.3 7.6 7.8 12.1 15.1 15.5 16.6 14.7 10.3 7.0 5.8 10.30 2001 3.2 4.4 5.2 7.7 12.6 14.3 17.2 16.8 13.4 13.3 7.5 3.6 9.93 2002 5.5 7.0 7.6 9.3 11.8 14.4 16.0 17.0 14.4 10.1 8.5 5.7 10.60 2003 4.5 3.9 7.5 9.6 12.1 16.1 17.6 18.3 14.3 9.2 8.1 4.8 10.50 2004 5.2 5.4 6.5 9.4 12.1 15.3 15.8 17.6 14.9 10.5 7.7 5.4 10.48 2005 6.0 4.3 7.2 8.9 11.4 15.5 16.9 16.2 15.2 13.1 6.2 4.4 10.44 2006 4.3 3.7 4.9 8.6 12.3 15.9 19.7 16.1 16.8 13.0 8.1 6.5 10.82 2007 7.0 5.8 7.2 11.2 11.9 15.1 15.2 15.4 13.8 10.9 7.3 4.9 10.48 2008 6.6 5.4 6.1 7.9 13.4 13.9 16.2 16.2 13.5 9.7 7.0 3.5 9.96 2009 3.0 4.1 7.0 10.0 12.1 14.8 16.1 16.6 14.2 11.6 8.7 3.1 10.11 So Fred et al succeeded in cherry picking one year of many that averages out conveniently to make a salient, yet dull and empty, point. Here is the daily updated graph from Hadley: Click on the image to link to the Hadley page, where you can download the actual data. It's a bit difficult to see the exact cherries the Fred selected as his equivalence points, particularly when they are masked by the clear and unambiguous rise in temperatures. Don't you just love "skeptics" and their games? Concerning the precision of those readings (8.83C, precisely), from Wikipedia:
    The earliest years of the series, from 1659 to October 1722 inclusive, for the most part only have monthly means given to the nearest degree or half a degree, though there is a small 'window' of 0.1 degree precision from 1699 to 1706 inclusive.
  49. 9 Months After McLean
    The 8.83 C figure comes from the 'Monthly_HadCET_mean.txt (1659 on)' data available here. But it has been mentioned on WUWT, which reckoned that the Met Office were trying to hide the decline, so to speak - of course, it's the usual WUWT rubbish but it's amazing what some people will accept and post on SkS...
  50. Bad, Badder, BEST
    Sinclair's tone is actually fine; what he uses are insulting words, not insulting tone. On paper his dialogue would seem to be abrasive, and it is, but what you say in a debate matters so little compared to how you say it. The benefit of his videos is that the scientific material is there, and the research is there - it doesn't detract from the persuasiveness or quality of his videos that he calls people "Junior Woodchucks" or such. Frankly some people deserve the ridicule. As to SkS v. Sinclair, I again say that on paper, as we operate, he would seem inappropriately abrasive. It's simply a different dynamic when you can talk to people.

Prev  1427  1428  1429  1430  1431  1432  1433  1434  1435  1436  1437  1438  1439  1440  1441  1442  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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