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  1449  1450  1451  1452  1453  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  Next

Comments 72801 to 72850:

  1. Clouds Over Peer Review
    Problems with peer reviewed publication, in science and medicine, were pointed out as long ago as 2003. This article is well worth re-reading: Peer trouble How failsafe is our current system at ensuring the quality and integrity of research? Not very, says John Crace The Guardian Tuesday 11 February 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/feb/11/highereducation.research The solution of on-line open peer review seems to answer the problem. European Geosciences Union (EGU), sister organisation to American Geophysical Union (AGU), has brought out a whole series of online publications; EGU Open Access Journals http://www.egu.eu/publications/open-access-journals.html Papers are published online along with editor-appointed-peer reviews, either anonymous or open. An online open review takes place with input from qualified scientists. Authors answer the comments and may modify papers accordingly. Finally the paper is either rejected or published in final version online and in print with copies to permanent archives. This appears to me the best possible way to conduct scientific research. It ensures qualified people conduct the review process and findings can be refined down to a widely accepted version. Criticisms can be answered before the final publication. It seems there is little scope for plagiarism or pseudo science. Moreover, the results of timely research can reach a global audience rapidly. Hopefully this can mark the end of the specially invented pseudo scientific publications intended to mislead the gullible. It appears to be the scientists' own Skeptical Science peer review publication system.
  2. Understanding climate denial
    "It is perfecly reasonable to include sea levels and ice caps in the discussion as the consequences of anthropogenic climate change are relevant to any policy decisions, so it is vital to have the science right on the likely consequences as well as the causes." I would agree with that. But you need to be sure that it is done that way round, that is to say as consequences of climate change. It is not satisfactory to say eg that rising sea levels demonstrate that the world is warming still less that they demonstrate that the world is warming as a result of mankind.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] "It is not satisfactory to say eg that rising sea levels demonstrate that the world is warming still less that they demonstrate that the world is warming as a result of mankind."

    Without more to go by, you give us hand-waving.  Unfortunately, this is redolent with denial.  Please see my response to your previous comment.

    [Dikran Marsupial] As requested, please take the discussion of specific scientific topics to a more appropriate thread. As I pointed out, the evidece that the observed warming is substantially anthropogenic in origin is pretty well established, see the multiple lines of evidence in the article I mentioned in my previous comment.
  3. Understanding climate denial
    correction to my #192 - I meant the expansion rate of the Universe rather than the distances through redshift - oops! Distances are measured through Type 1A supernovae, known as such due to their spectral characteristics.
  4. Understanding climate denial
    elsa, you really need to look at the link in Dikran's response to you. You claim the evidence for AGW is based on models, yet it is not. There is a wealth of observation you appear not to be seeing. For just one example, you are ignoring the changes in longwave radiation escaping Earth or returning to the surface that are measured, and just so happen to be at specific absorbtion wavelengths for CO2. Different molecules absorb and re-emit radiation at very specific different frequencies - this is the foundation stone of modern astronomy (spectroscopy) among other things, without which we would not know such things as the composition of stars or the distances to galaxies (through redshifting of specific wavelengths of radiation). The relationship between CO2 and longwave IR was first experimentally observed in the 19th Century! You do know that you yourself can conduct a CO2 experiment with a couple of bottles, a couple of thermometers and a source of CO2?
  5. Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
    Adam Gallon @3 links us to this carefully selected graph: Carefully selected, of course because he has carefully dropped of 60 years of data: Carefully selected also, because it wouldn't do for us to look at the wrong station data. And it certainly wouldn't pay to look at the Greenland ice sheet temperatures rather than one carefully selected location:
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed image.

  6. Understanding climate denial
    DSL You say "climate modeling is an attempt to forecast climate based on a sound physical model and probable conditions." I don't really understand what you mean by "a sound physical model". As far as I know we have no knowledge outside the models themselves of the relationship between eg CO2 and temperature. We are not given the information by physics that we could then test. What we have is information obtained by measurements about temperature and CO2 which we then fit together in a model. But the logic here is circular. Of course the data will fit because we have made it do so! Where the relationship between the two variables does not hold we add in something else to ensure that it continues to do so. This is quite the reverse of Sir Richard Doll's work. When he started out he had no preconceptions about what was causing the rise in lung cancer rates. His initial hunch was that the tarmacing of roads was the problem. Only after his work did he come up with the smoking/cancer relationship. In my view this is the flaw in the warmist argument. The "scientific" evidence for AGW is completely lacking because it is dependant on the models, which are not really scientific at all, although by using maths and complex jargon they give a sophisticated impression. Until the warmists are able to come up with falsifiable propositions a truly scientific consensus cannot come about.
    Response:

    [DB]  "The "scientific" evidence for AGW is completely lacking because it is dependant on the models, which are not really scientific at all, although by using maths and complex jargon they give a sophisticated impression."

    It is indeed hard to take you seriously when you make statements like this.  The "evidence" is largely empirical, consisting of things we can see and measure in our world.  Multiple, independent lines of consilient evidence exist, all fully consistent with the radiative physics of CO2:

    F1

    Your comments reveal a fundamental lack of knowledge (which is no slam, as we all start somewhere), so let's start at the beginning:  Welcome to Skeptical Science! 

    There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions.  That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.

    I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.

    Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is).  If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.

    All pages are live at SkS; many may be currently inactive, however.  Posting a question or comment on any will not be missed as regulars here follow the Recent Comments threads, which allows them to see every new comment that gets posted here.

    Comments primarily dealing with ideologies are frowned upon here.  SkS is on online climate science Forum in which participants can freely discuss the science of climate change and the myths promulgated by those seeking to dissemble.  All science is presented in context with links to primary sources so that the active, engaging mind can review any claims made.

    Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.

    As for models, perhaps start with the Models are unreliable page.

  7. Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
    You're right Arkadiusz Semczyszak, always stick to the science, as is done in this post. I'll never give up repeating this mantra.
  8. Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
    Adam Gallon I'd suggest to widen your view to a larger portion instead of a single location, the picture may be completely different. As an example, take a look at Tamino's take.
  9. SkS Weekly Digest #19
    The toon doesn't show in IE9 in either page. In Chrome on the toon on the home page I right-click 'inspect element' and expand the 'Computed Style'. That shows a height of 2487px, where it gets this 'computed style height' from is beyond my ken.
  10. Understanding climate denial
    I don't think I suggested that consensus advances science so my apologies if I gave that impression. The smoking consensus was not raised by me it was raised in the article. The HIV/AIDS point seems to me no comparison at all. We can test the HIV/AIDS theory. If for example we found an AIDS patient without the HIV we could demonstrate the theory to be wrong. Mr Mbeki has, so far as I know, no qualifications at all in this area. If I did not think that the HIV explanation was a very good one I would be interested to hear his alternative, but as it is I have no great inclination to seek out what is almost certainly a load of rubbish. I do not understand why you say the data that supports AGW is overwhelming "without any model data at all". I agree that there is good evidence that the world has become a bit warmer in recent years. How you manage to attribute that to specific causes is the question. The data you refer to is all indicative of warming but nothing more. It does not establish a link between CO2 and the recent rise in temperature. Nor do I really understand why if you perceive the science to be about temperature and mankind you then talk about ice, sea levels etc. These could change for other reasons. I would have thought if you were interested in the science it would be better just to stick to temperature and not confuse the issue.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] There are many lines of evidence that are finger prints of anthropogenic climate change that are independent of the models, for instance a cooling stratosphere. There is certainly rather more than merely "good evidence that the world has become a bit warmer in recent years." If you wish to discuss how warming can be attributed to anthropogenic causes, then I'm sure that there are many here who would be happy to join you in such a discussion, but it is heading off-topic for this thread, the one I linked to above would be more appropriate. It is perfecly reasonable to include sea levels and ice caps in the discussion as the consequences of anthropogenic climate change are relevant to any policy decisions, so it is vital to have the science right on the likely consequences as well as the causes.
  11. Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
    And the question is, if this iceloss is genuine, why's it happening? Not due to warming. http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ScreenHunter_39-Oct.-10-22.03.jpg Temps at Nuuk have been steadily declining over the past 80 years.
    Response:

    [DB] See Tom's response to you below.

  12. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Dr Pielke @22: 1) The IPCC AR4 writes:
    "The simple formulae for RF of the LLGHG quoted in Ramaswamy et al. (2001) are still valid. These formulae are based on global RF calculations where clouds, stratospheric adjustment and solar absorption are included, and give an RF of +3.7 W m–2 for a doubling in the CO2 mixing ratio. (The formula used for the CO2 RF calculation in this chapter is the IPCC (1990) expression as revised in the TAR."
    (My emphasis) Referring back to the IPCC TAR, we find the adjustment to the simple formula was due to the work of Myhre et al, 1998, which in turn depends on intermodel comparisons performed in Myhre and Stordal, 1997 (hereafter, M&S97). In M&S97, Myhre and Stordal perform a detailed series of comparisons between LBL models and a Broad Band Model used at various resolutions. The most detailed resolution used a 2.50x2.50 grid. The coarsest used a global mean climatology. M&S97 explicitly state that:
    "Overlap is considered between gases that absorb in the same spectral region."
    They go on to describe how the overlap is handled. As the 2.50x2.50 is global in extent, it necessarily includes the highly humid tropics, and more significantly the very cool polar regions. Later M&S97 compare the 2.50x2.50 model to a 100x100, a 2.50 zonal mean model, a 100 zonal mean model, and a global mean climatology model. The difference in forcing between each of these models is less than 1% in all cases. Further on they explicitly compare CO2 radiative forcing with altitude for Tropical, Mid-Latitude Summer, and Sub-Arctic Winter conditions using both the LBL and Broadband model. The Tropical and Mid-Latitude Summer forcings are scarely distinguishable, with the MLS forcing being slightly stronger. The SAW forcing is considerably weaker than either the TROP or MLS forcing. Of course, as the formula is based on a full global comparison, that is of no consequence to the final figure. 2) With regard to whether the IPCC AR4 quotes transient forcings in a given year, or the forcing relative to preindustrial levels, I refer you to this chart: Note the charts heading. For greater clarity, the caption reads:
    "FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. All these radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or natural processes as discussed in the text. The values represent the forcings in 2005 relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). Human activities cause significant changes in long-lived gases, ozone, water vapour, surface albedo, aerosols and contrails. The only increase in natural forcing of any significance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance. Positive forcings lead to warming of climate and negative forcings lead to a cooling. The thin black line attached to each coloured bar represents the range of uncertainty for the respective value. (Figure adapted from Figure 2.20 of this report.)"
    (My emphasis) Lest there be any doubt, based on a pixel count the chart shows a CO2 radiative forcing of 1.67 W/m^2, in agreement with the text. As to what difference this makes, not a great deal. Never-the-less, you brought the question up. You have blogged on the issue at least twice, and have claimed repeatedly that the CO2 radiative forcing is over-estimated when you have in fact been under estimating it. And you have presented your significant underestimate based on your back of an envelope calculation in a talk to a scientific conference. I would have thought that, given the circumstances, professional pride alone would make you wish to correct those errors with alacrity.
  13. SkS Weekly Digest #19
    BTW, on the main page, the toon gets stretched out to several screen's worth of height for me, using Chrome. Not sure what's going on there - it looks fine on this page.
  14. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Dr. Pielke writes: >>Lets move on. ... >>I also have emphasized that it is not an important issue. It strikes me that you again want to change the conversation when others dispute your claims. The difference between 20% and 50% is quite large, and you in fact brought up this figure to prove your point. You end your posting by saying you will ask more questions, but what are the use of you raising questions, when you simply won't stand for any in depth debate in trying to answer these questions, but want to change the subject each time?
  15. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Dr. Pielke writes: >>Where has SkS positively recognized his finding on a larger natural influence, even if you (and I) disagree with Roy that the warming was mostly natural? His basic idea is sound and a significant scientific advancement. It seems you are presenting a moving target argument here. In post 11, you write "this is one reason I recommend you focus on science and not Roy's policy/political statements." When it is pointed out that SkS did review Spencer's work, you move the target to claim that SkS must do so in a positive way. More importantly, Spencer's basic idea is hardly sound and significant, which is why SkS has not reviewed it "positively." However, Roy Spencer is hardly the topic of this thread. If you think that Spencer in any way undermines the post by SkS, could you please cite his specific works in specific ways? That would be helpful to clarifying the "the contribution of CO2 to the net positive anthropogenic radiative forcing," the topic of this discussion.
  16. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Tom Curtis - I presented a summary of why I have concluded ~50% is too high. I also have emphasized that it is not an important issue. Part of the difference is that, as reported in http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1 the contribution due to CO2 has increased 20% just between 1995 to 2005; i.e. "....In the decade 1995 to 2005, the RF due to CO2 increased by about 0.28 W m–2 (20%), an increase greater than that calculated for any decade since at least 1800...." However, in looking through this chapter, I do not see where they considered the water vapor overlap. This would lower the fraction. They also write "Using the global average value of 379 ppm for atmospheric CO2 in 2005 gives an RF of 1.66 ± 0.17 W m–2; a contribution that dominates that of all other forcing agents considered in this chapter." so they do explicitly state that this forcing was for 2005 not the difference from pre-industrial. Also, where is the water vapor/CO2 overlap considered? This would be in the models, but I do not see this evaluation in the IPCC chapter and in the SPM figure. I am hoping someone at SkS can clarify. At a more fundamental level, what difference does it make if it is 25% or 50%? My interpretation of the published papers came up with a smaller fraction. SkS and the IPCC have a larger fraction. Would you propose different policy if it were a lower fraction? It will be increasing in the future in any case. The fraction make no difference in the modeling since it is part of their calculations. Each of the approaches presented so far on SkS and in the IPCC, as well as my back-of-the-envelope list, to estimate these values are inadequate. I have proposed a way to better assess these numbers, but have had no feedback on that so far from SkS. I have also asked a number of other questions and will have more on my weblog tomorrow.
  17. Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    Eric (Skeptic) @54: The first diagram comes from Royer et al, 2007, and the second from Royer 2008. I find your explanation of the seasonal migration of the Hadley cell and Ferrel cells, and consequently the of the jet streams dubious. Specifically, it is well known that the inter tropical convergence zone follows the sun, and the Hadley cells and Ferrel cells follow the ITCZ. Additional explanation in terms of "temperature contrast" seems unnecessary. It is also well known that the Hadley cells specifically, have expanded in size with increasing global temperature. This is particularly noticable in South West Western Australia. The Westerlies formed by the returning surface winds of the Ferrel Cell are the major source of winter rainfall in southern Western Australia. During winter, the migration of the Ferrel cell brings the westerlies and the rain they bring north to Perth's latitude. During summer they pass south of the continent. Further north the land lies under the dry, returning air of the Hadley cell, and is arid through out the year. Hence West Australia's characteristic rainfall pattern: As previously mentioned, increased temperature expands the Hadley cell, pushing the Ferrel cell and the rain bringing westerlies further south. As a result, they do not come sufficiently north in winter, resulting in dry winters for southern Western Australia: This can be seen to be an effect of the changing size of the Hadley cell because summer rainfall has not been effected: This same trend is probably a significant cause of the repeated droughts in recent years in southern Africa. Turning to the ice age weather effects, you have provided no reason to think the effects are not responsive to temperature. Taking the Sub Tropical Front, the relevant effect on climate is its position relative to the Cape of Good Hope. If it is north of that latitude, the STF, it acts as a barrier to warm water flowing from the Indian Ocean into the Atlantic. Below that latitude, and it presents no barrier. There is nothing in this which prevents its position from being determined by temperature, and hence its being a feedback on temperature. The effect provides a distinct "tipping point", but that in no way obviates its status as a feedback. Similar warming "tipping points" have been postulated in the current circumstances, and while they do mean temperature increases may not by even with increasing CO2, they do not change the basic calculations of climate sensitivity.
    Response:

    [DB] Replaced links to dynamic remote-hosted graphs to static locally-hosted graphs.

  18. Weather vs Climate
    Eric#123: "weather responds to cyclical changes in forcing, diurnal and seasonal being obvious and ENSO being less cyclical and less obvious." Agreed. But your contention was, if I understand correctly, that weather changes are both 'semi-permanent' and a forcing for climate change. Maybe this is a semantic question, but how are seasonal cycles 'semi-permanent'? And how can cycles, which are in response to energy imbalances, be considered 'forcings'? Do you consider ENSO a forcing? If la Nina is a cause for the Texas/New Mexico/Mexico drought, are we now in a 'semi-permanent' drought?
  19. Weather vs Climate
    Eric (skeptic) - "The distinction between weather and climate relevant to global warming is the what affects the mean flow of energy at TOA on a global basis." Please do not forget that changes induced by temperature shifts are feedbacks, not forcings. If long term weather patterns change due to temperature shifts, and (a second step, requiring some evidence) change TOA imbalance, they are feedbacks, part of the climate sensitivity. Which again is estimated by looking at initiating radiative imbalance and the resulting temperature changes, roughly 3-3.5C/doubling of CO2, or 3-3.5C for 3.7 W/m^2 forcing imbalance.
  20. Eric (skeptic) at 13:07 PM on 11 October 2011
    Weather vs Climate
    Muoncounter, thanks for the invitation. The distinction between weather and climate relevant to global warming is the what affects the mean flow of energy at TOA on a global basis. The current change in CO2 forcing and the forcings in this graph: /news.php?n=1025#64969 change the climate. OTOH weather responds to cyclical changes in forcing, diurnal and seasonal being obvious and ENSO being less cyclical and less obvious. The current southward movement of the polar jet is purely weather because it will move back north next spring. If it does indeed move further north in the summer that would be a climate effect of AGW. I do not believe that is yet evident. One of the numerous climate effect of the ice sheets is a southward movement of the polar jets in the NH and northward movement in the SH. This causes various changes in weather which result in permanent (or semi-permanent) changes in the mean flow of energy at TOA. The specific one in the paper I linked here /news.php?p=1&t=55&&n=1025#64963 was that the poleward movement of the polar jet was a large factor in the transition from glacial to interglacial, IOW weather change causes climate change. Editorial note: I agree I should not gum up the Pielke thread debating weather versus climate or forcing versus feedback. However there are points Pielke made that are not being directly addressed, namely his contention that the glacial climate regime (read weather regime) is very different (result is net cooling); and his other contention that the global average temperature (as shown in the diagram (first link above) is skewed by the increase in elevation due to the ice sheets. Each point should be clarified and addressed. His writings may sometimes contain different usages of terms, so I was also trying to clarify terminology with my posts (and I may or may not have been correct).
    Response:

    [DB] Dr. Pielke's points are noted and will be addressed.

  21. Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    Eric#54: "The effects of weather changes are semi-permanent and not negligible. " I wonder if you would care to explain this statement in terms more substantive than the example you cite here. To avoid interrupting the flow of dialogue with Dr. Pielke, perhaps the thread 'Weather vs Climate' would be appropriate for this sidebar.
  22. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    How much of the non-CO2 forcing is nevertheless still related to fossil fuels?
  23. Eric (skeptic) at 11:45 AM on 11 October 2011
    Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    Tom, thanks for your explanation. The effects of weather changes are semi-permanent and not negligible. The effects are manifested in two modes: glacial and interglacial; there is a "cooler weather" effect for the former and "warmer weather" for the latter. Our current NH example is the polar jet starting to migrate south for the winter, but that is not due to average temperature but increased temperature contrast in the NH. When the weather changes in the glacial it is similarly not due to GAT or similar metric. Since it is a response to some original change it is technically a feedback, however, it is not a response to a forcing such as CO2, but rather to a geographic (ice sheet and ocean ice) change. The other Pielke thread had a great argument quoted by Albatross: "Because BC forcing results in a vertical redistribution of the solar forcing, a simple scaling of the forcing with the CO2 doubling climate sensitivity parameter may not be appropriate"." The point here is that the forcings pointed out in post 48 are much more different from CO2 than BC is from CO2 and cannot be simply scaled with a CO2 doubling forcing. Please send a reference for " As it happens, climate sensitivity has been tested across the range of phanerozoic distributions of continents and climate conditions and resulted in very similar values" I am very interested in what kind of model they used.
  24. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Dr Pielke, thankyou for the clarification @18. While disagreeing with Albatross's apparent imputation that more recent papers automatically trump earlier papers, never-the-less it seems intemperate to dismiss the Skeie et al values as unreasonable. Given that they are reasonable values, and that the contribution of CO2 to the anthropogenic forcing using Skeie et al values is 48.2%, I do not believe your claim that "the fraction is clearly well less than 50% using reasonable values" is justified. If you disagree that the Skeie et al values are reasonable, perhaps you would have the courtesy to explain why rather than simply dismissing them from the range of "reasonable values".
  25. Pete Dunkelberg at 11:16 AM on 11 October 2011
    Hockey sticks, 'unprecedented warming' and past climate change
    One more Hockey Stick: The climate of North America during the past 2,000 years reconstructed from pollen data A.E. Viau, M. Ladd, K. Gajewski 2011 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001500 Highlights ► We use 748 pollen records from across North America to reconstruct the climatic conditions during the past 2,000 years ► Temperatures during both the Medieval Period (MWP; 650-1050 AD) and the subsequent Little Ice Age (LIA; 1550-1850 AD) appear cooler than the past few decades ► The climate during Medieval times was warmer than the LIA across North America ► Results can be interpreted as due to a poleward shift in the position of Subtropical High Pressure Cells in summer during the MWP ===== With so many records this paper may show the advanced and retreat of the aforementioned Subtropical High Pressure Cells during the MWP. That would be a nice addition to the Hockey literature.
  26. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    NewYorkJ - In the comments on my earlier posts on SkS, there were quite a few comments on his politics. Where has SkS positively recognized his finding on a larger natural influence, even if you (and I) disagree with Roy that the warming was mostly natural? His basic idea is sound and a significant scientific advancement.
  27. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Tom Curtis - The 0.2 Watts per meter squared is for the two indirect aerosol effects that are reported on in the 2005 NRC report. This is an estimate based on them being positive. There is clearly an uncertainty on their value but the report concluded they were positive. New research remains unclear on their magnitude.
  28. Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    Eric (skeptic) @51, the supposition that weather should be considered as a forcing rather than a feedback presumes that the weather does not respond sensitively to changes in global mean surface temperature. This is not true, for example, of the southern Sub Tropical Front (mentioned by you in 47). The Sub Tropical Front is at least partly driven by the presence of strong westerlies in the latitudes south of Australia and Africa. The location of those westerlies are known to be sensitive to global mean temperature, moving south as climate warms, and north as climate cools - behaviour mimicked by the STF. The sensitivity of the STF's location to temperature is also shown by the fact that its location varies with season. The same is also true of the location of the Jet Streams, whose position is primarily determined by the location of the boundaries between Hadley Cells, Ferrel cells and Polar Cells (see diagram below). Although there location is influenced by geographical barriers such as the Himalayas, the global circulation is their primary determinant, and that circulation is determined by the GMST. As temperatures rise, Hadley cell becomes large, pushing the jet streams further from the tropics. As it cools, the Hadley cell shrinks bringing the jet streams closer to the tropics. In both cases, because the "weather" effect is temperature sensitive, it is properly treated as a feedback. Treating these weather effects as feedbacks rather than as semi-permanent geographical features allows the issue to be stated this way: "Measuring temperature and forcing differences between glacial and interglacial will not determine current climate sensitivity because climate sensitivity varies greatly with different temperatures and geographical arrangement." So, stated, the claim is obviously open to empirical testing. As it happens, climate sensitivity has been tested across the range of phanerozoic distributions of continents and climate conditions and resulted in very similar values: While it is true that changes in ice albedo will have far less effect now than during the LGM, Hansen determined the climate sensitivity for green house gases independent of that for albedo, so that determination is not effected by that difference. Further, current conditions are more susceptible to the water vapour feedback than at the LGM.
    Response:

    [DB] Upgraded the image quality on Royer Figure 1.

  29. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Albatross - The values I present were given to show reasonable deductions from the IPCC value and that of Skeie 2011. I do not know the precise value (and neither does anyone) but the fraction is clearly well less than 50% using reasonable values. In terms of the statement "a simple scaling of the forcing with the CO2 doubling climate sensitivity parameter may not be appropriate". this applies to the entire question on the fraction of positive radiative forcing between 1750 and currently. Lets move on.
  30. Philippe Chantreau at 10:54 AM on 11 October 2011
    Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    SkS has done a pretty comprehensive overview of Dr Spencer's contribution. However, he also authored numerous other pieces, opinions or statements that are commonly used to justify skepticism. It is entirely wihin the scope of SkS' stated vocation to examine these other productions of his and see how they compare with the existing science, including his own. As far as I have read, that is what has been done on SkS. I would like to remind readers that the purpose of SkS is not to assess the state of the science and identify areas of greater or lower uncertainty, or recommend avenues for further research. Not that such questions should not be given attention here. Ideally, it would be possible to indeed focus only on true, interesting scientific problems. However, SkS was created in response to the tremendous effort of disinformation and propaganda that this particular area of science has unfortunately experienced. The purpose of SkS is to examine common claims put forth by self proclaimed skeptics who doubt all or part of well accepted conclusions reached by mainstream climate science. These claims are examined and weighed in regard to what the published science reveals to date on the subject. In that sense, all skeptic claims are fair game to SkS, whether they can be labeled as "policy/political statements" and regardless of their source.
  31. Understanding climate denial
    Elsa, Consensus is what is left when the data is clear. The consensus does not advance the science, the science advances to form the consensus. You provided smoking as an example of consensus in science, not me. I provided a climate denier that challenged your view expressed here. He is as wrong about smoking as he is about climate change. 3 seconds on Google yields "Thabo Mbeki invited several HIV/AIDS denialist" these people have credentials as strong as the AGW deniers you refer to. The proponents of dark matter say the challenge to gravity is too great to be considered, not a small adjustment see here for example. These are specific challenges to show that your examples of scientific consensus are not completely accepted as you claimed. The deniers of climate change are just louder and better financed than the other examples I cited. My point about models is that the data that supports AGW is overwhelming without any model data at all. If you look beyond the denier arguments about models you will see that is the case. The paleo data alone is enough to show we are in big trouble, not to mention rising sea levels, retreating ice, increasing drought (and floods), and record temperatures.
  32. Eric (skeptic) at 10:33 AM on 11 October 2011
    Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    Skywatcher, you said "Why and how this change [in atmospheric jets and ocean currents] causes a threefold increase in sensitivity (and not a decrease) has not been specified, and is presently speculation." Allow me to clarify one fact: weather can be forcing or feedback because the energy lost or gained at TOA can depend on weather. Ocean currents are not a factor at TOA, but do greatly influence weather. The weather causes the loss or gain of energy which amplifies the cooling or warming from the other long term forcings. Some weather changes can be considered forcings because the glacial weather conditions are different from interglacial with different energy losses (cloud albedo, meridional flow and energy transfer, water cycle, etc)
  33. Eric (skeptic) at 10:23 AM on 11 October 2011
    Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    Regarding the graphic #48, do you believe that the change in weather from interglacial to glacial has no forcing effect (i.e. weather is defined as feedback only)? A small (negligible) forcing effect)? Dr Pielke pointed out that the equatorward displacement of the polar jet would be one such weather change (a positive forcing for the interglacial transition as pointed out in the paper I linked in #47). The cloud albedo would be different as well (with likely fewer clouds overall). The static diagram also does not explain the hysteresis (the forcing is not sufficient, feedback is required).
  34. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Dr. Pielke: this is one reason I recommend you focus on science and not Roy's policy/political statements; I find that recommendation especially puzzling, as overwhelmingly, SkS focuses on Roy Spencer's claims on the science. Spencer Slip Ups Now perhaps you are asserting that statements such as "warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning" are political in nature, in that they don't follow from any robust scientific analysis.
  35. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Tom @12, Dr. Pielke says "I calculate that CO2 is ~40% for the anthropogenic positive radiative forcing." First, that value is still significantly higher than the original (and erroneous) claim of 26.5% that he has made on his blog, here and elsewhere in public. Second, Skeie et al. (2011) supersedes Ramanathan and Carmichael (2008), and represents our current level of understanding. Science moves on. Third, from Ramanathan and Carmichael (2008): "The TOA BC forcing implies that BC has a surface warming effect of about 0.5 to 1 °C, where we have assumed a climate sensitivity of 2 to 4 ºC for a doubling of CO2. Because BC forcing results in a vertical redistribution of the solar forcing, a simple scaling of the forcing with the CO2 doubling climate sensitivity parameter may not be appropriate". So they concede that their method may not be appropriate, or does Dr. Pielke wish us to forget/neglect this important caveat from their paper which he chose to cite?
  36. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Dr. Pielke, if you had read SkS' posts, you would realize we have examined Dr. Spencer's scientific research quite extensively. However, this calculation is essentially based on two factors - transient climate sensitivity, and the CO2/net anthropogenic forcings. Internal variability does not factor into the calculation of how much warming these forcings have caused. I agree, the aerosol forcing in particular represents a significant uncertainty. That's why we have been very explicit that we're stictly looking at the best estimates of these forcings. However, the CO2 forcing is very well-known, and we provided a 90% confidence range on the transient climate sensitivity parameter. Surely you can thus at least agree that CO2 has caused a 0.64 to 1.28°C (with a best estimate of 0.79°C) warming of average global surface temperature over the past century?
  37. Understanding climate denial
    "I find that the more I look at the models the less I am impressed by them. " Exactly how are you looking at models? Studying the code? Comparing prediction to observations on the time scales of model skill? Or what?
  38. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    Dr Pielke @4, where you say:
    "If we use the 0.9 Watts per meter squared value for the black carbon that you present,from the Ramanathan and Carmichael (2008) values and the 0.2 Watts per meter squared as reasonable estimates based on the NRC (2005) report, which is still an accurate summary of our limited knowledge of this forcing, I calculate that CO2 is ~40% for the anthropogenic positive radiative forcing. This accepts the values for ozone that are listed in your table."
    does the 0.2 W/m^2 refer to aerosol effects, of some other forcing?
  39. Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    Eric and Dr Pielke, you're arguing there is a large increase in climate sensitivity as you go from interglacial to glacial conditions. The only suggested mechanism is that the large continental ice sheets, with their ~100m worth of sea level locked up inside them, divert atmospheric pressure systems and oceanic currents due to the change in terrestrial and marine topography. Why and how this change causes a threefold increase in sensitivity (and not a decrease) has not been specified, and is presently speculation. The trouble is, how do you get there from an interglacial world in which there is low climate sensitivity? The interglacial world has not got the large mid-latitude ice sheets, or the lowered sea level to alter ocean currents, and the orbital forcing is too small to initiate glaciation if your climate sensitivity value is low. You need the high climate sensitivity to turn a low insolation around 65N into ice sheets via increased snowcover and drawdown of CO2. Without the high climate sensitivity, the forcing is insufficient and the ice sheets do not form in the first place, and the oceans remain full of water. Do you see the circularity?
  40. Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    Dana @48, You beat me to it. And here is another reminder from another scientist, this time from Dr. Marci Robinson (US Geological Survey): "Yes, uniformitarianism is often defined to mean that the present is the key to the past. But we might be wise to remember another accurate description: The past is a key to understanding the future". Oddly, many "skeptical" scientists continue to ignore or dismiss the paleo record (the past) and seem to have no interest in learning anything from it, unless perhaps it appears to support a low climate sensitivity.
  41. Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates
    dana1981 - We know too little about the role of natural variations in the radiative forcing in the last century to know with such precision how much of that warming is from anthropogenic effects. This is based, in part, on the research and comments of Roy Spencer, Judy Curry, Judith Lean and others. [this is one reason I recommend you focus on science and not Roy's policy/political statements; he has added important new insight into the role of natural forcings including solar and internal multi-year variability]. Even with the anthropogenic forcings, we do not know what the actual aerosol and land use/land cover changes have contributed, relative to the radiative effect of added CO2, with respect to the observed surface temperature trends. There is also the issue of siting quality for the land portion of the surface temperature data. I agree that human's have significantly affected the annual average surface temperature trends, but, in my view, the issue as you present above inadequately considers all of the issues. Thus, I suggest we move on. I do not find this an important issue, but would be open to you explaining why it is. It seems to me that knowing the current forcings is much more relevant. P.S. I would like you to tell us if the water vapor/CO2 overlap was considered in your calculation. I do not see any problem in your calculation, if your numbers are used. We disagree with the values, however, as I wrote in my response.
  42. Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
    No money buys you an echo chamber where you hear what you want to hear. Yes, many in the fossil fuel industries are trying to cause consusion over climate change. But first they are confusing themselves. And it is not just profits. It is their sense of vocation, their belief that they are doing something beneficial to their societies that is threatened.
  43. Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    A reminder from Hansen and Sato 2011:
  44. Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
    DSL#53: "Gilligan's Island is a powerful commentary" Recall that GI included 'The Professor' among the castaways and the others did not blame him for their misfortune. A more modern version of this would have him 'voted off the island.' But the common theme to the bullet points in this post is not fear of technology, it is money talks.
  45. Understanding climate denial
    elsa, what is a "warmist" and who do you believe are the "warmists" who have "commented here" ?
  46. Understanding climate denial
    Michael Sweet: you say Dr. Lindzen says there is no link between smoking and cancer. I have not seen his views on this but I would have some sympathy. There is no causal explanation established (contrary actually to the CO2 warming theory where there is) between smoking and lung cancer although there is a high degree of correlation within one country between the two (it falls down when you try it across many countries I believe). You say past Presidents of South Africa denied that HIV caused AIDS. Actually I think it is one and I am not aware that he has any scientific credentials. No scientist has ever suggested this. You also say "Gravity theory has been challenged in the last few decades." I think the theory has been challenged by refinements to the basic theory, which is what happens if science is to advance. You say "All science advances by consensus." I could not disagree more and luckily I see I am not alone in this view in this blog, there are plenty of warmists who have commented here who understand that science advances from testing competing points of view, not consensus. If you need more help in this area I would be happy to explain it to you in more detail. Next you say "How much of this site is dedicated to modeling? Learn more about the data that supports climate science and you will lament models less." I find that the more I look at the models the less I am impressed by them.
  47. Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
    @Lou: the graph's caption clearly states that it is based off of the average ice mass over the period 2002-2011. And yes I think you are correct regarding the expectation of cyclical patterns. It would also be incorrect to linearly connect the dots if they were not all based off of the same baseline.
  48. Eric (skeptic) at 08:46 AM on 11 October 2011
    Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    The glacial to interglacial temperature change is around 10C for a 50% increase in CO2, so the primary cause of the change s the ice albedo feedbacks as Tom pointed out above. So indeed it is true that "ice sheets formed due to the presence of ice sheets" and likewise melt due to the melting of ice sheets. Of course geography matters but mostly to the minimum and maximum states. One of the largest changes apart from ice albedo is weather. Here is one example: http://cci.siteturbine.com/uploaded_files/climatechange.umaine.edu/files/dentonTerminationsSci10-1.pdf: "Southward movement of the STF was a contributing factor for the large amplitude and rapid rise of temperatures during HS1 and the YDS within the region between 35°S and 45°S" which then caused glacier retreat. There is no way to tease out a 3C per doubling CO2 from a 10C per 50% rise in CO2 without a model and parameterized (i.e. not modeled) weather.
  49. Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
    Reading your comments, both from the US and Australia, maybe my over-simplistic idea of the prevailing self-interest value is just part of the picture. Indeed, you showed that in many instances it did not prevail. This is not unique to the US, though, be sure that it applies to single european countries and to the whole European Union as well. Yet, at least when dealing with global problems the balance seems to be shifted more on the global interest side. Americans, and australians as Stevo suggests, seem to be more torn apart between the two opposites as if they can't find their preferred balance. We may add that the crisis started a couple of decades ago, when the USA political and economic leadrship started to decline and which, like any crisis, tend to make people or nations try protect themselves from the outside world. This translates, as muoncounter says, in not being able to take the necessary steps. I'm trying to understand how come that a great nation decide to turn its back to the world and steadly point backward. We know from history that great civilizations may and do collapse; if a society denies the very existence of a problem it won't be able to solve it for sure. I am optimistic, though. I belive that the american people are able to show a strong will once they face the unavoidable conclusion. In some sense, the climate Pearl Harbour didn't arrive yet and this is what we're here for, avoid another (worse) Pearl Harbour.
  50. Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
    Agreed, dhogaza--on both comments--though I'd add that for me it was the idea of unions-as-progressive that was deflating. One more note for muon: let's not forget the contradiction in the social response to technology in the last sixty years. There was a great deal of fear of technology and science, expressed in thousands of SF movies and novels. I've always thought that Gilligan's Island is a powerful commentary on the response to the modern world. Anyway . . .

Prev  1449  1450  1451  1452  1453  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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