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  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  Next

Comments 73201 to 73250:

  1. Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
    OK Bob, Since the average Canadian spends 90% annually on heating costs, and 10% on colling, lets arbitrarily assign $900 to heating and $100 to cooling. Let us say that this winter will be milder than average, such that the average Canadian saves 10% on heating; that equates to $90. Let us also suppose that the summer is hotter, and he spends that same $90 on cooling. The 10% wintertime decrease equals a 90% (almost double) summertime increase. Clear?
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] What is the source of your assertion that "the average Canadian spends 90% annually on heating costs, and 10% on cooling"?
  2. Understanding climate denial
    Conservatives should value such things as responsibility, prudence and a sense of proportion. They should seek to ensure the survival and stability of their societies. They are supposed to be anti-utopian, willing to face up to unpleasant facts. Willfully ignoring the dangers of climate change is to go against these values. So why are so many conservatives engaging in willful blindness? Too many are motivated more by antipathy towards the left than they are by support for their own principles. And too many see environmentalists as being part of the left and automatically oppose them. But there is more to the antipathy many feel towards environmentalists than this. Many see environmentalism as anti-human. They see it as an attack on modernity and prosperity. They talk about attempts to send us back to the stone age. So what is behind this? Is it just paranoia and a distorted picture of their opponents? Or have environmentalists contributed to this picture of them? While it is a distorted picture of most environmentalists some environmentalists have contributed towards this image. I have heard environmentalism described by opponents as a religion. And those that do so often see any religion as irrational. I have heard people sneeringly talk about Gaia worship. Environmentalism is often seen as a put down of humanity and human accomplishment. Environmentalists are often seen as ascetics who want a return to a rustic lifestyle. People who are proud of what they have done see this as an affront. We will certainly have to make some sacrifices to mitigate climate change. But you have people asking others to make sacrifices and describing the desire for prosperity as greed and talking as if there was some virtue to making do with less. Should you be surprised if this led to some hostility? This does not justify the willful blindness of denialists, nothing can. But there are those who wish to hang on to as much as possible of what they have and make only those sacrifices that they see as necessary. There are people whose prudence and sense of responsibility to the next generation can be appealed to. But if you try to use necessary responses to climate dangers to accomplish other goals don't be surprised if there is opposition. John Cook, in your book Climate Change Denial you talk about a need to change from a human-centered to an eco-centered worldview. Many will see such a change as evil. And that will include people whose prudence could be appealed to. We have an emergency. Consider that you might be alienating those whose support you need.
  3. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    Thanks for an excellent informative article. Tanker Manhattan in 1969 was a potential trial run for servicing Prudhoe Bay Oilfield Alaska before Trans Alaska Pipeline to Valdez was proposed. In view of the oil shale excavations in Northern Canada, potential expansion into Alaska Arctic Wildlife Refuge and McKenzie Delta and opposition to pipelines to Kitimat BC or Texas now proposed, will the oil companies now turn to Arctic passages as the easy route in future? Surely the joint Russian-US developments will use these tanker routes. It all suggests a very bleak outlook for global warming.
  4. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Suggested reading: "Climate change eradicating Arctic's oldest ice," The Vancouver Sun, Oct 5, 2011 To access this article, click here
  5. Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
    Suggested reading: "Climate change eradicating Arctic's oldest ice," The Vancouver Sun, Oct 5, 2011 To access this article, click here
  6. The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
    Rob, I'm reposting a query I put it RC here as you may not have seen there. I'm just trying to make sure I understand the thought behind periods of greater warming occurring roughly equally often to periods of "deep ocean heat burial." If you or anyone else could comment as to whether this is close to what people are thinking I'd appreciate it. "At times, more heat than previously expected is buried in the deep ocean. This heat will not return literally to the surface, but periods of greater “shallow” ocean heating will be expected, because sometimes, much less of the heat is transported deeply (due to the natural variability in whatever mechanism is driving heat deeper than expected some of the time). Relatedly, since we have some expectation that this deep ocean heat transfer has always been occurring, and since our climate models have a decent handle on the sensitivity of the climate, past and present, one might expect the ebbs and flows of deep heating to even out to the expected trend based on knowledge of climate sensitivity. How’s that for a run-on sentence? Does this (esp the first part) represent correctly what you mean?"
  7. The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
    muoncounter Thanks for the read (your link). It increased my doubts about our ability to use the past (paleoclimate) as a predictive tool for the future. As G Schmidt says. Simulations of climate over the Last Millennium (850–1850 CE) have been incorporated into the third phase of the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP3). The drivers of climate over this period are chiefly orbital, solar, volcanic, changes in land use/land cover and some variation in greenhouse gas levels. While some of these effects can be easily defined, the reconstructions of solar, volcanic and land use-related forcing are more uncertain. You say, "paleo data is quite useful in determining a likely range of sensitivity" If we used terms such as "likely range" for the speed of light or to describe the earths gravitational force we would be back in the 17th or 18th century. Thanks all the same but I think for now I will file my concerns regarding the runaway greenhouse effect or global cooling in the "do nothing but keep monitoring file". The science of predicting from a known state to a known state has to move on a little before we can predict from a known state to an unknown state. I will stick with the Past is another planet at least for now. cheers
    Response:

    [DB] "Thanks all the same but I think for now I will file my concerns regarding the runaway greenhouse effect or global cooling in the "do nothing but keep monitoring file"."

    This ranks right up there with:

    • Continuing to smoke despite the accumulated weight of evidence against it AND all those hot spots on your last MRI...
    • Continuing to eat those potato chips and bacon you favor despite your most recent cholesterol measurments show LDL levels above 250, Trig's over 1,000 and functional HDL of less than 20%...
    • Continuing to ignore the doctor's advice on doing something about your blood pressure despite continued measurements of 180/110, failing vision and multiple sustained headaches...
    • Continuing to exceed the speed limit despite having to repeatedly pump your brakes to build up pressure and even having to use the parking brake to slow yourself down...

    So by all means, continue on your course of "do nothing" du jour...

  8. Eric (skeptic) at 00:33 AM on 7 October 2011
    Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    #188, Norman, the jury is out on whether blocking will be increased by global warming. It is the primarily the uneven nature of natural factors like low solar UV that make them more prone to enable blocking. The blocking phenomenon itself is weather. Both Trenberth and Lindzen among many others studied it early in their careers with Trenberth focusing on differential heating and Lindzen on resonanace. It is certainly plausible as Albatross points out in 193 that global warming will enhance differential heating although the opposite is also plausible. Looking at it top down, some solar variations like low solar UV have a significant association with blocking mainly due to differential heating of the stratosphere. The tie to extreme weather seems to be at least twofold. First the heating from CO2 will exacerbate hot weather and droughts. Second the CO2 will also increase differential heating since it has more effect in hotter, drier than in cooler, wetter areas. That in turn causes an enhancement of the blocking as the troposphere resonates with the stratosphere. Lindzen: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/85thst~1.pdf
    Trenberth: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/i1520-0469-042-22-2415.pdf
  9. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel wrote "What kind of 'energy transfer' do you have in mind? I do think this is a reasonable question." For this portion of the thought experiment, focus on only a single photon emitted by Object A and absorbed by Object B. That situation is a completely sensible, logical, and reasonable isolation of a portion of the total situation of objects A and B, no different in method from isolation done in scientific or engineering analysis of any other situation. That photon carried energy out of Object A and into Object B. Object A no longer had that energy as soon as the photon emitted it, and Object B now had that energy as soon as the photon was absorbed by it. The photon was the vehicle that conveyed that energy from A to B; in other words, that photon "transferred" that energy from A to B. Do you agree?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Considering a single photon is indeed a useful simplification.
  10. Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
    Galileo also made the tactical error of lampooning the views of the pope, through his character Simplicio: not a good move. (For somebody who was pretty smart, Galileo could be pretty stupid.)
  11. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #306 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You wrote:- "We will get onto net transfer later." I don't know of any other kind of energy transfer other than net transfer. What kind of 'energy transfer' do you have in mind? I do think this is a reasonable question.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The reason we are having this discussion is precisely because you don't know of any other kind of energy transfer than net transfer and I am trying to explain how there can be a bidirectional transfer. Sadly continual prevarication means that going through the argument laboriously, step-by-step seems the only way in which progress seems possible, so I will answer your (perfectly reasonable) question, provided you agree to the intermediate steps.
  12. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman#199: " I have experienced no changes on notice " You do realize that with that statement, your position is reduced to the equivalent of 'if I can't see it from my window, it's not happening'? Further discussion of 'if its not happening to me, its not happening' is irrelevant.
  13. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #306 You wrote:- "If theremal energy has been taken from A and added to B via radiation and absorption of a photon, then there has been a transfer of energy, regardless of what else is ocurring." I wonder if it is really irrelevant? I has been said elsewhere that we should consider NET energy transfer. Now imagine your A and B were 100% symmetrical, both radiating photons and intercepting each other's photons, the photons of each containing energy from their source either A or B. Now what would your estimate energy transfer be in this situation?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] We will get onto net transfer later. Please give a direct answer to the question. Note it is exactly this sort of prevarication that has made it necessary to conduct this discussion in such small steps. For convenience, I'll repeat the question:
    If thermal energy has been taken from A and added to B via radiation and absorption of a photon, then there has been a transfer of energy, regardless of what else is ocurring. This seems pretty much the dictionary definition of "transfer"

    The conveyance or removal of something from one place, person, or thing to another.

    In this case thermal energy (the "something") has been conveyed from A (the "place") to B (the "another [place]"), via radiation and absorption of a photon. Do you agree that this has happened and that it falls within common usage of the word "transfer", as explained above?
  14. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    Doug. I suspect that most people, even lay folk, would probably easily appreciate that neutrality is the point of hydronium/hydroxide equivalence, and certainly it complicates a discussion by venturing away from standard conditions. I do think however that there is value in pointing out to those who might otherwise take it for granted that pH 7 (and its reflection of negative log of hydronium ion concentration) only coincides with neutrality under certain conditions. What I probably didn't make as clear as I could have in post #11 is that under other conditions it is quite possible to have a pH value greater than 7, and yet have a solution that has a surfeit of hydronium ions over hydroxide ions. Such a solution will thus technically be 'acidic', and this even with a pH greater than the abritrary 7 that ocean-acidification deniers claim is required to be passed before the solution can be defined as being "acid" or "acidifying". The overall thrust was to attempt to emphasise that the notions of acidity and acidification are in certain ways contextual, both with respect to the overall chemical conditions involved, and to changes relative to starting conditions. The number "7" is, in and of itself, not an absolute landmark in acid chemistry. As I said, the point is largely a semantic one, but it does underscore how the whole idea of acidification is abused by those people who find the particular idea of ocean acidification inconvenient. Perhaps my pedantry stems from the fact that I have dealt with too many chemistry distorters in the past, who have attempted to claim that the oceans aren't becoming more acid, but simply less basic - as if there is a fundamental difference in the context of the changing hydronium ion concentration of seawater...
  15. Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    Thanks, that's very exciting. Obviously they're way ahead of me. I've only just worked through the mathematics for formally determining the uncertainties on the parameters, but not implemented it yet. I'm not familiar with Kalman filters, but I'm guessing they are more sophisticated than my ad-hoc spline basis functions. It's reassuring though that I'm not doing something stupid, and that we get very similar answers. I'll need to get a copy of the full paper, but reading between the lines of the abstract I think they may have left me one wrinkle to work on. :) (Fixed link to abstract)
  16. Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
    The 365-day anomaly graph would be very cool to see displayed on a map where the number of days of ice cover on a given map point would be color coded.
  17. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    JMurphy, what you fail to understand* is that 1998 was actually the warmest year on record and the earth** has been cooling since. In fact, disingenuous warmists*** like Willis have had to massage the data to keep the warming myth going. (definitions) *believe, rabidly **select measurements of temperature, over select time scales, measured by select individuals and using select statistical methods *** scientists who don't agree with our perspective
  18. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    199, Norman, Nobody is missing the point you are making. It is very clear. You are trolling this thread by littering it with comments of anecdotal evidence of a variety of extreme weather events, in an effort to persistently and endlessly argue the illusory and emotional points of view that weather is weather and weather is variable and there always have been weather extremes so no one can prove to you that more and worse extremes really are such. You can find evidence of past weather extremes. We get that. No one denies this. You don't understand how climate change could increase weather extremes. We get that. We understand, even if you don't. You don't believe that the plethora and severity of recent weather events is unusual. We get that. You are wrong. In the end, all you are doing is trying to post as many comments as you can restating these erroneous points over and over again, but without actually listening to what others are saying, or admitting that your anecdotal approach is invalid, unscientific, and will lead to invalid and unscientific conclusions.
  19. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #305 You wrote:- "So would you agree that there has been a transfer of thermal energy from A to B, in the sense that photons have been radiated from A and been intercepted by B, these photons have taken thermal energy from A and contributed thermal energy to B? Do you also agree that this is true regardless of the temperatures of A and B (provided ....?" I'm afraid the question isn't clear enough for me. Perhaps you can help. 1/Are energy carrying photons also radiated by B? 2/If so are they intercepted by A? 3/And if they are intercepted by A, does that mean that thermal energy is transferred from B to A?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Those are issues for a more advanced step and are irrelevant to the question. If thermal energy has been taken from A and added to B via radiation and absorption of a photon, then there has been a transfer of energy, regardless of what else is ocurring. This seems pretty much the dictionary definition of "transfer"

    The conveyance or removal of something from one place, person, or thing to another.

    In this case thermal energy (the "something") has been conveyed from A (the "place") to B (the "another [place]"), via radiation and absorption of a photon. Do you agree that this has happened and that it falls within common usage of the word "transfer", as explained above?
  20. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    I postulate that any attempt to determine if Goddard is possibly right in his predictions is like arguing about the accuracy of stopped clock. He maybe right only by coincidence, and about an irrelevant detail.
  21. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    KR @ 197 I think you are missing the point I made in post 186. "I find it disingenuous in the extreme that you claim not to be discussing global patterns, while stating you don't see any evidence for extreme weather - which is almost by definition a global measure." I have not stated in any post, that I can think of, that there is not extreme weather. I was pointing out that what would be extreme for other locations (number and frequency of hot and cold snaps, 12 in about 2 years) is the normal where I live. Muoncounter points out that Belgium used to have a heat wave once every 8 years and now has one every year. Which is a significant change for them. I was explaining why it is more difficult for me to be aware of extreme weather changes (since it would be in the more abstract world of statistics and graphs) than for others on this planet. They are experiencing changes in weather patterns directly but I have experienced no changes on notice as the weather in Omaha is already more extreme than many other locations. As I stated the purpose of the data I posted was not an attempt to prove or disprove the content of James Powell ebook.
  22. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    JMurphy @16, That's a natural human perception objectivity: snow is "cold" so think about it if you don't believe in global warming. If you add windchill, it's much colder than calm air with an absolute temperature even 10-20C less. But because it "feels" colder, it's perfect to argue that the heavy, snowy winter we just had in US or Europe heralds the end of global warming. But in terms of absolute temperature rather than "perceptual coldness" it may actually be opposite. So much for the perceptive manipulation by skeptics. As for the accuracy of the Goddard prediction we are talking about here, he appears to have choosen the right words as to avoid talking about the main long term problem, the long term loss of ice. Talking about possible increase of 5y ice percentage is just obvious when we had a short term increase of 1-2y ice percentage in 2008-9.
  23. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #304 You wrote:- "Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] so those photons that strike and are absorbed by B, do they add to the thermal energy of B?" Yes.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] So would you agree that there has been a transfer of thermal energy from A to B, in the sense that photons have been radiated from A and been intercepted by B, these photons have taken thermal energy from A and contributed thermal energy to B? Do you also agree that this is true regardless of the temperatures of A and B (provided A is above zero Kelvin)?
  24. Between St. Roch and a cold place

    I have just noticed that the link in the actual Skeptical Argument (accessible at Northwest Passage has been navigated in the past) does contain a link to the St. Roch at the Vancouver Museum, which also contains a link to a virtual tour of the ship.

  25. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    John Brookes, not that I go to WUWT very often (because it makes my brain hurt, and not in a 'good' way), but I don't believe they often mention record warm temperatures, heat-waves, etc. - only cold ones. Or when it snows. Seems a bit strange...not !
  26. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #303 You wrote:- "Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Good. do you agree that some of the photons emitted by A will strike and be absorbed by B, regardless of the temperatures of A and B?" "regardless of the temperatures of A and B?" As long as A is above 0K, Yes.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Super, so those photons that strike and are absorbed by B, do they add to the thermal energy of B (i.e. cause B to have greater thermal energy that it would otherwise have done, had it not intercepted the photons from A)?
  27. Understanding climate denial
    I came here hoping to understand climate denial, and now I think I do. Thank you all.
  28. Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
    Maybe. But the pope didn't get annoyed with Galileo over the technical merits of his science - which was largely accepted by the church astronomers - but because he defied his theological authority.
  29. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #302 You wrote:- "Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Good. Do you agree that the photons radiated from body A are carrying away some of the thermal energy from body A with them?" Yes
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Splendid, do you agree that some of the photons emitted by A will strike and be absorbed by B, regardless of the temperatures of A and B?
  30. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    adelady, thankyou. Nice to have that cleared up. Moderator (JMurphy) @3. No worries. Without wanting to drag the thread off topic, you've pretty much got the definition right but just like climate science this is a complex topic. Suffice to say "All icebreakers are ships" is a pretty safe rule to apply.
  31. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @194, Thanks for those papers, and did you see the citation below the Barriopedro et al. (2011) paper? It links to Zhao and Running's response to critique of their 2010 paper in which they found a decline in net primary production between 2000 and 2009 on account of an increase in droughts (primarily in the S. Hemisphere). Well, they have addressed the critics and in doing so they conclude that: "Samanta et al. and Medlyn challenge our report of reduced global terrestrial net primary production (NPP) from 2000 through 2009. Our new tests show that other vegetation indices had even stronger negative changes through the decade, and weakening temperature controls on water stress and respiration still did not produce a positive trend in NPP. These analyses strengthen the conclusion of drought-induced reduction in global NPP over the past decade." And "Our continuous monitoring shows that global NPP in 2010 (53.19 Pg C) was lower than that in 2009 (53.84 Pg C), largely due to the two large-scale droughts in the Amazon and Europe. We expect that the strongest impacts of changing climate on terrestrial ecosystem productivity will continue to be manifested through the hydrologic cycle, but whether these current trends continue can only be answered by global monitoring." Not "cheering" news....
  32. Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
    It's also true that the advantage of the Copernican over the Ptolemaic theory was by no means as overwhelming as is commonly depicted: The difference in complexity was rather slight, as both used epicycles, etc. So I agree with the point that the Inquisition had a better case on Galileo than the "skeptics" have on climate scientists.
  33. Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
    Regarding the GISTEMP method, it's important to note that they use a weighted average. A station 1200 km away from a certain location does not have the same weight on its estimated temperature as a station 100 km away. Although it's less than the 1200 km value, 800 km is still a large distance away from Warming Island. While the temps in the two locations are correlated, it's not accurate to assume they're nearly identical, as Michaels has basically done.
  34. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman First you say: "Here is the data I have so far and will demonstrate that heat waves and cold snaps seem very routine for my area and it might be why I am not as quick to see evidence that extreme weather is increasing." Followed by: "Nor was my data selection designed to prove or disprove anything about global patterns." I find it disingenuous in the extreme that you claim not to be discussing global patterns, while stating you don't see any evidence for extreme weather - which is almost by definition a global measure. You are cherry-picking. Again. And presenting it as some kind of argument against the statistics and studies. At this point, Norman, I will have to consider you a troll.
  35. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Sad news abour AMSR-E. However Cryosat-2 ha been up since last year, has completed its calibration work-up and is starting to produce data. Hopefully within a year we will see results from it. It will provide a backup to PIOMASS that isn't partly model based. The trends on PIOMASS are probably why extent isn't as reliable a guide to future collapse. Effectively ice thickness equals mechanical strength. So more and more thin ice is weaker and liable to collapse due to break-up, not just melting in-situ. My bet from PIOMASS is effectively Ice-Free (apart from isolated pockets) by 2016/17.
  36. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    Stevo, yes. 2007 was noteworthy for a strong dipole, winds circulating around the Arctic and compacting lots of ice together in the centre. The movement at the edge was, predictably, quite strong in pushing outwards through Fram Strait. The result ... a huge drop in extent. This year no such strong weather events. A lot of ice just wandered about - much of it into ice-free warm water areas which promptly melted it in place.
  37. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Djon @4, based on pixel counts, the percentage and extent (in million km^2) of multi-year ice in 2010 and 2011 are as follows: ____________2010__Area___2011__Area__Survival 1 year ice: 53.2% 2.61 | 49.6% 2.29 | xxxxxx 2 year ice: 29.9% 1.47 | 27.1% 1.25 | 47.9% 3 year ice: 07.8% 0.38 | 17.4% 0.80 | 54.4% 4 year ice: 03.6% 0.18 | 02.2% 0.10 | 26.3% 5 year ice: 05.1% 0.25 | 03.9% 0.18 | 41.8% From the area, it was possible to calculate what proportion of 1 year ice in 2010 survived to become 2 year ice in 2011, and so on. Survival for 5 year ice is the ratio of 2011 5 year ice to the sum of 2010 for and 5 year ice. In order for there to be an "uptick" in five year ice in 2012, that would require a survival rate of 4 and 5 year ice in 2012 greater than 64%. If, as expected, sea ice extent declines, or even if it remains constant, that appears unlikely. On the other hand, sea ice extent will have to decline to around 3 million km^2 in 2013. Of course, if the spur of old ice from the North Pole to the Russian coast does not survive the next two years, all bets are off. With regard to your point that Goddard predicted ice age, not ice thickness, you are technically correct. However, ice thickness is a function of ice age, so that there cannot be an increase in ice thickness without a commensurate increase in ice age. Furthermore, any increase in extent of old ice will ipso facto be accompanied by an increase of ice thickness, or at minimum, a cessation of the continuing declining trend. As it happens, the decline in sea ice volume in 2011 of about 10% approximately matches the decline in area suggesting that most of the loss of sea ice volume is accounted for by that decline in area. That would suggest the increase in three year ice has more or less compensated for the decline in sea ice extent for ice of all other ages. So, and contrary to Dana, Goddard did get both his actual and his implicit prediction right. Specifically, sea ice extent of multi-year ice increased from approximately 2.29 million km^2 to 2.32 million km^2. The sea ice thickness remained approximately constant or even slightly increased, and there may well be an increase in 5 year ice in 2013 (although there will be a sharp reduction in 2014). Contrary to AndyWeissDC (in comments at Goddard's site), Goddard being correct in his prediction is not "a death blow to the alarmist cause". For a start, there is no "alarmist cause", merely a recognition of the actual scientific facts leading to considerable alarm. More importantly to this thread, even though Goddard was right, both arctic sea ice area and volume declined by about 10% relative to 2010. Goddard chose to make predictions on topics that give no indication of overall decline or recovery of sea ice. He did so, I suspect, to distract people from the ongoing death spiral in Arctic sea ice extent.
  38. citizenschallenge at 14:33 PM on 6 October 2011
    Northwest passage has been navigated in the past
    WOW First class post! Thank you for that information
  39. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Adelady @195, No worries :)
  40. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Thanks for these Albatross. My non-scientific intuition has been that blocking extents would follow the other major influences we see. (Here we see the expansion of the Hadley cell moving rainfall further south - therefore not on land at all, but into the nearer Southern Ocean. And depriving us of our longterm average rainfall by dropping into the ocean which already has quite enough. Probably shifting the 'Goyder line' further south, thereby depriving us of cropping land.) I can see no good reason why other large scale meteorological circulation effects shouldn't also get in on the act. I've not been so assiduous in reading full papers recently, but these'll get the full treatment.
  41. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Here's a neat way of looking at these summers: --source The five warmest and coldest summers are highlighted. Grey bars represent the distribution for the 1500-2002 period, with the curve in black showing how common a given temperature is. The bottom panel shows frequency of extreme summers by decade. Dotted line shows maximum decadal values that would be expected by random chance. And then there's this tidbit: Russia alone saw more than 55,000 heat-related deaths, extensive wildfires, and approximately 25 percent crop failure last year. The total economic loss was around 1 percent of Russia’s gross domestic product, according to preliminary estimates referred to by the European scientists.
  42. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    There has been talk of blocking again on this thread. An expert in the field Dr. Lipo recently had this to say at ScienceDaily: "Lupo believes that heat sources, such as radiation, condensation, and surface heating and cooling, have a significant role in a blocking's onset and duration. Therefore, planetary warming could increase the frequency and impact of atmospheric blocking." "It is anticipated that in a warmer world, blocking events will be more numerous, weaker and longer-lived," Lupo said. "This could result in an environment with more storms. We also anticipate the variability of weather patterns will change dramatically over some parts of the world, such as North America, Europe and Asia, but not in others." I highly recommend this PhD thesis by Jana Sillmann titled "Extreme Climate Events and Euro-Atlantic Atmospheric Blocking in Present and Future Climate Model Simulations" From the abstract: "This comparison shows that the model is able to realistically capture the observed climatological large-scale patterns of the extreme indices, although the quality of the simulations depends on the index and region under consideration. In the future climate, as represented by the IPCC emission scenarios B1 and A1B, all considered temperature-based indices (yearly minimum and maximum temperatures and frequency of tropical nights) encounter a significant increase worldwide. The precipitation-based indices (max. 5-day precipitation amount and 95th percentile of precipitation) also increase significantly, particularly in those regions that are relatively wet already in present climate. Analogously, dry spells increase especially in regions with dry conditions under present climate." And "Blocking frequencies and their seasonal distribution are well captured by the model and especially for the winter minimum temperature significant correlations with blocking events are found in central Europe. In the future climate, the blocking frequency is slightly diminished but the influence on the European winter climate remains robust." Her research has been published, see Sillmann and Croci-Maspoli (2009), and Sillmann et al. (2011). See also this conference paper by Lupo et al. (2008), they looked at trends in blocking between 1970 and 2007 and found that: "In the NH, the most important result was that the recent increases in blocking were hemisphere-wide, but the increase was slower in the Atlantic region. These increases in blocking occurrence this study agreed with the results of the Lupo et al. (1997) which implied more blocking activity in a warmer world." Might need to look at other indices, other than blocking indices, for example, Alessandro (2011).
  43. The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
    Micawber @ 31- "What first alarmed me was the graphic at the beginning of the post. “Ocean Heat Content 1955 – 2008” Enough of the emotive content thanks. Try to restrict yourself to discussion of the topic at hand. Peppering otherwise reasonable-ish posts, with allegations of scientific misconduct and other snark, is akin to a waiter spitting a big goober into a diner's well-prepared meal - it's extremely bad manners, and will ensure deletion in the future. And please note that ship-based water intakes and buckets have absolutely nothing to do with measurements of ocean heat down to 700 metres - as Tom Curtis has already pointed out.
  44. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    Bern @6 I'm curious about "weather wasn't good for ice melt and compaction". Does this relate to wind and current conditions which push the ice together as opposed to dispersing it, or is it more complex than that?
  45. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman "I live in an area where extreme weather patterns are already the norm" If they are the norm, they are by definition not extreme. Extreme: of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average Norm: general level or average The quote in 190 evidently didn't impress you, so I'll repeat it: Before 1990 a heat wave occurred about once every 8 years, but during the last decade the country averages one heat wave per year. Once again, let's look to some relevant science. Barriopedro et al 2011: We provide evidence that the anomalous 2010 warmth that caused adverse impacts exceeded the amplitude and spatial extent of the previous hottest summer of 2003. "Mega-heatwaves" such as the 2003 and 2010 events broke the 500-year-long seasonal temperature records over approximately 50% of Europe. --emphasis added Two heat waves, 7 years apart both broke 500 year records on a continental scale. Now that's extreme!
  46. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @ 190 "The absolute numbers are less important than the proof of concept: aerosols and greenhouse gases are measurably changing temperatures and precipitation on the 50 year time scale. The effect is real and ongoing; all the hot days and cold days in Omaha cannot disprove that." Nor was my data selection designed to prove or disprove anything about global patterns. "I don't think 2 years of temperature data demonstrates anything other than you live in the midwestern US, far from the supposedly moderating influence of an ocean. The Old Farmers Almanac could tell you that." It does demonstrate I live in an area where extreme weather patterns are already the norm. But on a personal note, people complain about severe cold much more then the really hot days in my area of the world. A 97 F (heat wave in Belgium) in Omaha just means a nice swimming day. And you being from Texas know heat quite well but you probably would hate -20 F mornings. I think the link that Anne-Marie Blackburn posted in 181 is very useful as it does suggest linking mechanisms that I have been asking for, changes in atmopheric circulation patterns.
  47. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    John Brookes#12: "one of them will make a prediction that is pretty close," You know what they say about stopped clocks.
  48. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman#186 "I am posting the data to demonstrate the frequency of hot and cold extremes in the area where I live." I don't think 2 years of temperature data demonstrates anything other than you live in the midwestern US, far from the supposedly moderating influence of an ocean. The Old Farmers Almanac could tell you that. Here is what you are competing with: Belgium experienced two heat waves in July 2006. Before 1990 a heat wave occurred about once every 8 years, but during the last decade the country averages one heat wave per year. --emphasis added You can read the remaining details for yourself. But let's try some science for a change. Bichet et al 2011: We show that between 1870 and 2005, prescribed SSTs (encapsulating other forcings and internal variability) determine the decadal and interannual variabilities of the global land temperature and precipitation, mostly via their influence in the tropics (25S–25N). ... between 1930 and 2005 increasing aerosol emissions have reduced the global land temperature and precipitation by up to 0.4C and 30mm/yr, respectively, and that between about 1950 and 2005 increasing greenhouse gas concentrations have increased them by up to 0.25C and 10mm/yr, respectively. Finally, we suggest that between about 1950 and 1970, increasing aerosol emissions had a larger impact on the hydrological cycle than increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The absolute numbers are less important than the proof of concept: aerosols and greenhouse gases are measurably changing temperatures and precipitation on the 50 year time scale. The effect is real and ongoing; all the hot days and cold days in Omaha cannot disprove that. "authors such as James Powell would help people on the fence of this issue " Question: Are you on the fence on this issue?
  49. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    I can't believe all those WUWT people could be so wrong! They always seem so wise, whenever I drop in there. One only has to see the level of scorn they heap on non-believers to realise just how much they must know. But don't worry. One year, one of them will make a prediction that is pretty close, and then the rejoicing and mutual back patting will be a thing to behold. A quick check at WUWT reveals a lot of recent posts, but none discussing the annual arctic sea ice minimum. I wonder why they aren't interested in it?
  50. The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
    Micawber @35, Peter Hogarth @37 has stolen most of my thunder, so I recommend you read his comment carefully. Again, it is vitally important that you distinguish between Sea Surface Temperatures, to which comments about buckets and intakes are relevant, and Ocean Heat Content, to which they are not. The former is of topic in this thread, while the later is not. There are measurement issues with both, but they are not the same issues. With regard to OHC, I have nothing useful to add to that which Peter (and Albatross) have already provided. With regard to SST, I recommend you read the review article by Kawai and Wada, 2007. Of particular interest to you would be table 1 which indicates the sub-layer normally measured by different instrument types. Kawai and Wada conclude with a discussion of the implications of diurnal and seasonal differences in temperatures between SS sub-layers on modelling and on observational data. In addition to Kawai and Wada, you may wish to refer to Science of Doom's discussion of SS sub-layers, if for no other reason than the list of relevant papers he provides. Having been through those papers, perhaps you would then like to raise these issues on a relevant topic. In the meantime I will simply note that your concerns that these issues are not being addressed by detailed observations by scientists is misplaced.

Prev  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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