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  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  Next

Comments 73251 to 73300:

  1. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @ 182 "Please avoid citing disinformation denial sites as 'references;' a practice that does little save damage your credibility." I did post the link with this caution: "if you ignore the author's opinions at the end of the document you can see if his analysis is valid." The point of the link was that it demonstrated a linking mechanism to explain heat waves in Europe (blocking patterns). My suggestion is that authors such as James Powell would help people on the fence of this issue by demonstrating links on how global warming will increase these blocking patterns in the atmosphere and why it will do so.
  2. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter I forgot to label the data but I did infer it. The temps posted are temperature deviations from normal highs. Recorded temperature high minus normal high temperature.
  3. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @ 182 I have been logging temperature data for Omaha Nebraska for a while (683 days of data). I guess where I live extreme weather is not as big a deal as in Texas as we have extremes quite often. Both hot and cold. If a heat wave is 5 consecutive days with temps 9F above the normal average, I will call a cold snap a period where the high temp is below 9F from the normal high for 5 consecutive days. 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. December 2009 (cold snap): -11,-18,-9,-22,-15,-10 January 2010 (cold snap): -16,-20,-30,-23,-27,-23,-14,-22,-31,-24 February 2010 (cold snap): -10,-10,-11,-17,-18,-24,-17 March 2010 (heat wave): 15,19,23,29,11 (here is one where a heat wave might be welcome...the normal high for Omaha during this time is 58F during the heat wave it was in the 70's and 80's) April 2010 (heat wave): 12,20,19,14,13 May 2010 (cold snap): -16,-14,-9,-17,-15,-22,-13 November 2010 (heat wave): 13,22,20,21,10 March 2011 (cold snap): -10,-13,-17,-20,-15,-11,-17,-10,-11 April 2011 (cold snap): -10,-14,-21,-12,-14 May 2011 (heat wave): 10,9,15,25,26,9 September 2011 (cold snap): -16,-20,-24,-22,-12 Please note muoncounter. I am not using this data to form any global conclusions about trends. I am posting the data to demonstrate the frequency of hot and cold extremes in the area where I live. From the perspective I know, weather extremes are very normal. Severe storms and numerous tornado warnings in the summer, blizzards and bitter cold in the winter, extremely wet flooding years and then very hot dry drought years. If I lived in a location with more stable weather over long periods to be interupted by some very unusual weather events, I may have a different attitude to these threads.
  4. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    RE #9 The Manhattan did not accomplish the feat on its own; in addition to the Canadian icebreaker, it was accompanied by a US Coast Cutter icebreaker (have forgotten the name). A friend of mine was a mechanic on the Coast Guard ship. I remember his slide shows when he returned from the trip. There was a lot of ice and very little open water.
  5. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @ 182 Your link to the definition of Heat Wave: "The definition recommended by the World Meteorological Organization is when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 Celsius degrees (9 Fahrenheit degrees), the normal period being 1961–1990.[3]" This may not work to be the definition. Would it be considered a heat wave in the northern states if it was 9F warmer in January? Or would this be a most pleasant condition.
  6. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Anne-Marie Blackburn @ 181 It would seem the most likely culprit for many examples of extreme weather events (drought, high heat, cold, excess rainfall other than hurricane) are the blocking high events (example: in winter in US a strong high pressure system that does not move much will pump very cold air down from Canada and lead to very frigid conditions. In summer a similar pattern can prevent storms from moving into areas cooling them leading to drought and heat waves, drenching rains can take place as the blocking high routes the storm systems over the same saturated areas leading to floods). A strong link to connect global warming to extreme weather events would be a way to show that global warming leads to more blocking events that last longer and cover larger areas.
  7. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Anne-Marie Blackburn @ 181 Your link is not active, I would like to see the article. "With regards to the European heat wave, I understand that anomalous meteorological conditions were the main cause of the event, but I don't see how, without a quantitative analysis, you can conclude that human-induced global warming did not contribute to the event. Nor can you state categorically, of course, that global warming did contribute to it." I would not form such a conclusion. Your post is the same point I have been making. But if it is difficult to conclude one way or the other then it perhaps is a weak link or the signal should be stronger. I have stated, in various posts, that I am not making any statements of certainty about global warming's effect on extreme weather events. I am questioning what appears to be a thinking that extreme weather events are on the increase and the cause is global warming. A quote from your review of James Powell book "But climate change, through rising temperatures and water vapour levels for example, is changing the odds of extreme events occurring." I am not certain of this statement without some good empirical supporting data. I do believe the data is out there in the many data basis of historical collected data but I would not be able to compile it. Perhaps a large study done by graduate students in the field of climatology or meterology.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link in 181.
  8. Michael Hauber at 11:00 AM on 6 October 2011
    Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    The Search Outlook has been running since 2008 making sea ice predictions each year. The 2008 outlook predicted a minimum similar to 2007 with some above and some below. The actual 2008 sea ice ended in the upper range of these predictions, but not spectacularly so. In 2009 the Search Outlook predicted sea ice conditions not too far off 2007, but more predictions were for above than below. However in the end every single prediction was too low. There was one prediction at 3.2m, the rest between 4.2 and 5, and the actual result was above 5.3m. The 'skeptics' were quite pleased with this failure and I remember many comments about how incompetent the scientists were and that any average Joe could do better. And then next year the 'skeptic' side made the attempt and as you documented they mostly did fairly badly. However one success on that side was Joe Bastardi in 2010 predicting that the minimum that year would be quite low. But even back then he was predicting the recovery in 2011 would be very strong and that of course has failed badly. Of note is that the scientists were overly pessimistic in 2008 and 2009, and seem to have learned from these mistakes and provided much more accurate predictions. The 'skeptics' mocked the initial mistakes, then preceded to make worse predictions of their own, and then come back next year to make exactly the same mistake again. It will be interesting to see how the more aggressive predictions of mostly ice free by late this decade that have been around for a few years now go. PIOMAS has continued to decline on track with this prediction, but satellite measures of extent seem way behind and something like 2030 seems more reasonable based on extent.
  9. Between St. Roch and a cold place
    JMurphy: that Wikimedia image is 100% not USS Skate at the pole in 1959. Skate was the first sub to surface at the pole. In March 1959 she surfaced through fairly thick ice having found no nearby open water in which to surface. The crew stood on that ice as they held a memorial service for Sir George Hubert Wilkins, MC and Bar, and scattered his ashes. I have the book - Surface at the Pole, Commander James Calvert, USN - and have covered this pseudo-skeptic meme in my blog on a few occasions, notably: science20.com/chatter_box/arctic_ice_october_2010
  10. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Aye, agreed.
  11. Understanding climate denial
    Philippe Chantreau - Indeed, Dr. Pielke did make some comments decrying anonymous posters, and I have heard that others have experienced issues on some sites. Just noting that I have not (again, so far). I usually consider such attacks (as they are not arguments) an Argument from Authority fallacy. I much rather prefer discussions based on what is said, rather than based on who said it.
  12. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    DSL... I think we're saying the same thing. The point I'm trying to make to Alleycat is to be careful what you ask for. The "correction" may take more the form of a "hard reset" than a nice soft bounce back. I think skeptics sometimes find comfort in the idea that the planet will pull all that carbon back out of the atmosphere naturally. And that's realistic... over the next 10+ million years. I, for one, don't care much about what the planet will be like in that amount of time. What I care about is that we at least try not to create undue (and avoidable) hardships on near term future generations. As it is already, with another, what, 0.6C of warming baked into the system and not a lot of progress towards significantly changing our ways, the latter half of the 21st century is going to be pretty hellish for billions of less well off people. It's awful but I don't think that is avoidable. What I hope is still avoidable is that hard reset.
  13. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    So, I looked up SSMIS and it sounds like a superior (certainly newer) set of instruments relative to AMSR-E. Is there a reason researchers like Uni Bremen hadn't switched already? (Like it's a fine instrument but not as good for this particular task?)
  14. Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
    Jonathan@35: I moved from absolute costs to changes in costs just for your benefit, but you still think they are misleading.
    What was misleading was expressing them as percentages. I can't know what you intended to portray, but expressing it as a 10% drop in heating costs and a doubling (i.e. 100% increase) of cooling costs does not make it clear which change is larger in simple dollars. Taking two numbers and dividing them by two different denominators before comparing them is not useful. It's the numerators that give a clear picture. Is there a reason why you thought that percentages was a better measurement? The way you originally wrote it, it looks like it would take a huge (100%) increase in cooling costs to offset a small (10%) savings in heating costs. "Huge" and "small" in this context cannot be compared, as they have different baselines. When you go to actual dollars, the equivalency is crystal clear.
  15. Philippe Chantreau at 08:58 AM on 6 October 2011
    Understanding climate denial
    My comment was based on past experiences that go back to over a year, perhaps they have adjusted since. However, R.P. Sr. tried that avenue right here not long ago. In any case, thanks for the correction.
  16. The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
    Micawber at 01:13 AM on 6 October, 2011 I don’t dispute significantly varying surface layer temperatures and profiles, (I’m not sure anyone is) so I hope we’re not at cross purposes here. However the diurnal etc variations are certainly accounted for in SST. I fear there may be confusion between SST measurements and OHC measurements (from profiles). SST: One of the best most recent papers on SST bias corrections is Kennedy 2011. For Marine Air Temperatures being used to correct bias in SST, see for example Smith 2001, For OHC, (forget intakes and buckets), latest paper on XBT corrections back to late 1960s is Hamon 2011. On upper layer OHC, for early 20th century temperature profiles were mainly recorded using pressure-protected reversing thermometers (used since late 19th century), by the 1950s these were accurate to around 0.02°C, and there were thousands of profiles taken globally, (starting to get something approaching sparse “global” coverage but not with fine depth resolution) we also had MBTs and then STDs and CTD probes as you know, see Ishi 2003. Another approach when looking at atmosphere/ocean interactions is to look at proxies such as the depth of the mixed layer Lorbacher 2005, which I imagine you'll find interesting. Hope these are useful. A lot of the detail on sensors is in your Emery and Thompson, I believe.
  17. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Rob, I would agree that the planet will respond to any human-based forcings. However, if the forcing is rapid and severe enough, the current path of the biosphere will be permanently altered, and the biosphere has a great deal to say about the global carbon balance and the composition of the atmosphere. That idea of "self-correction" disturbs me, because it implies that a "correct" state is definable in the interests of something non-human. Roughly 2.4 billion years ago, cyanobacteria altered the Earth (both the biosphere and indirectly the shape of the surface) permanently. There was no "correction" to this event. There was simply a permanent change, and life had to adapt or disappear.
  18. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Hi Dana, I think by "SOURCE" you mean "SEARCH".
    Response:

    [dana1981] Correct, thanks

  19. The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
    FundMe#18: "Which leads me to believe that you actually agree with people like Monkton that the climate has a low sensitivity" You are free to believe what you like, but we try to base our understanding on science. See the science-based thread on paleoclimate and sensitivity. You will note on that thread that paleo data is quite useful in determining a likely range of sensitivity far greater than anything Monckton dreamed up. All quite contrary to your as yet unsubstantiated 'other planet' assertions.
  20. Understanding climate denial
    Philippe Chantreau - Actually, I have posted a number of times on several of the 'skeptic' blogs, and while some of the other posters have complained about my anonymous (but consistent) handle, the moderators there have (so far, at least) not objected, and indeed have once or twice told the other posters just that. Of course, that's subject to update if anything changes.
  21. The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
    "that the climate has a low sensitivity response because it has been that way in the past." It has? Cant see that in the published science. "I just cant see how we can use the past to assert such claims for the future." Because the laws of physics are same. You use the same climate model for LGM as you use for tomorrow. The initial and boundary conditions are different but the physics and consequent processes are the same.
  22. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Eric, that is great article. However, the worry about pricing externals is doing it efficiently and what to do about external prices that are very uncertain. I doubt any system is perfect though and insisting on perfection would mean doing nothing. I hope conservatives get behind Inglis - he is telling it like it is.
  23. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    The University of Bremen researchers who had been producing the most detailed daily ice maps and extent time series based on AMSR-E have announced that they will be switching to SSMIS data over the next few days.
  24. Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
    Bob, Yes, that would be a break-even scenario. It shows the relative reliance on the different energy sources. I moved from absolute costs to changes in costs just for your benefit, but you still think they are misleading. The new link worked. It appears that the AC failed due to overuse based on the severe conditions. Future costs to upgrading HVAC systems (both furnaces and air conditioning units fail over time) do not appear in the report, and would definitely influence the total costs.
  25. The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
    Albatross@32 "But if you wish to insist that the data are not reliable prior to 1993, then also consider Willis et al. (2004) and Lyman et al. (2010). Both these papers show robust warming of the oceans between 1993 and 2003 and between 1993 and 2008, respectively" Yes I agree completely. The oceans certainly do show robust warming. Thank you for the comments.
  26. Philippe Chantreau at 06:18 AM on 6 October 2011
    Understanding climate denial
    GEP, the comments policy is well formulated. If you don't understand what is inflammatory, perhaps you should switch your focus from discussing climate science to working on your English. You should still feel privileged though: if we were using WUWT standards, the simple fact of being anonymous would earn you heaps of scorn and would likely get you banned. I'm not speaking on behalf of the mods, only as another commenter.
  27. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Some sad news regarding the ability to collect sea ice data has been published by Roy Spencer (and WUWT) with regards to the AMSR-E instrument which supplies the JAXA data. The instrument was designed for a 6 years mission and is currently at 9+. Unfortuntately, the device is creating too much torque and has caused problems for the other instruments on board the bird (Aqua) and has been shutdown. At first, the instrument was placed in a safe mode (4 rpm versus a nominal 40 rpm) but that still caused high jitter on the satellite and is now, essentially, shutdown. The next instrument to replace it, AMSR2, is not scheduled to launch until early next year.
  28. The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
    Tom Curtis@32 I am very familiar with the papers you mention. Are you saying their data is based on scientifically acquired in situ measurements from calibrated instruments by fully qualified scientists? VOS data certainly is not. You need to put error bars on the SST data. Models are tuned with [ -snipped-] (OK call it diffusion factors) to fit the dataset so it can then be used for prognostication. If you input data with wide error bars then of course your model will struggle to adjust. I use SST in full knowledge that it used as the temperature of a supposedly well-mixed surface layer. There is no evidence of this well-mixed layer. Indeed, on the contrary, there is evidence, cited by me, of strong near-surface gradients in all the world oceans. Is this in dispute? If it is not well-mixed and there are substantial gradients and you took your sample from an unknown depth, just what is the heat content of the supposed well-mixed layer that isn't? Do you believe ocean surface layers are well mixed? Do you not believe the in situ evidence of temperature and salinity gradients in mid ocean? Do you have any in situ data on the correlation of Marine Air Temperature and actual SST? These are not strawmen. The papers you cite are all based on statistical data with no raw data available to check for corrections and are without error bars. I have looked at this in depth and this is real data-based skepticism. If the models based on this errorful ocean data were reliable, the predictions of warming would not consistently come out too low! The models are not working because they have been tuned to an error-prone oceanic dataset. Skeptics have trawled over the land data and there are no really serious problems with it (Climategate etc). This simply has not been done for the ocean data. I hope I'm wrong. If you know of detailed studies that have checked out bucket temperatures versus seawater intake versus satellite data and continuous data on salinity and temperature profiles from the surface down to 50m or 100m in all the oceans, I'd love to see them. I am a data-based scientist. Show me the evidence. Please do not quote evidence from models based on un-ground-truthed datasets with unknown error bars. Ocean heat from 1995 onwards shows a strong upward trend. Datasets for this period are more and more detailed and extensive though not in the near-surface layers. I believe if you tuned your full coupled ocean-atmosphere models for 1995-2008 period you would get more reliable results. We always need more ground truth. I know it is expensive. However, no amount of tuning models will substitute for detail accurate data from the oceans with known error ranges. Near surface dynamics are not trivial and require a detailed understanding of the dynamics from actual measurements. All the latest ground truth data from the oceans suggests they hold much more heat than the models suggest. Surely that is reason enough to check the original data for its validity?
  29. Philippe Chantreau at 05:59 AM on 6 October 2011
    Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Funny how WUWT is always attacking the idea of science by consensus (which really is a strawman the way they define it); yet they engage merrily in scientific prediction by consensus, which amounts to nothing more than collective wishful thinking and ends up so far off it's a total joke. Djon, if Goddard got anything right at all in his history of ramblings on the Arctic, it is purely by chance. I nothe that neither him nor Bastardi made an attempt at explaining what kind of methodology they were using to come up with their "predictions." It is really unfortunate that so much time and attention has to be wasted on these people's disinformation efforts.
  30. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Alleycat is correct that the planet will most likely "self correct" whatever we do to it. The challenge is how to survive the correction. Better yet, how do we avoid pushing the planet to a point where a self correction is inevitable?
  31. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Let it be noted that the posters here have been patient and polite to AlleyCat. Yet s/he keeps insisting that people are making comments about his/her persona, when all people are trying to do are point out the problems with his/her logic and understanding of the science. And rather ironic too, given that he/she has been the one making inflammatory comments about people here. But all that aside, even if people here were being rude or whatever, that would not be an excuse to dismiss the physics, the data and the observations.
  32. Understanding climate denial
    Thank you, once again, for your expert guidance. Perhaps I can prevail upon you to advise me on what you found inflammatory? I imagine such insights will prove especially instructive to us, the uninitiated.
    Response:

    [DB] "Perhaps I can prevail upon you to advise me on what you found inflammatory?"

    In your previous comment?  Pretty much everything after the first sentence.  An example from this comment above is "I imagine such insights will prove especially instructive to us, the uninitiated."  Perhaps you don't realize, but the tone is provocative.  Or perhaps you do.

    This forum exists for everyone to gain from the sharing of knowledge, free from condescending tones, heckling and invective (among other things). Seekers of knowledge here include scientists from other disciplines and lay people alike:  all are treated equally, and with respect.  Those that are able to contribute do so in the fashions and frequencies that they are able.

    It is noted that some feel the moderation policies here are too constraining and choose to take their participation elsewhere; this choice stands before you now. 

    Those that remain generally consider SkS to be one of the forums most conducive for learning things about climate science among the intertubes.

  33. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    I don't have the raw ice age data, but it looks like the total amount of multi-year ice was roughly the same in 2010 and 2011. Basically the short-term recovery of ice extent after the 2007 minimum created more first-year ice, which in turn led to more second and third year ice the next few years. But the decline in total ice extent in from 2010 to 2011 roughly offset that short-term multi-year ice percentage increase.
  34. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Dana, Maybe you should try to run the numbers. My attempt to do so after using an on screen pixel measuring tool to measure the percentage of 2-year and older ice in September 2010 and 2011 and multiply that by the monthly average extents yielded a result of his prediction just barely coming true. Whichever way that comes out, the point remains that his predictions are for ice age, not ice volume or thickness. Though he was certainly guilty of a bit of sleight of hand with his switch from discussing thickness to ice age, as though the two correlated perfectly.
  35. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Yes it should, KR. Djon - Goddard said the amount of multi-year ice would increase, in addition to his likely wrong prediction about 5-year-old ice. Technically the total percentage of multi-year ice did increase, but almost all of that increase was from 2-year ice, and that's also an increase in percentage, not amount. I haven't run the numbers, but given the decrease in total amount of sea ice, I suspect his prediction of an increase in amount of multi-year ice from 2010 to 2011 is wrong.
  36. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    I hate to defend Goddard but "Goddard Also Wrong on Ice Thickness/Volume" doesn't seem to me to be an accurate characterisation of what he wrote since the only thing he ventured a prediction about in the linked blog post was ice age. I think it's entirely plausible that he'll end up being right that there will be an uptick in the amount of five year ice in 2013 compared to 2012.
  37. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Hello Alleycat, The climate system is complex, no doubt, but scientists have increased their understanding on it immensely over the last 150 years or so. Not knowing everything, does not equate to knowing nothing. We do not know everything about how the human heart operates, but surgeons operate and save lives each and every day. We have known for some time (and past climate change has aided scientists in understanding this) now that doubling or trebling or even quadrupling CO2 levels in a very short time is going to have a dramatic impact on the climate system and biosphere. Indeed, those changes are already evident in data collected/observed across many scientific disciplines. No models required. You say "The planet is a dynamic system that tends to correct itself." You seem to be trying to apply Le Chatelier's principle, but in the wrong context. I encourage you to read this great article by Dr. Bill Chameides. "If this was all so obvious, then the majority of scientists would concur, but they don't." It has been quite obvious for quite some time now actually (e.g., seminal research by Tyndall,Arrhenius, Callendar etc.). Not that science is done by consensus, but the vast majority of scientists who are working in climate related fields do agree on the theory (not hypothesis) of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change. That there is allegedly "no consensus" is currently ranked as Skeptic Myth #4. Regardless, the agreement goes beyond "consensus", it is in fact consilience. Hope that this helps.
  38. Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
    Jonathan@33: the savings would likely outweigh the costs (a 10% savings in winter equals a doubling in summer).
    An unsupported assertion. After using misleading absolute costs, instead of changes in costs, you now are using percentages of those absolute costs, which is also misleading. Let's say I spend $700/year on heating, and $70/year on cooling. I save 10% on heating, or $70. I double my cooling costs, and I've spent the $70 again. That's a break-even example (and probably a realistic ballpark estimate). The "10%" or "doubling" comparison is irrelevant. And that's just operating costs on an existing system, not modifications to add capacity. The link in my comment 32 appears to have an extra "/" at the end. Try this: Brutal heat, humidity wreaking havoc at hospitals No, it wasn't a record temperature. It was a prolonged period of near-record temperatures, but the important point is that those high temperatures were accompanied by high humidity, which is unusual for the region: Heat Waves is a link to a SaskAdapt web site with an article on adapting to changing climate conditions. It includes a discussion of the 2007 events and adaptations required by the hospitals.
    I do not know the costs of upgrading either a heating or cooling system for a hospital.
    Apparently Regina-Qu'Appelle Health Region does: $3.7 million. That's for two hospitals, but I have no idea if the modifications are designed to handle just the 2007 conditions, or whether they've planned in advance to deal with continued increases in heat and humidity in the future. (Note that the $3.7 million figure also includes some non-HVAC operating room changes, but the list of upgrades is in the press release, and most of it is in the HVAC systems.) News Releases: Improvements to Heating, Ventilation and Air Cooling Systems, Regina General Hospital and Pasqua Hospital, June 24, 2008
  39. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Shouldn't "took up the reigns" be "took up the reins"?
  40. Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    Kevin @33, Have you seen this new paper by Padilla et al. (2011)? "For uncertainty assumptions best supported by global surface temperature data up to the present time, we find a most-likely present-day estimate of the transient climate sensitivity to be 1.6 K with 90% confidence the response will fall between 1.3–2.6 K, and we estimate that this interval may be 45% smaller by the year 2030. We calculate that emissions levels equivalent to forcing of less than 475 ppmv CO2 concentration are needed to ensure that the transient temperature response will not exceed 2 K with 95% confidence. This is an assessment for the short-to-medium term and not a recommendation for long-term stabilization forcing; the equilibrium temperature response to this level of CO2 may be much greater. The flat temperature trend of the last decade has a detectable but small influence on TCS."
  41. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Alleycat, "The planet is a dynamic system that tends to correct itself. WE ARE A PART OF THAT SYSTEM, not some separate alien invader corrupting it." Alleycat, The idea that the planet tends to correct itself has a definite problem: what is "correct"? What is the ideal state? You don't know, because if you did, and you had evidence, you'd either be considered a major prophet or everyone would already also know. Humans have enjoyed a relatively stable climate for roughly 10,000 years. It's understandable that climate instability is not an element of any original narrative--except perhaps as a distant echo in certain practices and pieces of wisdom. It's also understandable, then, why climate stability might be represented with a Gaia-type character: Earth-and-biosphere-as-being, and as a being in some sort of balance that has recently been upset. No. The earth is what its historical and material conditions (including us) make it. It has been wildly variable in the distant past, and for long periods (very inhospitably so). There is no base climate that the Earth returns to after excursions. There is no base climate that the Earth is heading for (well, there is a set of unpleasant end scenarios involving the "death" of the sun and the "heat death" of the universe). To think that we can't alter climate is to set us outside of nature. We can alter nature, and we make choices every day that increase or decrease the long-range chances for our own happiness, health, security, and freedom (and the same for other parts of the biosphere). I assume from your use of "outlaw" that you are concerned with individual freedom and government regulation. The more that AGW is allowed to become a problem, the more likely a government solution will be necessary--perhaps even a global government solution. At some point, you're going to have to set aside the universals and start up from basic physics. Do you accept that CO2 absorbs and emits (in all directions) at a specific set of pressure-broadened frequencies within the range at which the Earth emits (having been initially warmed by the sun)? If no, then read the advanced version of this page (again) and provide evidence for your position here. If yes, then do you accept that humans are the primary reason why atmospheric carbon has been rapidly increasing over the last 150 years? If no, then provide evidence for your position here and/or here. If yes, then you are pretty much forced to believe that humans are responsible for the activation conditions of a warming mechanism. The question then becomes one of energy balance. Is there enough warming (through positive forcings and feedbacks) to overcome the effects of negative forcings and feedbacks? Answer that question here after reading the article(s).
  42. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    alleycat#91: "So even if it is 'man made' it's still 100% natural. " What a useless tautology. Cars are man-made and are therefore 100% natural (by your 'logic'). Yet there are laws to control the use of cars. Should nature just self-correct wayward drivers? Volcanoes? Biggest in recent memory was Pinatubo and it did have an effect on climate - for about 2 years. So? You can learn something about the science here. Thus far your claims (such as 'volcanoes emit more CO2') have all been factually incorrect and everyone commenting has politely told you so -- with references. No one is name-calling and demonizing; the first to accuse another of doing that is usually the one who has lost the argument. If you find it necessary to go that path, you'll find the moderators will quickly show you the door.
  43. Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
    The image is now broken for me, I'm afraid. I've moved it to an image host with which I've got more experience: I've had a quick look into the TCR (transient response) question. The TCR for modelE is 1.5-1.6, which accounts for the difference in results. My empirical value is very similar, but then I use the GISS forcings. This report says "The full range for TCR in the CMIP3 archive is 1.3 to 2.6°C, with a median of 1.6°C and 25 to 75% quartiles of 1.5 to 2.0°C (Randall et al. 2007). Systematic exploration of model input parameters in one Hadley Centre model gives a range of 1.5 to 2.6°C (Collins, M., et al. 2006).". Which is somewhat ambivalent. Dana's method of scaling the TCR happens to give almost exactly the right answer for any given climate sensitivity. Why? Because as it happens the CO2 forcing has increased pretty linearly over the past 40 years (not shown), and the gradient when projected back crosses the zero line about 70 years ago. So we've effectively lived through a TCR experiment scaled down by a factor of 2, and the resultant temperature rise due to CO2 alone is thus also half of TCR. The only question is what is the correct value for TCR: 1.6 or 2.0°C? GISS modelE and most of the CMIP3 models are around the lower end. However more recently Tung at U.Wash has argued for significantly higher values from solar cycle data.
  44. The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
    Tom @32, We cross posted. You of course make a very valid point about oceanic heat content and sea surface temperatures. Someone seems to be intent on arguing strawmen.
  45. The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
    Micawbr, I'm sorry but you are saying an awful lot without really saying anything substantive, and are not raising issues that have not already been dealt with in the literature. I encourage you to read Lau and Weng (1999), AchutaRao et al. (2007), Lyman and Johnson (2008), Domingues et al. (2008), Levitus et al. (2009), or DelSole et al. (2011). These papers deal with the sampling and instrument issues, and they all note that decadal variability is evident in the ocean SSTs and OHC. What scientists are now interesting in determining is what exactly is happening during hiatus periods, and models are a very useful tools for such experiments/investigations. "I personally do not consider the periods before [1995] then to be valid until I see proof of the input data." That is your opinion and not that of the scientists who work in the field. As for the reliability of the early OHC data, Lyman and Johnson (2008) conclude: "From 1955 to 1966, in situ ocean sampling is inadequate to estimate accurately annual global integrals of the proxy upper OHCA. During this period, the SI for the sampling pattern of any given year underestimates the 13-yr trend in proxy OHCA from 1993 to 2006 by around 70%, and confidence limits for the WI are often very large. From 1967 to 2003 there appear to be sufficient data to estimate annual global integrals. " So we can perhaps agree that one should be looking at data since ~1967 and not 1955. The hiatus periods identified by Rob Painting include that interval of what is deemed to include reliable data. More information on the various OHC chronologies can be found here But if you wish to insist that the data are not reliable prior to 1993, then also consider Willis et al. (2004) and Lyman et al. (2010). Both these papers show robust warming of the oceans between 1993 and 2003 and between 1993 and 2008, respectively. You claim "Argo floats switch off near the surface and in any case only operate in deep waters". That is not an accurate description. There are two standard mission operations: "In the simple mission, the float descends to a certain depth, often 2000m, and then begins its temperature and salinity profile from that depth. In the park and profile mission, the float descends to a certain depth, 1000m is recommended, and then descends to 2000m to start the temperature and salinity profile. In the beginning of 2010, 70% of floats profile to depths greater than 1500m. Another 20% profile to between 1000 and 1500m."
  46. The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
    Micawber @31, ocean heat content measurements and SST measurements are not the same thing. Therefore your issue about buckets and intakes is a non-issue with regard to ocean heat content. Further, there have been frequent studies of the influence on various measurement techniques on the SST record, including: Jones and Briffa, 1992 Parker et al, 1995 Folland and Parker, 1995 Casey et al, 1999 Rayner et al, 2003 Rayner et al, 2006 Thompson et al, 2008 and Casey et al, 2010
  47. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Alleycat @91:
    "Name calling and demonizing someone because they don't agree with your 'deeply held beliefs' is the first sign that you've lost the argument. "
    Actually, claiming somebody has lost the argument based on some trivia entirely unrelated to the science is a fairly sure sign that you have no substantive argument to offer. As an aside, the whole "global warming"/"climate change" issue is a complete non-issue that just makes you look silly (watch the video - you'll know what I mean).
  48. The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
    There was an excellent example of the jet stream loop in the north Atlantic at the beginning of October 2011. It could be seen on some weather charts looping up the western side of the Azores high and the eastern side of the Iceland low. This brought unusually high temperatures to northern Europe and southern UK while Northern Ireland and central Scotland had cloudy, warm frontal conditions. Now the jet stream has resumed its West-East flow and normal westerlies bring temperatures more usual for this time of year. One would think a large volume of warm salty water was transported northward during the period. Thank you for a great explanation of the conditions applicable during these transitions. Is there a site where real time jet streams can be found. I currently use ugrib weather that shows isobars and rain. Jet stream has to be inferred.
  49. It's ozone
    Shibui, The reason for the colder stratosphere is a somewhat grey area ... The abnormally cold arctic stratosphere this spring is attributed to a lack of polar vortex disruption (which is turn is a result of weak planetary waves). The strong vortex keeps the arctic stratospheric air isolated, allowing it to cool sufficiently to form clouds. As the stratosphere continues to cool due to an increase in green house gas, it'll be interesting to see if this occurs more frequently.
  50. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Alleycat, Your understanding of climate science is deeply flawed. The shift to the term "climate change" because the effect of global warming goes far beyond a simple increase in temperature. It affects rainfall pattern, ocean acidity etc. Global warming is the cause, climate change are the symptoms. No working climatologist believes that we are heading into an ice age. Global warming theory came long before the first computer arrive, and the theory have been verified through multiple observations and experiments. None of the 10 fingerprints albatross cited requires the use of a computer model. Computer models themselves are tested continuously against observations to ensure that the physics are captured correctly. You should also check out How reliable are climate models? Your belief that Volcano emits more CO2 is flat out wrong, as Dikran pointed out.

Prev  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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