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  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  1484  1485  1486  1487  Next

Comments 73951 to 74000:

  1. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    The current La Nina is responsible for virtually all of the worldwide weather disasters this year. As this graph shows, these cycles are predictable with amazing accuracy based on solar cycles. Cloud formation varies with the sun's magnetic field which varies with angular momentum. caption: "Yellow circles mark correlations of phases within the subcycles of the 11-year sunspot cycle with El Niños and blue circles with La Niñas. Bright green diamonds point to connections of SFC phases with El Niños and dark green diamonds with La Niñas. It is easy to see that all notable deviations from the zero line are explained with the exception of a single El Niño at the beginning of the curve. It should be noted that all of the respective Golden section phases that fall into the period 1951 - 1998 appear in the synopsis. There is not a single one that does not coincide with SOI extrema. Because of the phase reversal induced by BFS 1968 the same phases can be linked to El Niños as well as to La Niñas and can be used to predict both of these events depending on the phase of the dominating big finger cycle. There are no exceptions to this consistent pattern. Climatologists have been wondering why there were three consecutive El Niños without any interruption by La Niñas between 1991 and 1995. Figure 8 gives the answer. During the five years in question there were not any Golden section phases that indicate La Niñas, but four of them that point to El Niños." http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm A later 2002 followup article discusses the accurate predictions: http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/revisit.htm This is the real world, not a lab experiment. The true test of a theory is its ability to make accurate predictions.
  2. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    He provides a nice mechanism for the failure of additional cosmic ray flux to produce additional cloud nuclei. That takes down the causality of the Svensmarkian argument. If more CRs don't make more clouds, the whole idea that solar magnetic modulation controls climate is not just the wrong horse, its a lame horse.
  3. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    I encourage readers to peruse the "ClimateCommunication" site, it has easily accessible discussions of the science, including a discussion about extremes. Input for the text has been provided by some of the leading experts int he world on the relevant issues. "Recent weather events such as deadly heat waves and devastating floods have sparked popular interest in understanding the role of global warming in driving extreme weather. These events are part of a new pattern of more extreme weather across the globe, shaped in part by human-induced climate change. As the climate has warmed, some types of extreme weather have become more frequent and severe in recent decades, with increases in extreme heat, intense precipitation, and drought. Heat waves are longer and hotter. Heavy rains and flooding are more frequent. In a wide swing between extremes, drought, too, is more intense and more widespread. All weather events are now influenced by climate change because all weather now develops in a different environment than before. While natural variability continues to play a key role in extreme weather, climate change has shifted the odds and changed the natural limits, making certain types of extreme weather more frequent and more intense. The kinds of extreme weather events that would be expected to occur more often in a warming world are indeed increasing. [Source] The highlighted text above drives home a very important point, a point that is very inconvenient for those in denial about AGW or those "skeptical" that the consequences of continuing with business as usual will be very deadly and costly.
  4. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    KevinC I agree it would be a terrible waste of hard work and creative thinking to bin the GCMs but perhaps the output should be a little muted until they become more skillful. I mean this purely from a public perspective, we all decry the over hyping of results from published papers by the MSM and any tiny flaw is always thrown into sharp relief so eroding the general public's regard for Science.
  5. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    @Albatross #19 I heartedly concur with your assessment. BTW, climate models will once again be dealt with in Dana's next post about where SkS disagrees with Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. Speaking of Dr. Pielke, it will be intersting to see whether or not he takes issue with anything stated in the above article.
  6. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Cross-posted from another GCR thread. RealClimate has just published a post written by Dr. Jeffrey Pierce (an aerosol scientist). Dr. Pierces was invited by Nature Geoscience to author an article prior to the publication of the aerosol nucleation results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. The article is well worth the read, the final paragraph is especially noteworthy: "While reported observed correlations between cosmic rays and clouds are suggestive of effects of cosmic rays on clouds, cosmic rays rarely change without other inputs to the Earth system also changing (e.g. total solar irradiance or solar energetic particle events, both also driven by changes in the sun, but distinct from cosmic rays). Thus, we must understand the physical basis of how cosmic rays may affect clouds. However, it is clear that substantially more work needs to be done before we adequately understand these physical connections, and that no broad conclusions regarding the effect of cosmic rays on clouds and climate can (or should) be drawn from the first round of CLOUD results. Finally, there has been no significant trend in the cosmic ray flux over the 50 years, so while we cannot rule out cosmic-ray/cloud mechanisms being relevant for historical climate changes, they certainly have not been an important factor in recent climate change." Backing the GCR hypothesis as a silver bullet for explaining the observed climate change the last 50 years is backing the wrong horse.
  7. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    RealClimate has just published a post written by Dr. Jeffrey Pierce (an aerosol scientist). Dr. Pierces was invited by Nature Geoscience to author an article prior to the publication of the aerosol nucleation results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. The article is well worth the read, the final paragraph is especially noteworthy: "While reported observed correlations between cosmic rays and clouds are suggestive of effects of cosmic rays on clouds, cosmic rays rarely change without other inputs to the Earth system also changing (e.g. total solar irradiance or solar energetic particle events, both also driven by changes in the sun, but distinct from cosmic rays). Thus, we must understand the physical basis of how cosmic rays may affect clouds. However, it is clear that substantially more work needs to be done before we adequately understand these physical connections, and that no broad conclusions regarding the effect of cosmic rays on clouds and climate can (or should) be drawn from the first round of CLOUD results. Finally, there has been no significant trend in the cosmic ray flux over the 50 years, so while we cannot rule out cosmic-ray/cloud mechanisms being relevant for historical climate changes, they certainly have not been an important factor in recent climate change." Backing the GCR hypothesis as a silver bullet for explaining the observed climate change the last 50 years is backing the wrong horse.
  8. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Why is this thread going off topic about models and such? I know, go back to the post made at #9. We have discussed that ad nauseum on another thread with Pielke. Please take arguments about models to the relevant threads. Thanks. This post is about what Pielke (a "skeptic")and SkS agree on. Specifically, that a) we humans are altering our climate by emitting GHGs and b) we agree that we need to reduce our GHG emissions-- it is all there in black and white. That we agree on something is a good thing. Unfortunately, some contrarians are not happy with that and now seem bent on fabricating debate on well, just about anything for the sake of being argumentative and to shift focus away from the fact that we are in agreement on two critical issues as noted above.
  9. The Climate Show #19: A Tale of Two Poles
    No, of course not. It is the lack of pirates that leads to global warming. Ramen.
  10. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Tom, You are half right. Not every La Nina will lead to a drought in Texas, as your graph details. However, every Texas drought has ccurred during a La Nina. Clearly, there is more to it than just ENSO events. By any standard, 2011 was hot and dry in Texas. Using the past decade to establish a "new normal" appears rather premature, as historically (as shown earlier) Texas has some rather extreme years, with few being "normal."
  11. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    FundME: Yes, if we reach the point where CO2 and temperature have been tracking consistently over many decades, then that would be strong evidence (although correlation does not prove causation, and to even provide strongly suggestive evidence we'd need some serious bumps in the shape of the CO2 growth, which has been disappointingly smooth up till now). The problem is that this method is likely to not give a clear answer until long past the point where we have committed the planet to huge irreversible changes. And it is also demands that climate science work in a fundamentally different way to any other science. In no other field do we force scientists to abandon all the accumulated knowledge of physics from other fields, and rebuild from scratch on a purely statistical basis.
  12. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    My understanding is that CO2 is all about heat and nothing but heat. It is my belief that Climate change as driven by accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere will be irrefutably proven when we can do away with either of the instruments used to detect heat and CO2 levels. We should be able to tell the temperature by using CO2 levels as an indicator and we should be able to tell the CO2 levels by reading a thermometer. A bit simplistic but that is the purpose. To cut away all of the extraneous contention. That is why Pielke.sr says that the EBMs can tell us all we need to know and as most of the heat resides in the Oceans that is where we should be focusing and using OHC as our chosen metric. We have weather prediction models to do the rest (modeling the atmosphere skillfully).
  13. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    With regard to the Texas drought, I have been working on the following adaption of Tamino's graph: It is the same as Tamino's graph, showing post 2000 years circles red. What I have added is the six strongest La Nina events since 1949 colour coded to match this graph: The 2008/9 La Nina is coded grey for clarity. Data for the MEI index is here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html Texas Summer climate data is here (Temp/Precipitation): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=tmp&month=8&year=2011&filter=3&state=41&div=0 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=pcp&month=8&year=2011&filter=3&state=41&div=0 What's the point? I keep on hearing the refrain - "It's La Nina" or "It's El Nino" for every extreme climate event that happens. In the case of Texas droughts, the culprit is supposed to by La Nina. The graph shows that this explanation simply does not pass muster. Pre 2000, La Nina's are typically cooler than the average, and neither unusually wet or unusually dry. The '74, '75 La Nina, as strong as that of 2011 show values of 8.82", 80 degrees F, and 8.89", 79.4 degrees F respectively. In other words the last La Nina as strong as that of 2011 was cool, and wet in Texas. 2011 is clearly not just what happens in La Nina years in Texas. In contrast to ENSO, the grouping of all years since 2000 on or above the red line is highly suggestive. If we treated them as "the new normal", 2011 would still be unusually dry and hot, but not exceptionally so.
  14. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    "An analysis of Texas statewide tree-ring records dating back to 1550 indicates that the summer 2011 drought in Texas is matched by only one summer (1789) in the 429-year tree-ring record, indicating that the summer 2011 drought appears to be unusual even in the context of the multi-century tree-ring record."
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2011/8 Claims of "not happened before" should be qualified with the period of record being used. There's no doubt that the drought is unusual in the largest context available.
  15. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Rob, There was not been an increase in frequency or intensity of El Ninos and La Ninas during the 20th century. See the following graph. We has seen some changes between predominant El Nino conditions and La Nina conditions, with El Nino states predominating until recently. The theorized increased heat into the deeper oceans could be achieved by the ENSO cycle, however it would be just that, cyclic. If the current La Nina is transporting heat deeper into the oceans, then the previous El Nino was involved in the upwelling of heat. These would tend to balance out over time as suggested by Paul. The upper ocean layer warms by solar radiation. Some of this heat is then lost to the atmosphere through radiation. Much of the heat is lost to the atmosphere through convection, particularly in the tropics. This were much of the influence of clouds is occurring, as mentioned on other threads. Less clouds results in less convection, while more clouds results in greater convection. As more heat is transported to the upper atmosphere through this process, more heat can be radiated to space. Since La Nina conditions tend to lead to increased cloudiness, the current ocean cooling can be tied to the recent La Nina conditions. Longterm, any heat tranferred to the deeper ocean will return to the surface through either a reversal of the heat transport process or directly through density changes caused by the heat transfer. Under either scenario, transfer of heat to the deeper ocean would be temporary.
  16. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Dana69 becoming very much an underdog- I'd like to respond with a slightly different approach- Dana69, you asked for a "refutation" of Dr. Pielke Sr. Could you please summarize how Dr. Pielke arrived at his contention that CO2 isn't the dominant climate driver? What is the observational and experimental data behind it? What is the total forcing that Dr. Pielke believes exists? How does that compare with the consensus forcing and CO2 participation? I wasn't able to find this in the discussion he presented, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect a refutation of something that's not there. I probably missed a thing or two that you can fill in, but overall, I don't think its there. What I observed was a fair degree of frustration from the SkS side trying to get at this so it could be discussed and Dr. Pielke rebuffing repeated requests to do so.
  17. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    However I think the comparison between EBMs and GCMs gives us a very interesting piece of information: An EBM with the same response function as a GCM gives the same evolution of temperatures over time as an ensemble of runs of that GCM. (See for example Hansen's 2011 draft paper on energy balance, or Held's blog post linked by Riccardo). However the individual GCM runs give significant variation about this mean. That should tell us something about the physics. My interpretation is as follows: Despite the fact that the temperature can vary significantly in the short term due to internal variability (ENSO, cloud feedbacks etc), the system is fundamentally stable with respect to the equilibrium temperature for a given level of sustained forcing. Or equivalently, the system has a rather limited memory for what has happened in the past. Does that seem right?
  18. Dikran Marsupial at 22:19 PM on 26 September 2011
    Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Dana69 How are global energy balance models used to make regional projections? GCMs can do this, can EBM. One might equally ask Prof. Pielke why we should use energy balance models when they don't tell us anything we couldn't be achieved using simple statistical regression models. The obvious answer to that question is that EBMs are based on more physics than statistical model; the answer to Pielke's question is pretty much the same, the GCMs include more physics than EBMs. The really funny thing is that the most common complaint about GCMs is that the climate is too complex for them to model, but here Prof. Pielke says we should use even simpler models. So why doesn't the complexit argument apply to Prof. Pielkes energy balance models? ;o)
  19. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Dana69 reminds us of this claim by Dr. Pielke: "computationally expensive climate models, when used for multi-decadal predictions, have not told us anything of demonstrated added value beyond what can be achieved with just global energy balance models." As often happens, there's something untold behind this claim, i.e. that he's looking only at temperatures. This is resonable because this is the only thing that a simple energy balance model (EBM) can give. What surprises me, instead, is that it's him to consider temperature as the only important quantity. I'm sure Dr. Pielke knows very well that there's much more than global average surface temperature in the climate system. Apart from this, is it really surprising that a simple EBM is good enough to project the temperature over a multidecadal time scale? I don't think so, the physical foundations of the AGW theory are indeed as simple as a zero-dimensional EBM and it's exactly this that makes the AGW theory so strong. If anything, Dr. Pielke's claim supports the AGW theory. I'd suggest the reading of this interesting blog post by Dr. Isaac Held.
  20. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Dana69 #9:
    He also takes issue with climate models, which this site clearly relies heavily on.
    Nope. This is a Monckton/Delingpole myth. Read the skeptics guide - there are multiple sources of observational evidence for almost every single claim of climate science. Warming world? There are weather stations, ships, bouys, satellites, glaciers, lakes, ice caps, boreholes, plant and animal species migrations, corals, pollens, tree rings. Warming due to greenhouse effect? How about the diurnal temperature range, winter vs summer warming, stratospheric cooling, tropopause rise, increased DLR, decreased OLR. (D = downward, O=outgoing, LR=longwave radiation) CO2 role in greenhouse effect? How about Tyndal's experiments in 1859, repeated and updated hundreds of times, gas spectroscopy, predictions from QM (probably the most successful theory in the history of physical science), the DLR spectra, OLR spectra, and also energy balance calculations. Future impacts? How about the paleoclimate data from previous interglacials, from the deep past, simple projection based on equilibrium sensitivity, energy balance calculations based on 20thC climate. And that's all from one lay person's reading. In fact, I can't think of a single claim of climate science, apart from perhaps regional predictions of the impacts of climate change, which isn't supported from multiple observational sources. Can you?
  21. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Dana69 #9, just because you've found a single scientist who disagrees with the consensus that anthropogenic GHGs are the dominant current driver of climate change does not change the fact that virtually all relevant climate scientists concur with this observation (97-98%; e.g. Anderegg et al). They are supported by a wealth of physical observation, including but not limited to: the observation of the enhanced greenhouse effect (downward and outgoing longwave radiation), of a warming pattern consistent with GHGs rather than other drivers, and of palaeoclimate and geological observations consistent with a climate sensitivity of 3C/doubling CO2. You can claim the 'site relies heavily on models', unfortunately, the evidence is in a great deal of observation from a great variety of sources, not just the models (which are based on physics so not to be dismissed). Dr Pielke has not explained how to drive palaeoclimate with a low climate sensitivity to forcing. Can you?
  22. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Theh Palmer paper is available here
    Moderator Response: fixed link
  23. Harald Korneliussen at 16:03 PM on 26 September 2011
    Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    I think my friend the climate pirate says it best: We can’t deal with a problem without knowing its scope. That Pielke Sr. agrees CO2 causes some global warming is not something to shout hooray for. We need to know if the appropriate approach is to politely petition people to change their lightbulbs, or to ban air travel and coal power. The world is full of climate "realists" who want to call themselves environmentalists because they put their orange peel in the trash rather than throwing it on the ground (I'm serious. This was used as an example by a guy in earnest). I actually think this should be a Climate Myth with rebuttal on this site; "Why can't we all just get along? Don't we all want fresh air after all? Do we really have to bother with this controversial climate change stuff?"
  24. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Rob Honeycutt, It appears you didn't read his response here SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions @17 which states: "A focus on the radiative forcing of added CO2 as the dominate environmental threat is not supported by the scientific evidence. Policies that focus on that single issue which result in negative effects on other environmental and social concerns is not good policy, in my view." Or maybe you skipped this response @94: No; "I am not convinced that CO2 is the largest annual global averaged positive radiative forcing [and I am interpreting that you mean human climate forcings and the global annual average). Sott, and a variety of other aerosols have quite substantial positive radiative forcings in the atmosphere, and for soot,at the surface on snow and ice also. These other positive radiative forcings arr discussed in some depth in." This site continues to claim that Radiative Forcings caused by CO2 is the first order climate driver causing the current global warming trend, and this is considered settled science. Clearly another valid scientist disagrees. He also takes issue with climate models, which this site clearly relies heavily on when he states at @94: "I also have concluded that the computationally expensive climate models, when used for multi-decadal predictions, have not told us anything of demonstrated added value beyond what can be achieved with just global energy balance models. By so closely linking policy to these models, we are doing more harm than good in developing effective climate and energy policies."
    Response:

    [DB] "This site continues to claim that Radiative Forcings caused by CO2 is the first order climate driver causing the current global warming trend"

    You'll have to provide a link to support this assertion, for at this juncture it's simply unsupported.

    "and this is considered settled science."

    IBID

    "Clearly another valid scientist disagrees."

    And whom would that be?  Or do you refer obliquely to RPSr?

    "computationally expensive climate models"

    Since when does it really matter what the computational cost of a model is and what are RPSr's credentials in being an expert in that area?

    "when used for multi-decadal predictions"

    So using models for an area (multi-decadal vs centennial or millennial-scale) outside of their design core functionality makes them more expensive to run?

    "have not told us anything of demonstrated added value beyond what can be achieved with just global energy balance models"

    Insights, sir, insights galore.

    "By so closely linking policy to these models, we are doing more harm than good in developing effective climate and energy policies."

    At last, the underlying pea is revealed.  You object to policy changes from the status quo and set up straw men and houses of cards in a failed attempt to cloak policy objections with unsupportable science.

    Please note that SkS is about discussing the science of climate change and exposing the mythologies behind those that would seek to obfuscate it.

  25. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Dana69... "...and yet comes to different conclusions." I wouldn't be so sure about that. Can you give an example? It seems to me that Pielke was, to a certain extent, taking a different path to the same conclusions, that as a species we need to address our use of fossil fuels and quickly switch to clean sources of energy.
  26. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Dana69, did you read this very recent article on ocean heat on SkS, or a number of older articles? SkS regularly deals with ocean heat content. Oceans are warming, as measured directly through OHC and indirectly through sea level rise. Cherry-picked short-term trends don't change that. Human emissions are not responsible for 26%, of yearly global emissions. Neither SkS nor Dr Pielke made your erroneous claim. Pielke claimed 26% of the positive radiative forcing was due to CO2 emissions. His claim does not seem too strong either, given the trend of natural forcing factors since the 1960s, and certainly natural factors cannot account for the trend in temperatures. Pielke also avoided answering what proportion of global warming (temperature) was due to CO2 emissions. "... many other factors affecting climate irrespective of CO2 alone". See if you can find anyone that disagrees with that statement! The only problem is that CO2/GHG forcing is the strongest of all the forcings currently in action. SkS did not need to "refute" it.
  27. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    As a laymen I have been following the exchange between Dr. Pielke and this site very closely. Dr. Pielke is someone that understands the physics, (-Ideology snipped-) and agrees with points of view espoused here, and yet comes to different conclusions. I did not see any credible refutation of his work here, simple disagreement with his conclusions. (-Inflammatory snipped-). He made the claim that man-made CO2 was responsible for about 26% of the yearly global emissions. I did not see any refutation of this claim. He also stated there were many other factors affecting climate irrespective of CO2 alone; Again, I did not see any credible refutation of this position. "Global warming or cooling involves changes in Joules of heat in the climate system. This involves changes in heat in the oceans, land, atmosphere and cryosphere. As concluded by Jim Hansen and others, the ocean is by far the component of the climate system where the large majority of this heating and cooling occurs. Receding ice, surface temperature, atmospheric temperatures make up only a relatively small portion of global warming and cooling." If you feel ignoring other aspects of the climate while elevating CO2 to a greater position of authority, there is not much one can do, but this does not ultimately make the scientific case. You may have proven that CO2 is a GHG, but you have not proven that it is the primary driver of climate overcoming all other factors. As Einstein states: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - -- Albert Einstein
    Response:

    [DB] Ideological insinuations of fraud snipped.  And do please try harder to be less inflammatory.

    AFA Einstein: he said many a thing.  My favorite by far:

    Any man who can drive safely while kissing a woman is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.

  28. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Sphaerica#47, Ha! There is documentary evidence. No trend though. At least no one will blame this on cosmic rays. Sorry, upon closer inspection, there do not appear to be any dogs involved. Just raining cats and pitchforks.
  29. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    45, muoncounter, I've done an extensive search of the literature, and can find no definitive link between climate change and feline-canine precipitation. I'm afraid this is just evidence of more unsubstantiated alarmism on your part.
  30. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter, exactly! Particular types of weather events lend themselves to generating unusual or extreme weather. 'Blocking' patterns are one of those kinds of weather events, that can lead to prolonged dry or wet in particular regions. Except now, blocking events are often leading to 'extreme', rather than just 'unusual'. Extremes that are as you would expect with a warmer atmosphere that can hold more water vapour. And Norman's wrong, it's very obvious that the intensity of this year's Texas drought and summer heatwave has not happened before, shown by you in John N-G's graph (#21). His response was to say "look at the annual temperatures", an obvious diversionary tactic from the uncomfortable fact of this year's heat and dry in Texas' summer, part of a summer trend, shown by Tamino.
  31. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    skywatcher#44: "a link between blocking, extreme weather and climate change. " How could there not be a link? We've had this back and forth before. 'Blocking' is a weather pattern; saying 'this drought is caused by blocking' is a bit like saying 'it's a drought because there hasn't been any rain.' But no blocking system has been in place for a year, as indicated by the map here. Norman's thesis appears to be 'yeah, but this has all happened before.' 'This' being drought, heatwave, flooding, windstorms, tornadoes, etc. Until it literally starts raining cats and dogs, he's right. Its just that the list of 'yeah, buts' keeps getting longer.
  32. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4 (update)
    I'm very disappointed by the standard of arguments by Carrick, Lucia, Charlie and others. They've been unable to suggest anything other than cherry-picking reasons for changing the 2000 start date. They've been unable to pick any good reason why not to use GISS, other than empty suggestions of deception. Most importantly, they've been unable to indicate why Dana's conclusions are incorrect. Given the neutral-negative ENSO and negative solar forcing over that period, global temperatures are just where you would rationally expect them to be, slightly below model projections, even if you use the non-global NCDC or HADCRUT products. If the critics can't actually show that this post's conclusions are in error, they're left with empty nit-picking, and really, is that all they have?
  33. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, refer back to John Nielson-Gammon's graph. Would you call 2011 'normal' for Texas. It's set new records for temperature as well as drought, and is far from the previous distribution of such events. See Tamino's take on it as well. While annual Texas temperatures may not have much trend, summer temperatures do. Which ones do you think matter more for extremes? It reminds me of the way that in the UK, we had the hottest April ever, beating the previous clear record-holder, 2007, into second-place. Remember that? Thought not. Of course, in UK April hot dry weather means nothing more than some pleasant evenings and a few (occasionally quite damaging) wildfires. It's not headline-making in the way that the large amounts of snow in the last few winters (without significant temperature records) has been, and it's not a headline-making record-breaking heatwave like the same weather in July would inevitably cause. It's still extreme weather. A lot of British weather opinion has been linked to the perceived cold wet summers (I think I would agree with that for the last five years or so), and the extreme snowfalls. Less has been made of the extreme floods that we've seen (e.g. Cumbria and Gloucestershire), or the general patterns of extreme precipitation. I remain interested in the link between reduced Arctic sea ice and early winter snowfalls - if true we should see more of that. Extremes come in many guises, but they are not very likely unless something is forcing the climate system out of its normal state. In the UK and worldwide we're seeing a lot of extremes. Norman, as an aside, an interesting link between blocking events and global warming comes from Stu Ostro (very large presentation), but then I've linked that to you before. He sees a link between blocking, extreme weather and climate change.
  34. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    muoncounter 21 OK I got it slightly wrong. Here is a quote from the Svensmark paper: "To further investigate the time-scale to produce a charged critical cluster, an electric ‘clearing’ field has been used. Applying an electric field of, for example, 600 V/m reduces the small ion life time to seconds, thus decreasing the time available for the ions to participate in nucleation. However, this did not have any effect on the nucleation process, and only at much larger electric field strengths did a significant response become apparent. For field strengths up to 6000 V/m, the particle production was reduced by ca 20% and at larger fields up to the current maximum of 12 000 V/m, the particle production was reduced by ca 50%. Since, as stated earlier, ions are involved in almost all particles produced, this indicates that the characteristic time for producing a stable cluster is very short, i.e. 2 s or less" (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory deleted.  Please refresh yourself with the Comments Policy and ensure that future comments fully comply with it.

  35. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @42 From your Jeff Masters link. Link to graph of Texas March drought index. If you look at this graph you can see about 8 years that were exceptional droughts (-4) before 1960 and there were none after 1960 except for this year. Around 1920 you had one year that was a drought in the -6 level and a few years later it was above 6+. From the drought index chart it would seem that there are very few years that are normal. Normal is a data point between extremes.
  36. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    granted... I thought someone needed a reminder.-
  37. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    @ Chris G., #3: I would guess that the (somewhat cynical) "iron law" holds in normal times. However, in times of crisis, I believe the iron bends. For instance, what was the economic advantage to passing the laws that were responsive to the Civil Rights movement? It's very possible that there will not be any effective laws passed until the economic harm is more visible. I refer to: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/09/25
  38. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Dave123#23: "a number hurdles to jump" Those were among the key points of the prior 'Saying nothing' thread. What I wanted to do here was demonstrate that even putting aside all those hurdles, the record is this: We've seen events (like the Jan 20 2005 GLE) that should have done the job -- and they did not. That horse was scratched from this race.
  39. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    It seems to me that cosmic ray afficiandos have a number hurdles to jump: 1) showing that in the atmosphere other mechanisms for cloud nucleation are insufficient to account for cloud formation. Given the enormous amount of anthropengenic dust, nitrogen oxides etc have come to reside in the atmosphere this seems more than a little challenge. What evidence is there that supersaturated air masses do not form clouds with great ease? 2) Showing that there has been some (any) variation in cosmic ray flux coincident with the rise in GMST. Not hypotheses about how it might occur....real data here. 3) Overturning the physics of CO2 and showing why every calculation has been overstating the direct forcing from its increasing levels in the atmosphere. This will also require an explanation of the CO2 signature in TOA emissions and back emissions to the earth.
  40. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    tblakeslee...Arguing about the behavior of muons with someone whose alias is "muoncounter" is the equivalent of spitting into the solar wind. I would advise against it. To quote from the Laken et al 2010 paper you linked to. "This work has demonstrated the presence of a small but statistically significant influence of GCRs on Earth’s atmosphere over mid-latitude regions." and "The climatic forcings resulting from such solar – terrestrial links may have had a significant impact on climate prior to the onset of anthropogenic warming, accounting for the presence of solar cycle relationships detectable in palaeoclimatic records." So the authors doing active research and promoting this idea see this as a small effect possibly contributing to past variation, but not to current warming. As I said before, it'd be cool if it panned out, though it's unlikely to for all the reasons mc has mentioned. Even if it does pan out, it will allow us to account for more short term natural variability, which will only make the effects of anthropogenic GHGs more obvious. This whole debate sounds like a disguised version of the fallacy that climate scientists think that only GHGs affect climate.
  41. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    One proofread too little: Dr. Hansen... _where_ he attempts... ...favored energy sources will _be enacted_ until...
  42. SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
    Re: #184 "Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Thanks for the nice words. Like elephants in the circus, all SkS authors, including Dana, work for peanuts. Every so often, John Cook pops in to fill up our bowls and sweep up the shells." Correct except in one point: There are no peanuts, and therefore there are no bowls.
    Response:

    [DB] Actually, I get comped in beer futures...

  43. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    The points of agreement are interesting; the points of disagreement should be equally so. What I gathered from this discussion was that Dr Pielke does not disagree that CO2 is a substantial forcing, but simply believes that it does not contribute to climate change such a large proportion of the forcings that it should be acted upon in isolation. Dr Hansen has published papers when he attempts to estimate how much CO2, aerosols, land use, and other factors contribute. I'm not sure if Dr Pielke has made similar estimates, but I'd be interested in them if they exist. What I'm coming around to is that there are always tradeoffs to be made in any course of action to be followed, and the way to decide the course to follow is to focus most of your efforts on the actions with the best cost/benefit ratios. To the best of my knowledge, reducing CO2 emissions still gives of the most bang for the buck. (Is that a local colloquialism or is it more widely understood?) If you can't get the leaders of the major industrial powers to agree to some plan for reducing emissions, I don't know how you would go about trying to convince millions of individuals in growing populations to quit converting forest to farmland, just for example. I probably won't read The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming because the subtitle hints strongly at conspiracy and subterfuge, and that turns me off. So, I should not comment, but I will anyway, but this is just based on a skim of comments and reviews. The "iron law" to the effect that if economics and environmental issues come head to head, economics wins, has some merit, but this is a matter of public perception. When a river catches fire because of the all the pollutants in it, the public perceives that maybe they are better off with some pollution regulation rather than purely capitalistic industrialism. It would be naive to think that fossil fuel corporations are not aware of this, which is why, in the US, we see advertisements about how coal is clean, natural gas fracking is safe, and tar sand oil is secure. It would also be naive to think that major industrial powers don't have influence on governing bodies, and naive as well to think that corporations producing fossil fuels will not recognize the advancement of alternative energy sources as a threat. So, I have little faith that laws and regulations which change the balance of favored energy sources will change until there is public outcry, at least not in the democratic countries. Based on the material I've read, I believe these critiques apply to the main gist of the book, but I'll stand corrected if someone points out otherwise. P.S. Yes, I am aware of the irony/hypocrisy that I won't read the book because of the implied subterfuge, and that is exactly what I'm saying is happening. I'm not proud; I can handle it.
  44. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    tblakeslee#20: "using natural muons and essentially turning them off with a strong electric field." That must've been some electric field, as natural muons reach the surface with an average energy of 3-4 GeV (that's G as in billion). SKY used 580 MeV electrons; CLOUD uses 3.5 GeVs. So here's a puzzle: 'Natural muons' are largely a product of solar wind protons. If they are so good at making clouds, why doesn't cloud production (and the cooling or warming that is supposed to result) more closely match the solar wind output? Another puzzle came to light here: electrons, like cosmic rays in the real atmosphere, are ionizing molecules in the air and so cause water molecules to stick together. Furthermore, the researchers found that this effect also took place when they used a radioactive sodium source, which produces gamma rays The basis of Svensmarkism is that solar variation modulates cosmic ray flux and thus cloud production. If natural gammas are of sufficient energy to ionize and thus are also producers of clouds, how can the interplanetary magnetic field be relevant to that process? Gamma rays aren't touched by magnetic fields. And thanks for the cloud chamber reference. Demonstrating a 'principle' in a closed chamber is nowhere near as difficult as demonstrating that the mechanism is viable in the atmosphere.
  45. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman#41: "some meteorlogist took the time and made such graphs of other locations would it look much different?" Short answer, yes. Look again at this graph. Then look at this map: That's a twelve month period with precipitation below 60% of a 50 year average. We're way out of normal bounds here. Not the new normal? That is a measurable event, based on 30 year averages -- in other words, a climate change. Look back at any of our extreme weather threads; read just the April recap of Jeff Masters' blog. I've suggested this before: keep a list of the number of things you have to explain away as 'a normal event.' Or you can content yourself with the warm feeling that all we ever see is weather and thus climate change is always Mañana.
  46. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    muoncounter "not duplicating/confirming Svensmark" Why change my words and then disagree? I said it was "a confirmation and refinement." The SKY experiment was done in frustration because the CLOUD experiment was delayed by over a decade. It was done inexpensively by using natural muons and essentially turning them off with a strong electric field. Here is the link: http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_prsa_oct2006.pdf Actually you can buy your own Wilson cloud chamber kit for $23 which will demonstrate the principle nicely. Natural muons from space will leave clear tracks in the supersaturated vapor clearly demonstrating how cosmic rays can produce clouds.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Paraphrsing is perfectly acceptable unless quotes are used to suggest it was what you actually said. Please, no more of this sort of pointless bickering, please stick to the substantive issues.
  47. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @37 I will post the link again for ease. (it is also at post 15). Historical Texas climate. Look at the Texas annual precipitation graph. Any one season can be extreme and has been. Look at the preciptiation for Texas in 1917. It is several inches below the normal. Then two years later it is several inches above the normal. The severe weather phenomena makes me think of selective perception. Looking at the highly varialbe nature of temperature and precipitation in the state of Texas over a 100 year period, I think it would be a safe assumption to expect this of any location. So if the globe is your area of selection, you will certainly be able to find extreme events in some location on the globe every year. Looking at Texas overall I can't see any clear link that precipitation or temperature of the last decade are anywhere outside the long term events. If some meteorlogist took the time and made such graphs of other locations would it look much different? If Texas data is a sample of what goes on around the globe, from the available graphs I can't see how anyone could conclude "global weirding" or "the new normal" Look at the preciptiation amounts before 1960 and after and please explain where is the evidence Texas droughts are getting worse?
  48. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Chris @ 24. To quote from the Shaviv paper I referenced, "we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations.." The tidal data is only one of three methods that gave impressive and consistent results. Tides vary significantly from place to place due to the a magnification of the tidal wave by the shape off the ocean bottom. Averaging over the planet or even over nearby areas makes no sense as the shape of the ocean bottom varies. The more abrupt the change in gravitational pull, the greater the magnification. An 11 year cycle has no such effect as the change is so slow that no wave is formed. Dismissing this entire paper over this questionable objection on one of the three methods used shows a strong need to ignore this elephant under the rug.
  49. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Schaerica #35 Good point, I am considering buying and reading the book at this time after your post. Maybe it will answer the questions I have.
  50. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Climate sensitivity to Milankovich forcings -- an order of magnitude smaller than the forcings due to increasing GHGs -- melted mile thick glaciers from the Arctic to mid-latitude North America and Europe. In around 4000 years. So, does the climate show high or low sensitivity to change? Sounds damn sensitive to me. With less ice to melt in mid-latitudes it sounds to me like there will be more energy to do pernicious things to agriculture. The activity that 7,000,000,000 of us depend upon for food.

Prev  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  1484  1485  1486  1487  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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