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  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  1484  1485  1486  1487  1488  Next

Comments 74001 to 74050:

  1. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Rob, Yes, there is the natural cycle superimposed upon the long term trend. I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, too many have focused on either the short-term up or down portion and making claims based on such. I am eagerly awaiting your post concerning global warmings impact on ENSO strength.
  2. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Dana - Good work on this. One comment:
    Dr. Pielke claimed that CO2 was responsible for 26% of the current energy imbalance (the rest is other greenhouse gases, black carbon, etc.). Based on the scientific literature, we believe it's twice that (about 50%).
    I thought I may as well check this against the GISS forcings (which I note they've now updated to 2010, hoorah!) here. But how do you count? Net forcing relative to 1880 is about 1.5W/m2. The CO2 contribution to that is 1.5W/m2, or 100%. But that's meaningless. If we add up just the GHGs, then CO2 is 1.5 out of 3.0W/m2, which I presume is your 50% figure. If we naively add up all the positives in the top graph and ignore the negatives, then CO2 is 1.5 out of 4.1W/m2, which is still 36%. That's the most generous figure I can get, so I guess RPSr disagrees with the GISS forcings.
  3. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    I winced where Sinclair extended the Arctic sea ice September minimum by adding a point for 2011. Still a few days before September ends.
  4. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    How much longer can the likes of Bastardi go on predicting that all the current trends will reverse next year for no apparant reason?
    If you had predicted something in the order of a 20% drop in the minimum extent over the next 4 years in May 2007 the skeptics would have gone spare calling you all the names under the sun for such an unthinkable and outlandish suggestion. Now if you suggest that that drop was in any way unusual you are lambasted for trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Its all natural variability and to be expected you see. The unthinkable becomes the mundane. Denial flourishes.
  5. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Jonathan @ 29 - To understand the natural oscillation in ENSO, we need to look back further in time, and for that we have to turn to proxies. When viewed in the context of the last 1000 years - the 20th century shows more frequent/intense ENSO events than at any other time in the (paleo) record. In other words, it's not "just La Nina", global warming has actually made La Nina (and El Nino) worse. I'll deal with this in an upcoming post, in a couple of weeks. As for the current hiatus in global surface temperatures, this is also covered in an upcoming post on Meehl (2011). In a nutshell: we have a long-term ocean warming trend upon which a natural cycle of ups-and-downs is superimposed (or vice versa if you like). These cycles are already apparent in the OHC record. See Levitus (2009) -linked to @ 25. Pete Dunkelberg @ 36 - cheers Pete, I read the series a while back. My post is based on Professor Peter Minnett's post at Real Climate a few years back - it's much more accessible to a general audience.
  6. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Good point Adelady. And that was before the floods of September in the northeast too. And how many of the white areas near the Mississippi had issues with tornadoes or flooding earlier in the year? In fact, how many parts of the USA have been 'coasting along' all year, let alone August?
  7. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter, that PDSI comparison is very interesting. And not just for the current drought. The biggest difference between the 2 maps is all of the extremes. 1980 is largely coasting along for most of the country. A few extreme drought spots, a few flooded spots. And the extreme areas are less than the graduated, less severe areas. When you look at the 2011 map it's almost the reverse. Huge swathes of the country at both extremes. Not much of the country coasting at averages. Haven't 'counted pixels', but it might be worth it for those with the patience.
  8. Dikran Marsupial at 17:01 PM on 27 September 2011
    Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    tblakeslee The correct response when someone demonstrates that a line of evidence that you have presented is nonsense, is to either accept that it is nonsense or to demonstrate that it isn't. In a rhetorical argument moving on to another line of evidence is a good strategy, in a scientific argument it isn't (it basically a tacit admission that you know you can't defend the first line of evidence but can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong, which is a deeply unscientific attitude). Now the idea that there are cyclic changes in solar output is nothing new. The paper you provide says precisely NOTHING about the link between the solar cycle and ENSO, so it is of no use whatsoever in supporting the idea of a link between the two. You write "After 2002 the predictions continue to be correct including accurate prediction of last years la nina and its return next year. O.K., show me where the ENSO prediction was made. You have made an unsubstantiated claim (based on climastrology) now it is time to back it up with a verifiable source.
  9. 2011 Sea Ice Minimum
    Great video, Rob. I remember you saying, Rob, on an earlier thread that the melting of the polar ice caps would be the big wake up call about the realities of AGW, and indeed you were correct. What astounds me is how those in denial avoid mentioning ice decline at the higher lattitudes and coral atoll inundation at the lower lattitudes. How much longer can the likes of Bastardi go on predicting that all the current trends will reverse next year for no apparant reason?
  10. Monckton, the Anti-Nurse
    As Belloc put it, "And always keep ahold of Nurse, For fear of finding something worse"
  11. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    "The changes in the ocean heat content over time, when accurately measured, provides a diagnostic of the radiative imbalance without the need for considering lags or a so-called “climate sensitivity" Of course, RPSr said this a couple of years ago knowing fully that data on OHC - the entire ocean - is sparse and not nearly (to put it mildly) as well-measured as surface temps. And of course there's nothing like the historical record we have for surface temps. He then pinned his notion that there's nothing really serious to worry about on the lack of data on OHC. Utterly transparent from the git-go.
  12. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    No Norman, your NOAA link shows 2011 to utterly put 1980 and any other year in the shade, for both Dallas and for Waco. If you don't think that breaking average temperature records by a the same amount as the span of 2nd to 10th place on the record table, then you and I have a very different idea of extreme. It was Texas' hottest summer by a clear margin, NOAA data shows this. In case it hasn't already been linked, Tamino has an interesting FEMA graph of the numbers of declared US disasters, with 2011 already top of the tree with three months to go. I'd say it's a more complete survey of extreme weather events than Pielke Jr's attempt to evaluate just coastal counties' hurricane damage (thus avoiding inland flooding from hurricane remnants), and doesn't involve sums of money. There are of course weaknesses as to how individual disasters are declared, but it is more evidence. Note how the rising trend with an early spike in 1998 looks rather familiar... European floods showing an increase, corroborated by the The International Disaster Database, where you can see that the trend in storm and flood damage is much more pronounced than the trend in geological disasters. If weather-related disasters worldwide are rising faster than geological disasters, Pielke Jr's nitpicks disappear. Powell is on the money, and it becomes clearer every year as what was once an abstract trend gets large enough to substantially impact people and productivity. That we see this happening worldwide is of course the key.
  13. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    skywatcher @62, Look at my last post at 61. It was much more extensive than on city in Texas. Also the drought post you refer to is from muoncounter. 1980 has not been put in the shade in terms of heat. It was one of the hottest years Texas has experienced. But the ground was not so dry as in 2011 and it did not cover as much area of Texas. Also skywatcher, I am not making a claim against AGW theory that the globe is getting warmer. And the term significant is one of those "in the eye of the beholder". I would agree many areas show warming. Not sure at this time if it is significant. Significant in what way? It is a matter of degrees. Maybe you can't stand it when the temp should be 88 (normal) and it is now 89 on a regular basis. For you this would be significant. Maybe not for others. This thread is not about global warming (evidence would suggest a degree or 2 of warming depending on your temperature scale). It is about extreme weather events. Are they increasing because of the global warming? That is what I question. I am not saying I am correct in my position. I just of the opinion that at this time there is not enough good, reliable data to make a sound judgement upon this issue. I see some blogs throw out the year's worst weather events and tell me things are getting worse. Maybe they are, I just need more evidence than one or two years worth of data. Need a lot more from a lot more areas and over a lot longer time period. Need a consistent way of logging an extreme event. I think monetary damage is not a good one. Hail size, area of coverage, duration of hail storm. That is much more scientific. Get enough of this data compiled and you can answer the question in a sound scientific way based upon solid data. What I intended with the Texas data of 1980 was to show that in one small location (as compared to the whole earth) in one year you have many extremes and disasters. Why should listing 30 global extremes lead me to think that climate is shifting in a very dangerous way?
  14. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, you cherry-pick one site (Dallas), then claim to wish to look at the whole globe? Nice goalpost shift there. Following your example, can I call on Russia (2010), Europe (2003), Pakistan (2010), Australia (2010), amongst a wealth of other examples, including (flippantly) Arctic heat in winter or British record-breaking heat in spring? Why not a global temperature dataset? Ah, they all show significant warming. We should be amazed because in Texas, 1980 has been utterly put in the shade by 2011 in terms of heat and drought severity, as shown by your NOAA link. Are the cats and dogs falling in your area yet?
  15. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @58 Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the 1980 drought. "The 1980 United States Heat Wave was a period of intense heat and drought that wreaked havoc on much of the midwestern United States throughout the summer of 1980. It is among the most devastating natural disasters in terms of deaths and destruction in U.S. history, claiming at least 1,700 lives[1] and because of the massive drought, agricultural damage reached US$20.0 billion (US$55.4 billion in 2007 dollars, adjusted for the GNP inflation index).[2] It is among the billion-dollar weather disasters listed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" Wikipedia information on 1980 drought. Here is a NOAA chart of some of the most costly weather related disasters. The drought and heat of 1980 ranks very high in both life and property damage. Maybe you need to reconsider. The drought of 2011 would be higher on the PDSI because of low rain amounts from 2010. Areas were already dry. We will see how 2011 summer drought compares to 1980 in cost. NOAA chart of billion dollar weather related disasters in US.
  16. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, you tried to cherry-pick one site, yet from your link, that site is #1 in all the temperature records for August (high max, min, average), and all but the high max for the summer. Hardly supportive of this being a typical year. Following the link on the NOAA page for Waco also shows the extremes. When average temperatures for a month are broken by >2F (Dallas) and 3F (Waco), and for the entire summer by >1F, you don't have to wonder if it is extreme. You do realise how hard it is to break a monthly average temperature record by that much? Look at 2nd-10th rankings for the average temperatures at these sites: they span 2.6F for Dallas, 1.7F for Waco. The new records are so far above the older series that they show the records being not just broken, but utterly smashed. muoncounter's NOAA map summarises it nicely too. These droughts are not similar.
  17. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    mdenison - I think Pielke believes the methane and black soot forcings are underestimated. I certainly disagree on methane, as will be discussed in the Disagreements post. Black carbon he may have something of a point. It's possible that both the negative and positive forcings from aerosols and black carbon are underestimated by the IPCC. I think we discuss this in the Disagreements post too.
  18. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    I am posting a link to an article on the extremes of weather in Texas in 1980 for a reference. The claim is that weather is getting weirder. But remember now we are using the entire globe as our sampling table. If one State in one year can have all these extremes (some very wet places, some super dry, some really hot, some really cold, some very snowy places...all one state all one year), why should any be amazed that there are extremes in 2011? Wild Texas weather in 1980.
  19. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Norman, By the 1980 drought, you mean this: PDSI, August 1980: as opposed to PDSI, August 2011: Yep, they look about the same. You can look at the monthly US PDSI history here
  20. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    muoncounter @45 "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." Not a thesis. Just looking at evidence. Here are some links for you to check out and see what you think. You can clearly see that listing weather disasters strictly by a dollar value can give very misleading results on trend lines and after more detailed analysis is performed, the trends are no longer there. Normalized Hurricane damage shows no trend. Quote from article: "Across both normalization methods, there is no remaining trend of increasing absolute damage in the data set, which follows the lack of trends in landfall frequency or intensity observed over the twentieth century." Here is another study done on floods. It depends upon how you calculate the losses that determines what is actually going on. Three types of graphs are given using different approaches to financial loss. Floods in USA.
  21. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Eric (skeptic) @49 Your quote says that only one summer (1789) matched 2011 summer drought in Texas. The question I have for you is how many others were close. Maybe only one matched but maybe 20 or 30 were close enough. Not enough data in your quote to form a valid conclusion on the extremity of the 2011 Texas drought.
  22. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    skywatcher @44 I believe a valid explanation of the Texas 2011 point on the John Nielsen-Gammon (way outside the cluster) is that this year's drought covered more area and with a similar drought in the 1980's, this one shows up much worse because it could have included area that 1980 did not reach. Here is a NOAA page with 1980 vs 2011 in the Dallas FortWorth area (DFW). 2011 was not much different than 1980 in this area. In fact 2011 had almost 2" more of rain in the area as compared to 1980. Night temps were warmer in 2011 but 86 F is not a brutal temp that would likely lead to death. 1980 vs 2011.
  23. Monckton, the Anti-Nurse
    I have heard it said that ridicule is a last resort when you have run out of arguments to put, but I think its use is broader than that, and employed by both sides of the war. 'Christy Crocks' and 'Lindzen Illusions' are whimsical headings, but arguably ridicule. And fair enough, I say. Albatross notes this is a 'PR game' for the deniers. But it is really a PR game for all of us - concerned laypeople, scientists; skeptics and industry drones alike. Hearts and minds have to be won to one side or the other, and we are all doing PR, like it or not. It's a shame we can't have a bipartisan approach to this issue, but so be it. War it is. As to ridicule, (neat segue coming up), Australian readers of SkS might like to check out 'Crownies' on ABC1 this Thursday 29/9, 8.30pm. Climate Change makes it into pop culture, with B-story status at least, with a denialist in court against a climate scientist. Regulars can play Climate Blog Bingo and tick off the skeptic memes. You may recognise some of the one line rebuttals :). And a few less than subtle references to key players. The issue is skated over, as only TV can. But if you like a bit of ridicule in your war, this episode is fun. Thursday. 8.30.
  24. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    dana1981 @28 I would also very much like to see Professor Pielke explain the 26%. I have been through the calculation on his web site which appears to differ considerably from that made in the TAR. As he said this was a back of the envelope estimate from several years ago which probably explains why I found it so odd to follow. I am sure he would appreciate the opportunity to clarify with the latest data. An update of his website would be useful. It appears to me that an estimate of CO2's relative impact now and in the future is central to differences expressed in the previous posts over his hypothesis 2a and 2b. I read his EOS forum article and references but could not agree with him that the literature provides support hypothesis 2a over 2b. I am inclined to think that my approach seeking quantitative estimates of forcing is not his approach. Unfortunately I have not been able to find his analysis in the literature. In some ways I find hypothesis 2a has some merit. I think if I have understood Professor Pielke's viewpoint correctly he has concerns that by focusing constantly on global change we miss the point that we will all experience climate change locally. Some anthropogenic changes such as BC in the Himalaya or land uses change such as deforestation in the tropics will have far a greater local than global impact on climate. Although perceived as small effects on the global stage compared to CO2 they could remain significant concerns to those affected. Perhaps we could find more common ground by understanding why he thinks CO2 is not the dominating issue for the coming century.
  25. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Hi Norman - what I took from Stu Ostro's presentation was that there was the observation that quite often extreme events happened around these large pressure anomalies. I didn't see him indicate a causal mechanism, and so his idea is firmly in 'hypothesis' territory. I would have thought that ordinary blocking events provide the conditions under which dry weatehr has the opportunity to become extremely dry, and wetter weather has the chance to be extremely wet. In that case the blocking itself may not have changed much (though Ostro shows some very extreme values). The weather extremes are thus a result of higher average temperatures and a greater capacity to evaporate or hold more water vapour in the atmosphere - these are of course known consequences of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It remains an interesting possibility that blocking itself may have changed either in location or in strength, leading to greater extremes and/or extremes in places less used to them.
  26. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    skywatcher @ 44 I am going through the presentation by Stu Ostro. It is interesting but I am not completely following the connection to Global Warming. Ridges at the 500 mb level prevent troughs from moving and create extreme weather in these areas. I was not sure he made a clear explanation of how global warming is changing patterns. I will continue to digest and research the material as time permints. I thank you for reposting this. I remember looking at it earlier. Here is a few month's worth of 500 mb anomalies from December 2003 to February 2004. Animation of 500 mb anomalies. What I am trying to determine is if Stu Ostro's presentation of anomalies at 500 mb level is really that extreme. I am looking for more animations of this pressure level to determine height anomalies and get some form of what normally occurs. It is a way for me to verify this presentation.
  27. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Riccardo makes a good point. Also the fact that there is a greater effect with a smaller sampling size (less events as amplitude of FD increases) also worries me. I would have conducted a more robust null model, maybe a Monte Carlo simulation that generated sets of randomly placed events, just to see what the odds of getting an apparent significant effect by random chance, and how that changed with the threshold used.
  28. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee, I think we should ignore your arguments until you respond to David Lewis' comment at #99 regarding Richard Alley's presentation. If cosmic rays had little effect during this massive excursion 40kyr ago (cosmic ray flux doubled for a thousand years), why should the much smaller variations have any sizeable effect at all? This is quite apart from all the other reasons that we know cosmic rays are nothing more than a fine tuning knob.
  29. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    also Dana69 @28:
    "I am not sure what the specific difference is"
    Man-made CO2 is actually only about 3-5% of annual global CO2 emissions. However, the natural carbon cycle is in balance (nature absorbs slightly more carbon than it emits), so humans are responsible for 100% of the annual atmospheric CO2 increase. However, what Dr. Pielke was referring to was the global energy imbalance. Effects like an increased greenhouse effect or increased solar activity can throw off the Earth's energy balance, leading to more incoming than outgoing energy. Global warming is the result of this sort of energy imbalance. Dr. Pielke claimed that CO2 was responsible for 26% of the current energy imbalance (the rest is other greenhouse gases, black carbon, etc.). Based on the scientific literature, we believe it's twice that (about 50%).
  30. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Dana69 @28 - that CO2 is not the only factor was another of our agreements with Dr. Pielke, discussed in this post.
    "Although CO2 is one of the primary causes of the current climate change (more on the magnitude of its effects in a separate post), we agree with Dr. Pielke that other climate influences such as land-use change must also be addressed through climate policy."
    CO2 is, however, the largest single factor causing global warming (again, we'll discuss this further in the Disagreements post). As a side note, the Disagreements post will likely be delayed to give Dr. Pielke a chance to respond to this post, as he's currently traveling.
  31. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Here's the prior comment. The Dragic paper is quite good: with FDs that reduce the count rate by 7%, there's a detectable increase in DTR, but for FDs with only a 5% decrease, the effect disappears. Did someone say 'hardly a robust result'?
  32. Philippe Chantreau at 09:27 AM on 27 September 2011
    CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Re Tblakeslee at 100: Do you realize that this is the very same Dragic paper that Muouncounter linked to earlier to showq that events that may have an effect, as small as it might be, are rare and happen only a few times a year?
  33. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Dave123 @16 You ask me to validate Dr. Pielke Sr. data. He provides his supporting data in most of his posts. "First, the climate system is much more than just a globally averaged surface temperature. Even with respect to global annual averaged radiative imbalance, the retention of the scientifically inaccurate use of surface temperature trends (with its lags) is unnecessary. The changes in the ocean heat content over time, when accurately measured, provides a diagnostic of the radiative imbalance without the need for considering lags or a so-called “climate sensitivity”." ( -Snip- ) I am going to go outside the bounds for a second and tell you I have been following Dikran Marsupials responses, both here and other sites, and I have to say he has an impressive intellectual mind. I am not sure of his background, or credentials, but he is someone with a firm grasp of ideas and an impressive array of responses. Are peoples credentials published here, or is this more of a closed site for peoples backgrounds? Lastly, I was wrong when I stated: "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. I was corrected when it was pointed out Dr. Pielke actual stated: "that CO2 is responsible for 26% of the net positive radiative forcing, which is very different than what you claim he said." I am not sure what the specific difference is, but it does seem to suggest that it is not the entire equation. It may be a factor, but not THE factor. The only implication of this conclusion is political, not scientific. Science talks about what is, politics talks about what ought. Respectfully,
    Response:

    [DB] Quote seemingly attributed to RPSr snipped due to language.

    "Are peoples credentials published here, or is this more of a closed site for peoples backgrounds?"

    What matters at SkS is the scientific strength of the argument, not any credentials.  Participants comments are thus judged and weighed on their own merits.  Nothing else need matter.  That being said, some members of SkS have a short bio located here (not a comprehensive list).

    "It may be a factor, but not THE factor."

    Based on what?  You give us nothing to work with here.

    "The only implication of this conclusion is political, not scientific."

    Actually the scientific implications dwarf the political ones.  If the laws of physics are any guide, a great deal of humanity stands to find out those selfsame implications.

    "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." ~ Albert Einstein

  34. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Which suggests that lower troposphere air masses that are supersaturated with water perform condensation to form clouds without needing much assistance from cosmic rays. There seems to be no shortage of 'nucleators' available.
  35. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Even a cursory reality check makes the 0.5 °C DTR change for a 10% decrease in cosmic rays unlikely. The same 10% are aproximately the GCR intensity variation during half solar cycle; this means that we should see a 1 °C swing in DTR every 11 years. Anyone noticed it?
  36. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee: Interesting, but here are some other recent papers. See: Erlykin 2011“The contribution of CR to ‘climate change’ is quite negligible” Magee 2011 “the scientific rhubarb over cosmic/cloud connectivity can be made into a delicious pie” (!) Sloan 2011 “It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900”
  37. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    ENSO does not influence the deep ocean but involves an up and down movement of the thermocline. The "climastrological" interpretation of ENSO given by tblakeslee #30 is irrelevant here.
  38. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Here is a new paper that shows the sun-cloud connection in the real world by looking at diurnal temperature range (DTR) which is the difference between the high and the low of the day. You may remember that after 9/11, when the airplanes were grounded, the DTR increased due to the decreased cloud cover with no contrails. Plotting the DTR after 13 Forbush events (coronal mass ejections) that abruptly decreased cosmic rays by at least 10%. Figure 5 shows a DTR deviation curve that very cleanly peaks three days after the event at .5 degrees centigrade. http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.pdf
  39. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC AR4 (update)
    Agreed skywatcher - there's not much to disagree with in the conclusions, which are pretty darn wishy-washy (as necessary due to the lack of data available), so the criticisms are necessarily nitpicky. Regarding the claim that starting in 2000 was a cherrypick - aside from the fact that the AR4 model run began in 2000, it wasn't a particularly cold year either. By 2000-2010 standards sure, but at the time, it was the 6th-hottest year on record, and hotter than the 1990-1999 average. The only reason it was relatively cold is that the past decade has been so hot! It's funny that the same people who are arguing there's been little to no warming over the past decade are also arguing that 2000, which at the time was exceptionally hot (6th-hottest year on record) now must be considered a cold year. As for ENSO, the end of 2010 saw a moderate La Nina which was reflected in the early 2011 temperatures, which I could have excluded by looking at just 2000-2010 or 2001-2010 observational data. But I didn't, I included all data through July 2011, including those months impacted by La Nina. In short, that particularl nitpick is just plain wrong.
  40. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Rob @33 I just put in the references and quotes from Alley's presentation because I wasn't seeing his argument made in the post. I wrote it more for people who might be dropping in on the site as opposed to those creating it. I assumed the people involved with creating this site are well aware of Dr. Alley, his AGU presentation, and his body of work. I think Dr. Alley's point about cosmic rays and their influence on climate is very strong. Hansen often makes his points citing paleo data because as he says all possible feedbacks and factors are in there. Whatever the exact processes are, that may or may not affect clouds, that are influenced by variations in cosmic rays, the paleo data shows that a dramatic variation of the abundance of cosmic rays on a millenia time scale in the past had no climate effect. Its the kind of data that would really take the wind out of your sails if you were saying you felt like you were on the brink of discovering some new major factor to climate science. If you were at all rational that is.
  41. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    tblakeslee @37 ENSO is a result of non-linear coupling between the atmosphere and ocean, so you are asserting that a prediction that completely ignores the atmosphere and ocean is based on sound physics? Landscheidt's later predictions are in fact several times wrong. La Nina after APR04-APR05: Wrong. SOI indicates a warm phase El Nino from MAY05-APR06: Wrong. SOI indicates a cool phase Lastly, if ENSO is truly the result of sun cycles, then how do you explain ENSO cycles seen in climate models without those cycles built in?
  42. Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level
    Hi Rob, Just to add to the graphics above (figure 3). I think this is what is known as an interesting correlation.
  43. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    Hat tip to "AGW Observer". A paper is in press at J. Climate by Agee et al. (2011), they conclude: "An updated assessment has been made of the proposed hypothesis that “galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are positively correlated with lower troposphere global cloudiness.” A brief review of the many conflicting studies that attempt to prove or disprove this hypothesis is also presented. It has been determined in this assessment that the recent extended quiet period (QP) between solar cycles 23–24 has led to a record high level of GCRs, which in turn has been accompanied by a record low level of lower troposphere global cloudiness. This represents a possible observational disconnect, and the update presented here continues to support the need for further research on the GCR-Cloud hypothesis and its possible role in the science of climate change." In other words, the increase in cosmic rays has not been associated with an increase in lower tropospheric cloud cover as predicted by the GCR hypothesis, in fact it has been associated with a record low level of lower troposphere global cloudiness. This finding also points to a positive feedback between warming and clouds.
  44. Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
    David... Believe me, I think that Alley lecture has made the rounds here. I've watched it several times myself. The moderators here use it quite frequently as a place where people can start learning more about climate science. Dr Alley is somewhat of a hero around these parts. My point was that I believe there was a lot of infighting over whether to fund the CLOUD research in the first place (though, admittedly I've done little research on this). Of course AGW deniers call this out to "prove" that the climate research community is against them but there are lots of people with lots of research projects and CERN has to pick and choose what research goes forward and what gets rejected. The CLOUD project, obviously, was approved. My point was, reinforcing what Alley was saying that "it's a small control knob at best." Based on previous research it's unlikely that the CLOUD project is going to turn up anything BIG with regard to cloud nucleation and climate effects.
  45. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    tbl @ 37. Did he also predict that 2010 would tie for warmest in the instrumental record despite the la nina?
  46. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    That's silly tblakeslee. Sea level data is obtained either from tide gauges or satellite ocean surface height measures. Tide gauge averages composite the individual sea level records from different tide gauges in different locations to provide an average sea level (and thus can be used to determine an average sea level change). The use of tide gauge records to composite local sea level measures doesn't involve averaging the tides! Any work of fundamental value to the scientific community is well cited. I suspect that the problems with the paper that I pointed out above are widely recognised, and therefore the work isn't that useful.
  47. Monckton, the Anti-Nurse
    Dhogaza and Dana, Thanks for clarifying Dana. Yes, of course Tamino was not part of the belittling and ridiculing of Dr. Nurse-- quite the opposite, and that would quickly become evident upon reading the Tamino post that I linked to. I directed people there for two reasons: 1) To see the offending cartoon, and 2) So they could at the same time see how misleading it is. But yes, that that cartoon was originally published at WUWT. Dana, re your side note. Watts et al. are probably doing that to make up for the fact that they cannot make a coherent, substantive and internally consistent scientific argument against the theory of AGW and against the overwhelming science. As I said before it is a game for them, a PR game, that and they have to keep feeding fodder to those in denial about AGW and its consequences...sadly doing so is frighteningly easy.
  48. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Chris 34 The idea of averaging tides makes no sense as they all average to zero. Look at the tide charts and you will find that they are only for specific locations. The tide is a wave that moves as the planet and moon rotate. It would be useful to separately analyze other tide stations but averaging would just destroy the data. The tides are very predictable just as the tides on the sun are predictable. "This work has hardly been cited since it was published. That's usually an indication that it doesn't provide much insight into fundamental understanding..." Or that, like an elephant under the rug, it was simply ignored.
    Response:

    [DB] "Or that, like an elephant under the rug, it was simply ignored."

    In all things, the simplest explanation is usually the best.  In this case, the absence of supporting observations coupled with a already-formed understanding of the physics underlying what we do see explains the lack of citations.

    Thus, Shaviv's work (while interesting) is simply not relevant given the established science.  Beating this dead horse as you do is like calling a dog's tail a 5th leg: the dog still has but 4 legs, as calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.

  49. Monckton, the Anti-Nurse
    I think Albatross meant that his second link (to tamino) discussed a second belittling (via cartooning) of Nurse, not that tamino was belittling Nurse. As a side note, what's with all the "skeptic" cartoons belittling prominent climate figures these days? First Nurse, then Dessler, then John Cook. None of them accurate or particularly funny, either.
  50. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Dikran 31 Landsheidt based his predictions on sound physics based on the gravitational effects of the nearest planets on the sun and its angular momentum. The magnetic fields are generated by the sun acting as a dynamo. Here is a paper by Ian Wilson that explains it. http://climatestop.com/Ian_Wilson_Syzygy.pdf After 2002 the predictions continue to be correct including accurate prediction of last years la nina and its return next year. In fact it will be very obvious in the next two decades if he is right as he predicted mostly la ninas for a long time resulting in another little ice age.

Prev  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  1482  1483  1484  1485  1486  1487  1488  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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