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  1489  1490  1491  1492  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  Next

Comments 74801 to 74850:

  1. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    189, Steve Case, So what? What's your point? That scientists make adjustments as data and techniques improve? Did CU adjust their rate using a short range, or did they adjust their rate based on new data that extended a reasonably long range for even longer?
    Response:

    [DB] "What's your point?"

    The point Steve has been trying to make is one of conspiracy and fraud on the part of UCAR.  However, he is reduced to making them via veiled insinuations, because he knows any more open accusations won't survive moderation.

    It has become very tiresome.

  2. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    I think I have an analogy that maybe helpful to those like me who come from an engineering background and have trouble putting the feedback discussed here into a more familiar context. Consider a circuit comprised of a voltage source connected to a resistive divider. Assume the divided voltage is our output node. To this output node we connect the control port of a voltage controlled voltage source of gain b whose output is connected to the output node through a series resister. This is our feedback path. Assume all resisters are 1 ohm. If b is zero the output voltage is simply one third the input voltage. As b is increased from zero to 1, the output rises from vin/3 to vin/2. Thus we see a "gain" of 1.5 compared to the no feedback case but in both cases the forcing (vin) is attenuated. With b=0, the thevenin impedance looking into the output node is 1/3 and therefore the output power density is 4kT/3 W/Hz. With b = 1, the thevenin impedance rises to 1/2 and so too does the power density, to 2kT. This indeed we can see an increase in variance with feedback gain < 1. Finally note that b in my analogy is not the same as f in #37. In the example, b could actually vary between 0 and 3, (corresponding to 0<=f<1) before the circuit became unstable. However, to get actual gain (in the normal sense of the word, i.e. an output greater than vin), b must be greater than 2. That is, to get actual amplification requires active feedback, as expected.
  3. CO2 lags temperature
    Firstly, GHG arent the only forcing. Our theory of climate states that climate will go with the sum of all forcings. If you want to me to "show you" a graph where CO2 is changing climate then you need time when GHG is dominant forcing. The modern era since 1970 is one immediate example. The PETM would be another. A more rigorous phenomenological approach would be to examine temperature as a function of all forcing, eg see Benestad and Schmidt 2009. But for the glacial cycle, the problem is more one of arithmetic. The NH solar forcing and albedo are not strong enough to explain the temperature response by themselves. This was one of the original objections to Milankovitch theory. Furthermore, why is a NH forcing able to cool the SH, whereas same forcing in SH doesnt have an effect? The reason being that the CO2 feedback is global rather than hemispheric. On top of this, you have difficult problem of explain why the directly measurable effect of GHG on surface irradiation does not change temperature if you wish to discount GHG as having an effect on climate.
  4. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    # 188 Sphærica Yes the time period is short and Colorado U adjusted the rate of sea level rise at least three times over that stretch.
  5. Observations of Climate Change from Indigenous Alaskans
    3, nuclearscience, You might point out to your friend that aerosols are actually responsible for currently holding temperatures down (or so Hansen theorizes), but that aerosols only stay in the atmosphere for a few years. And even so, the vast increase in aerosols resulting from a billion Chinese creating 2 new coal plants a week is only slowing down the warming, not stopping it. Lastly, such an effort would require the continual injection of aerosols into the atmosphere. What might that source be if we've consumed all available carbon on the planet? And, more importantly, where will the energy come from to power such an effort? Renewables? If that's the case, then why the heck not switch now?
    Moderator Response: kdkd - removed an ad-hominem to make an otherwise useful comment acceptable to the comments policy
  6. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    I go away to have dinner and come back to find that others have made my point for me. However, as I either took Shub's bait or felt that my point was more on topic than it appears to have been, I'll refrain from further model discussions unless they're somehow more clearly on topic. My apologies.
  7. Observations of Climate Change from Indigenous Alaskans
    This article highlights the changes probably everyone will eventually need to face. I fear for us in the States, its more about dealing with +100 deg F weather for extended periods, rather than warming from deep freezes. On a slightly related note, I have had serious debates with a friend at work recently over CO2 and climate change. My friends opinion has changed over the months (I guess that is progress) from denial, to realizing that there is warming, that it is manmade, but now that progression has hit a significant snag. He now claims that humans can engineer the temperature rise away by introducing aerosols into the upper atmospshere or some other technique that is far cheaper than addressing rise CO2. His argument that CO2 levels will plateu with the consumption of all available carbon mass on the planet, and we will be able to engineer away the temperature increases if they become a problem. So it looks like there's a new potential climate myth in the budding: We can fix global temperature by geo-engineering. Are there good peer reviewed articles that critic the geo-engineering argument? What are the downside risks of massive climate engineering? As always, thanks for the informed debate!
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Go to the Yale Environment 360 website and put "geo engineering" into the site's search box. You will get a list of links of a number of excellent articles on this topic.
  8. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Shub, I'm still at a loss. My point was that a measured assessment would not have proposed a significant difference existed between models and the UAH data. At the very last it would have made an effort to compare apples to apples and assess statistical significance before making a statement to congress. Christy's conclusion was biased and statistically unjustified even if it doesn't meet your own rather arbitrary threshold of significance. Satellites don't measure temperature directly. UAH uses microwave spectra to infer temperature. That's not straightforward. In fact, you could say it requires a model. Maybe not one as involved as a GCM, but still challenging. You're right that the model should match observational data to the extent possible, but potential errors/noise in the observational data, especially one as compex as satellite data, need to be considered. A model could get the prediction perfect and still disagree with the observations if there is noise or bias in the observational data set. So why not acknowledge that complex observational dataset could have problems that contribute to a discrepancy with model predictions? I still don't see the supposed ad hom in pointing out that Christy should have.
  9. Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
    I can not think how I missed this important article. What it points out is that for the first time, anthropogenic CO2 emissions have triggered fast and slow feedbacks, that “slow” feedbacks are occurring faster than expected and are not appropriately included in models aiming to forecast climate change. All very true! The article notes that …”In Antarctica, an amount of ice worth 20-25 m is rooted below sea level and held back by ice shelves.” If this refers to the WAIS, its thawing could raise sea level by 5-7 m rather than 20-25 m. In regard to the albedo slow feedback, I would note that the greatest loss of sea ice area occurs in summer enabling exposed ocean water to increase absorption of solar energy but that in winter ice mass continues to be eroded by warmer water insulated by the ice from the very much colder atmosphere above it. It’s a lose-lose situation. Lastly, I note that the article refers to CO2 as a slow feedback – which of course it is – but does not mention the elephant in the room, the far more potent, much larger and very dangerous release of CH4 embedded in permafrost which has now begun thawing. That is a slow feedback which I would argue is about to accelerate. Or is James Wright’s reference to CO2 a metaphor for CH4?
  10. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Philippe#182: True enough, but Shub's taking the scattergun approach typical of one-sided (biased) 'skeptics'. If he wants to discuss modelling, there are threads for that.
  11. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Shub: "Satellites measure temperature. Models produce estimates of temperature. It is pretty straightforward. Measurements don't exist to support models." Shub, you are demonstrably wrong (see scientific scholarship -- all of it). Any theory is a model based on observed, measured phenomena. Continued measurement directly serves the confidence of models. If temperatures (ocean, surface, and atmosphere) trend away from current GCMs, theory (and the models) must change. Perhaps you meant to say something more nuanced.
  12. Philippe Chantreau at 09:44 AM on 19 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Shub, this thread is about Dr Pielke's accusations of ad-hominem and one sided skepticism. His own blog post was not about the science but about those accusations, including a ridiculous assertion that SkS tried to undermine the UAH data set through the use of ad-hom. He was repeatedly asked to substantiate that accusation and was unable to do so. You made accusations of ad-hom yourself. You were then asked several times to cite exactly what "name" was Spencer or Christy called and have been equally unable to substantiate. If you want to talk about anything else go do it on the appropriate thread. You were asked to provide an example of real ad-hom committed by SkS and you have so far failed to respond. If you can't substantiate, you should refrain from further comments. You are not going to distract anyone by trying to change the subject, we are part of the reality based crowd here. Don't be surprised if your further off-topic posts on this thread are deleted, Dr Pielke was given unusual latitude in this matter and it won't happen again to him or anyone else. Muon thank you for the graphs, but they are also off-topic. They would be welcome and more useful on the appropriate thread, where Shub's comments on the same topic should be moved.
  13. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Shub#173: "Measurements don't exist to support models." You might want to qualify that a bit: measurements don't exist to support some models. Looks pretty clear that measurements do indeed support some of those models; the rest didn't get it right. Did you ever wonder why?
  14. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    michaeld#115: "Would it be possible to quantify all these effects?" Done. See Tracking Earths Energy and any of the many sensitivity threads, for example here. But average temperature (actually temperature anomaly, in comparison to a standard base period) is important because it is a directly observable change. But more important than the year-to-year, month-to-month anomalies is the temperature trend. Since the mid-70's that trend is up.
  15. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    scaddenp, it is appropriate for SkS to respond, but I think it is an exception to the rule that articles should be a useful reference. This article is taking exception to one specific "ad hom" and guilt by association accusation. The original Spencer and Christy posts are imperfect IMO (personally I would use the material but not link to it), but they are a lot more useful than this posting. I guess responding to accusations is never a desirable situation. On the one hand, you have to respond. On the other, it fragments the topics and can lead to a reactionary mode of operation.
  16. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Brian Angliss Thanks for that red herring. The 'models' that you are referring to, are not the GCMs that simulate climatic changes, are they?
  17. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Shub, the satellites don't measure temperature at all, they measure microwaves. Models (weighting functions, conversion factors, satellite orbit vatiations, and so on) are required to convert the microwaves into temperature estimates.
  18. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Eric - do you think Sks should not have responded to inaccuracies in Pielke's post? The original posts (on Spenser and Christy) seem to fufill the sites ambition as a place to go to find out what the published science has to say on topic raised by deniers and misinformers. Shub = "Measurements don't exist to support models." They are generally made to test models. Models are efforts to understand nature, especially so that we can predict the future.
  19. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    173, Shub, If you want to discuss Christy's Crocks, do so on that thread.
  20. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    les, first, this thread is not an "invitation" by any stretch of the imagination. Now the Christy crocks issues are in two places. But for dana1981's decision to pick on Christy above, Spencer slip ups would be in two places as well. Unless I am mistaken, the discussion of Pielke's topic, the satellite data, is nowhere. Specifically how is the integrity of SkS being defended?
  21. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    michaeld - average temperature possibly isnt the best because oceans introduce a lot of internal variability- but its what we have. The Argo network should eventually provide a better measure (see Von Schuckmann and La Traon 2011). See the Ocean Cooling corrected again for more discussion.
  22. CO2 lags temperature
    there is no physical evidence in earth's history to support your theory
    Wrong. There are reams of evidence. Do some research. Just go to scholar.google.com, type in "interglacial CO2". You will get 17,900 papers. Try "CO2 climate" and you will get 640,000 papers. The fact that you do not understand or accept the evidence is irrelevant. I suggest that rather than throwing around derogatory comments and dismissing what you do not understand that you go read Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. When you are done with that you will be able to intelligently use this site to learn how very thin the "skeptical" arguments are, how serious the problem is, and what all of the science that you dismiss and do not understand actually means. P.S. The climate models are a small (but very useful) part of the vast base of knowledge behind the issues. You will understand that when you've finished with a serious effort to learn the science.
  23. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Stephen Baines: You say: "[Christy's] statements deserve criticism in this instance." So, Christy's Congressional testimony in 2010 should be "measured", as in, take into account Santer's paper published in 2011? Additionally, you state: "After all, analyzing satellite output requires complex models, too! It's not that straightforward. That's why [Christy's] contribution is noteworthy, afterall." Satellites measure temperature. Models produce estimates of temperature. It is pretty straightforward. Measurements don't exist to support models. Christy's note is confined to the latest decade. Santer's analysis extends over a longer period. The two are not even necessarily contradictory. Christy's discrepancy figure is 3; Santer's 1.73. 1.73 is ok, but 3 is a 'crock'? Not much of a 'crock', is there?
  24. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    185, Steve Case,
    What I'm doing is painting a picture...
    Yes, exactly. You're using fingerpaints when what you need to understand science. You've already been caught in a ridiculous misrepresentation of the data, and it has been explained to you that you cannot compute a sea level trend with just a few years of data.
    So let's add it up. The 2004 - 2008...
    And yet, there you go again.
    Do you agree with that assessment?
    No, because your time period is far, far to short to be arguing about.
  25. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    Rob No, It isn't that I haven't ever e-mailed big names in the "Global Warming" debate, but I don't do it to argue or open some sort of a dialog with them, although it did happen once. I figure that a website like Skeptical Science ought to be able to make a good argument regarding the questions I bring up.
  26. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    166 Eiric - that is disingenuous. The blog of Pielke offers no possibility of reply as comments are disabled. "Inviting" him here, to a specific thread (so as not to mess up other threads) is a reasonable way to discuss issues around the integrity of the site. It's true it dies the science no favours any more than Pielke scurrying back to his little blog to whinge does him any favours. but at least the issues are all in one place.
  27. CO2 lags temperature
    "Show me any time in last 600 million years where co2 caused temperature rise." Well you can always try the Middle Eocene Climate Optimum or the more dramatic Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. CO2 has repeatedly changed slowly over geological time because of mismatches between volcanism, weathering, etc. But other factors that affect climate also change on these time scales (ocean circulation, albedo, solar input), so it can be hard to disentangle the influences. That doesn't mean they aren't there. As others will attest, the physical attributes of CO2 are what indicate that it must have an effect. Nothing about the rock record disagrees with that, as far as I know.
  28. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Yes - Pielke is fine with criticizing SkS, but he refuses to apply his criticism to anything floating through the sites of Watts and others. As Dana says above,
    Not only does Pielke refuse to criticize his fellow "skeptics" for misinforming the public and policymakers, but he then denounces SkS for doing just that. In the process, Pielke is effectively endorsing the myths and misinformation propagated by Spencer and Christy, documented in the very series that he criticizes.
    The post itself is what I'm talking about (and what I thought you were talking about). The comment stream circles around the post (widely at times), but thus is the nature of the community dialogue.
  29. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    DSL, the thread draw my attention to Dr. Pielke Sr. and examples of goal post shifting (namely his original blog post did not address Christy crocks allegations). The Christy crocks thread is a much better example of what you describe, an example of bias.
  30. CO2 lags temperature
    Uhh . . . where did I treat you like a child, Meghaljani? Show me the evidence. I asked you a simple question--simple as in basic/fundamental, not as in "simple-minded". You have yet to answer it. I'll ask it again: "does atmospheric CO2 absorb and emit radiation at particular, pressure-broadened frequencies?"
  31. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Shub @163 I don't find any merit in your criticisms. First, I don't see Christy being called anything in that thread. As for the post you cited, it made two simple points. 1) Christy made a comparison of apples to oranges by comparing trends in UAH data with effects of ENSO volcanoes removed vs trends for models without those things removed. That's a pretty elementary error. Santer et al showed that when you compared apples to apples actually the models were only 45% higher than the UAH trend (not 300%) the model trends were not staitistically different from the UAH trend. 2) Christy also erred in logic by assuming that the difference had to mean the model predictions of warming could not be trusted. It could be as well that UAH data has problems, and he knows it(or should). After all, analyzing satellite output requires complex models, too! It's not that straightforward. That's why his contribution is noteworthy, afterall. Christy is talking to congress. He needs to be measured in his appraisals of the science so congress can base legislation on reality - presuming that exists. Instead, he makes biased assessment of the state of climate models (the only tool we have for projecting forward) based on a exagerrated discrepancy that was the result of a demonstrably incorrect analysis. His statements deserve criticism in this instance.
  32. CO2 lags temperature
    to Sphaerica and to DSL: All you got is to tell me that I am childish, may be that's the best you can do when there is no physical evidence in earth's history to support your theory. If your theory is correct, where in the history of the earth did you find co2 causing temperature rise? They are not interlocked based on the 600 million years history of earth's climate which can be measured by rock analysis. Show me any time in last 600 million years where co2 caused temperature rise. If you cannot show that, you can take your "climate models" and "deep research" and run around like chicken little and ask for carbon taxes.
    Response:

    [DB] "If you cannot show that, you can take your "climate models" and "deep research" and run around like chicken little and ask for carbon taxes."

    Now you are acting childish.  And churlish.  If you don't understand the explanation than ask for a simplified version.

  33. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    I should have continued. This thread functions to allow people to become aware of possible bias in the expert testimony regarding climate science, testimony that is widespread across the internet. Awareness of such bias arguably leads to more informed decision-making.
  34. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Yes, Eric. Do you agree that people might be influenced in their actions re climate based on information on the internet? Do you agree that the non-scientist public seeks expert opinion so that they might make more informed choices? If those who have been used as experts in the presentation of science to the public are demonstrably biased in the application of their analysis, then should they be considered as 'experts' where the communication of science to the public is concerned? This thread draws attention to an alleged case of bias (well, several actually).
  35. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    Steve, I don't have time at the moment, but have you addressed your concerns to the guys and gals at the University of Colorado? If not, why not?
  36. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    The primary use of the site outside of the relatively small group of contributors and regular readers is to provide a one-stop shop for links to debunk climate myths on non-climate sites or sites with climate topics but a more general audience. Articles on volcanoes, CO2 and GHG for non-scientists, warming has not stopped, etc are very effective for those types of links. Threads on alternative energy and related topics are very informative and worth distributing to a broader audience. Here's the description of the well-deserved award this site received "The NSW Government Eureka Prize for Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge is awarded to an Australian individual, group or organisation for communication that motivates action to reduce the impacts of climate change." Can someone explain how this thread furthers that purpose? If the answer is that it doesn't, that is acceptable since it is the exception rather than the rule.
  37. CO2 lags temperature
    Meghaljani--a simple question so I know a little bit more about the physical model you work from: does atmospheric CO2 absorb and emit radiation at particular, pressure-broadened frequencies? Yes? Then your actual question should be "how do we know the CO2 concentration before direct instrumental measurement of the atmosphere?" because you accept that an atmosphere with CO2 is warmer than an atmosphere without CO2, all other things being equal. No? You need to either provide evidence that contradicts decades of high-quality research and the engineering that has relied (and still relies) on that research, or you need to do a bit more studying on the physics of CO2, CH4, H20, etc. For a simple demonstration, see this video (just about a minute in). You seem to be saying that correlation is not causation, but there's a big "unless" involved here, and that is the physical connection. If there's a physical connection between CO2 and temperature, then it's reasonable to assume that the connection didn't just spring into existence of its own will. It's been around as long as CO2 has been around.
  38. Sea level rise is exaggerated
    # 184 Sphaerica at 03:54 AM on 19 September, 2011 Nice job on the graphic overlay, I was about to do that one myself. And what does it show? It shows that over that short time, and yes it is short, that sea level did not increase in rate. Yet over that very same short time CU did report in it's estimates, that it periodically updates and posts, that the rate did increase. By 0.5 mm/yr I might add. By the way, CU made a +0.1 mm/yr adjustment between 2011 Release #1 and Release #2 and they explained it: ..the rate increased slightly from 3.1 to 3.2 mm/yr due to the improvements to the TOPEX SSB model and replacement of the classical IB correction with the improved DAC correction... For the 2004 - 2008 time line there would have to have been a whole series of corrections like that. Much like the GIA 0.3 mm/yr correction they would have to have been applied to the entire time series. So let's add it up. The 2004 - 2008 time frame doesn't show a rate increase, but the reported rate increased by 0.5m/yr. The May 2011 GIA correction is 0.3 mm/yr and the most recent correction is 0.1 mm/yr. That adds up to a 0.9 mm/yr increase due to corrections and improvements in methodology of one kind or another since 2004. Do you agree with that assessment? What I'm doing is painting a picture of what it is that needs to be explained to those of us in this world that are skeptical of what we are told about climate change.
    Response:

    [DB] "What I'm doing is painting a picture of what it is that needs to be explained to those of us in this world that are skeptical of what we are told about climate change."

    Then paint that picture to those at UCAR.  I'm very certain that they will be able to explain things to "skeptics".

  39. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    jpat - I strongly suggest you take a look at the CO2 lags temperature thread in this regard.
  40. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    jpat - The Milankovitch forcings last for millenia, which allows time for various feedbacks to take effect. Just the Milankovitch forcings alone should change the average temperature of the Earth by a total of 1-2.5C; the 6-8C swings seen over the ice age cycles are due to the amplification of the forcing change by water vapor, CO2, ice retreat/advancement, etc. The Wiki on this is actually fairly reasonable. I would suggest caution in reasoning from electronics - that would be an analogy, and while providing an analogy is a useful way to explain something, you cannot reason from an analogy back to the original system, as analogies only resemble the original complex system in part. You will inevitably get tripped up on the differences - there is no substitute for actually studying the real thing. And the real thing includes multiple time lags, chaotic/non-linear variations, and lots of different forcing inputs
  41. Underground temperatures control climate

    Clearly, the heat from inside the earth does not have any effect on the weather or the climate in the sense that this article explores. However, the heat from the earth may possibly have a contributory effect on ending a glacial and nudging us into an interglacial. In that sense, it would have a major effect on the climate. See: http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/09/continental-glacier-meltdown.html William

  42. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    IMHO - having followed thus discussion - despite what folks are won't to say; this thread proves beyond doubt that SkS accepts open discussion from people who disagree with things posted here, within the guidelines. Often (e.g. On FB) people don't pist here claiming their posts are deleted, they get abused etc. Clearly this demonstrates that that doesn't happen. What also often happens is that folks complain that when they post here people "refuse to answer" their questions. Clearly here you see that what infect gies on us that the questions are either red-herrings or generally off topic. All in all, this thread shows SkS in a ber good light compared to many sites. Well done.
  43. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    163, Shub, Yes. And what name was Christy called? Nothing. His statements were described as crocks, because the slang definition of "a crock" is nonsense or foolish talk. The article that you site then goes on to itemize statements Christy made that have been proven to be false or contradictory. That's exactly what a "crock" is. There is nothing ad hominem about it. He and others like him are being taken to task for making false statements in public. What exactly is wrong with this? Sorry if you don't like the use of a slang term to create a catchy title, but that's hardly grounds for your position. At the same time, I'm sure you give a free pass to the venomous and unfounded assaults perpetrated by sites like WUWT and others. So, again... can you find evidence of name calling? Or does it merely bother you that "skeptical" scientists have been caught making clear falsehoods before the U.S. Congress, so all you can do is bluster that "that's not fair?"
  44. CO2 lags temperature
    326, meghalnai,
    ...show me the area where CO2 is causing the temperature rise on the chart given in the discussion.
    If you are not willing to look in detail at the subject, no one in the world can make it easy for you.
    You have just long lectures and "climate models".
    Um, no, actually we have a detailed understanding of the intricacies of the system. That you want this watered down to a single graph that a child could interpret is your problem, not ours. I will give you a hint, however. CO2 rises with temperature increases, and temperature rises with CO2 increases. They are interlocked. So an initial orbital forcing sparks a small temperature rise, which in turn sparks a CO2 rise, which raises temperatures further, which raises CO2 levels further. This cycle results in an ongoing upswing in temperature, up to a point where CO2 levels reach about 280 ppm. At that point things stall because the relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic. Unfortunately, mankind has found a way to pump well beyond 280 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere for the first time in millions of years. But the main point is that a small temperature increase starts a feedback cycle involving CO2 that results in a large temperature increase. Without accompanying increases in CO2 you would not see the temperature rise much beyond -8 ˚C.
  45. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Stephen
    But Shub...what names were they called?
    Take a look at this thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/santer-catch-christy-exaggerating.html skepticalscience characterizes Christy's views as 'crock'. The website may well be run by climate experts who are far advanced in their views that they may see John Christy's views as a 'crock'. But, the topic reads rather like a complex disagreement, with no definitive resolution of the question it considers. Hardly a 'crock'.
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] Providing a link with no supporting information is not constructive. By doing so you have demonstrated nothing. You can turn a blind eye to the games played by 'skeptics'and try and distract people from their misinformation, or you can stand up for what is right. Do you agree with Christy misleading Congress? It is a yes/no question.
  46. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    I have found a few references on the radioactive contribution to heat flow. This one, which describes how geoneutrinos are measured and how they may provide constraints on the quantity of radioactive heating in the solid Earth. That reference led to this recent paper on the same subject, which reports that "heat from radioactive decay contributes about half of Earth’s total heat flux". The original statement in the blog post "Most of the heat that flows to the surface comes from this source" therefore needs to be amended, which I will do. Lord Kelvin did some calculations in 1864 on the thermal age of the Earth that neglected entirely any contribution from radioactive decay, which had not been discovered at that time. The text of some of the paper and be seen here and images of the original article can be viewed here. Kelvin came up with an age of the Earth on the range of 20-400 million years, but he later leaned more to the low side of this range. These figures were disputed by contemporary geologists and by supporters of Charles Darwin, who believed that much more time was required to account for geological and biological evolution. Of course, the natural philosophers eventually won that particular dispute with the physicists.
  47. CO2 lags temperature
    @meghaljani "Show me. You have just long lectures and "climate models"." What is the point of showing you if you refuse to engage all reasonable attempts to show you? But this question reminded me that I often think people do not understand why the ice core CO2 temp relationship is such a compelling proof of the effect of CO2 on climate because they don't understand know the scientific story behind those ice core records. Sometimes, constructing a historical narrative, like Specncer Weart does, clarifies what can seem counterintuitive in hindsight. In the 70s we knew that glacial periods existed in the past, and we guessed that Milankovitch forcing provided the initial cue - the corrletaion was simply to amazing to be chance. But we could not explain the large deviations in global temp during glaciation cycles as a function of Milankovitch cycle forcing. Albedo effects helped related to northern hemisphere ice and snow cover helped, but were similarly too small to account for the change - even taking account of temp-water vapor feedbacks. - without using unreasonable assumptions about the physics. (Yes, we knew this based on models -although they were relatively simple at the time). It was a quandry for a decade or so. One solution posed to this quandry was that changes in temperature could alter the global carbon cycle, thereby causing changes in CO2. That change in CO2 could then result in enough forcing to cause the glacial cycles given a small initial input. The ice core data were collected partly to test this theory, and they indeed showed that CO2 increased with temp sufficiently to cause the forcing required. So the ice core records were a test of the idea that CO2 affects climate. But it was never part of anyones thinking that CO2 would lead the temperature change, quite the opposite in fact. Asking to see such a pattern just doesn't even make sense. It's also impossible to understand why it is so compelling unless you embrace the physics behind the greenhouse effects and global climate models - and the feedbacks being discussed now by KR and jpat. To understand that, you actually do need to roll up your sleeves and read lectures/textbooks and do calculations yourself. Luckily we do pay people to do what you seem too impatient to do. Good for you!
  48. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Shub, I took a look at your webblog. You might have as well titled it "random crank turnings". SkS and RealClimate are where I go, (certainly not WUWT) for scientific references and data extracts. Looked in vain for a skeptical equivalent on yours. On the other hand saw plenty of political rambling. Could you explain why anyone here (since I'm relatively new) sees you or your blog as having any standing whatsoever?
  49. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    But Shub...what names were they called? And the "views" that were "characterized with cheap catchphrases" were demonstrable mistatements of fact, mistakes of logic, mischaracterizations of others views, etc. Some of those flase statements were repeated before congress! In my book, you could come up with a lot worse that cheap catchphrases to describe those actions. Pielke said nothing that changes the basic facts of the matter.
  50. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Where's the rhetoric, Shub? If you follow the links, you'll see Spencer's and Christy's misrepresentations of the science shown for what they are, with clear reference to the best available evidence, and explanations of where they went wrong. IMHO, calling Spencer and Christy's misrepresentations of the science 'slip-ups' or 'crocks' is actually being pretty kind. SkS has documented in detail some of the places where these respected scientists have departed from logic and reason. Skeptics concentrating on the title of the links (certainly not ad-hominem BTW) are merely trying to divert attention away from the content of the failings of Spencer and Christy. In fact, it smacks of desparation.

Prev  1489  1490  1491  1492  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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