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  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  Next

Comments 75001 to 75050:

  1. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    NYJ: "Given the history and magnitude of the errors, I find it strange that there are many who will swear by the satellite record, all the while depicting the surface record as fraudulent, and those who manage it as frauds." Remember that the surface stations project was originally RPSr's idea, Watts took it up and implemented it but it wasn't his idea. Likewise RPSr's falsely tried to push the meme that the project's shown exactly what you state ...
  2. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    One quibble: In the Tidal Energy section, if rotation is being slowed, then day length would have been shorter (not longer) 600 million years ago.
    Moderator Response: [AS] Indeed! Thanks, I'll correct that.
  3. Dikran Marsupial at 02:50 AM on 17 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Regarding Prof. Pielkes latest post: he asks: "3. What is your preferred diagnostic to monitor global warming? ... What is your best estimate of the observed trends in each of these metrics over the last 10 years and the last 20 years?" I am happy with UAH/RSS MSU products, however I wouldn't estimate a trend less than 30 years or so, because internal climate variability is such that trends estimated on a shorter timescale are unlikely to be robust. The flip side of statistical significance is the statistical power of the test. I am surprised that Prof. Pielke is asking for observations where any statistical test of the trend would have too little power to be useful. What point is he trying to make? Phil Jones clearly knows and understands this "Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. ". BTW Prof. Pielke, rather than communicate via posts on different blogs, it would be much more sensible for you to open comments on your blog, or for you to post here. I for one would welcome such direct dialog.
    Response:

    [DB] Dikran, we are getting pretty off-topic here.  Everyone, let's circle up & keep this thread tidy.

  4. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Discussions of climate sensitivity belong with the 'climate sensitivity is low' myth. Claims that the Earth should have warmed more based on IPCC sensitivity should go in the 'Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected' myth.
  5. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    critical mass #51 - the difference is that Trenberth and Hansen are trying to actually determine the reasons behind the issues you note. On the other hand, Christy for example exaggerates the discrepancy between model and observed TLT trends, and doesn't even attempt to determine the reason for the discrepancy. He makes a false statement (in testimony to Congress no less), and then assumes the problem must be with climate models and the AGW theory. That's not skepticism, that's spreading misinformation. On the other hand, Trenberth notes that we can't account for the full global energy imbalance, so there's "missing heat", and we need to improve our observational measurements to find it. There's no myth there, he's just pointing to a gap in our understanding and data. Ditto for Hansen and the many other scientists examining the causes behind short-term dampening of global warming.
  6. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Jonathon - You have clearly done your calculations with the assumption that CO2 is the only factor, and that all temperature change is driven by the CO2 changes. I would recommend that you read the thread on CO2 is not the only driver of climate. CO2 is not the only factor, and in fact the associated aerosols in our emissions counter a fair bit of the CO2 forcing. Of course, aerosols have a pretty short life-span, and one of the side effects of the mid-70's Clean Air Act and related legislation (reducing toxic aerosols, acid rain, etc.) was to increase the rate of global temperature change. I am puzzled by your assertions that K&H 2008 support low climate sensitivity values, as most of the paper discusses the very hard lower limits on that sensitivity. A more accurate statement about the data provided in their graph in Figure 3A (showing various sensitivity estimates) is that the instrumental record and last millennea results are somewhat less certain than other estimates, as both upper and lower bounds are less bounded.
  7. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Mike, I was oddly not aware of that etymology.
  8. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Jonathan @ 59: That paper you linked to (thanks) doesn't say anything very much about Charney climate sensitivity. It describes the sensitivity of the climate to ocean heat transport in specified GCM-ocean slab models. That's very nice, but skywatcher and I were requesting the post-Knutti/Hegerl papers that presented evidence for values of the climate sensitivity outside of the likely range described in Hegerl-Knutti..
  9. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Pielke has responded again. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/my-further-response-to-skeptical-sciences-questions-of-september-16-2011/ Lets keep the comments civil and everyone have patience for what the authors of SKS decide to do.
  10. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Christy & Spencer have been shown to have made statements, whether on blogs, in press releases, or in testimony to Congress, that are at odds with the evidence as outlined in the scientific literature. Given that, I do not find it at all out of line to (a) point these erroneous statements out, and (b) use a bit of poetic license in describing their ongoing mis-informing of the lay public regarding climate science. Christy & Spencer are getting caught out (and called out) making false statements about the current state of climate science. If they or others have a problem with that they need to come out with better evidence than that marshalled by their detractors. Then they can start asking for apologies. Until then: - Christy's egregious testimony before Congress and other glaring errors can be accurately categorized as crocks, in my opinion. - Pielke is just engaging in concern-trolling/tone-trolling.
  11. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Jonathan those values correspond to lower bounds (given the evidence of contributions from natural factors, specially solar); see below: And there is a certain cherry-picking in your start date of 1880 in Hadcrut which does a rather large loop upwards centred on 1880! If we use the NASA Giss data we have a total warming (1880-2010) near 0.9 oC (Hadcrut3v gives around 0.75 oC). anyway, we could do a simple calculation of the expected warming at equilibrium from the 1880 [CO2] to current [CO2] based on various climate sensitivities, and using the relationship between equilibrium warming and climate sensitivity can be defined by a simple equation of the form: T(eq) = ln(Cf/Ci)*S/ln(2) where T(eq) is the temperature change at equilibrium; Cf and Ci are the final and initial [CO2] values, respectively, and S is the sensitivity. From the high resolution ice core record [*] and Mauna Loa data Ci is near 292 ppb and Cf is near 390 ppm (i.e. now). So for a 2 oC climate sensitivity we expect a temperature rise at equilibrium of around 0.84 (based on 1880 - 2010 [CO2] levels). For a 1.75 oC sensitivity we expect ~ 0.73 oC of temperature rise. So we seem to have had all the warming already for a climate sensitivity of 1.75 or 2.0, given the uncertainty in the temperature record (NASA Giss or Hadcrut3v). And we still have to account for the warming still to come, together with the suppression of warming due to aerosols which means that the temperature rise observed is certainly lower than expected given any particular value of climate sensitivity. And (very important!) interpretations from these back of the envelope calculations are only of value in conjunction with the sort of attribution study that I linked to in post #39 (Lean and Rind 2008) that gives us insight into the likely contributions of natural contributions (specially solar). [*] D. M. Etheridge et al (1996) "Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn J. Geophys Res. 101, 4115 -4128.
  12. Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    As usual, because I read around blogs so much, I tend to come into discussions late. However, the subject of science communication to ‘non-scientists’ has interested me for many years – indeed I was a qualified trainer in industrial science matters for several years. I applaud your efforts immensely but I fear they will fail to largely counteract the AGW skeptic spin. In my opinion, most ‘ordinary’ people, (now out of Education), learn about diverse subjects from either printed media, (magazines, newspapers etc.) and Television / Film. Of these two main groups I think Television / Film is the more persuasive since the audience is more ‘captive’ than those casually reading – altho’ I accept they can switch the telly off. The evidence I claim that supports my view is, for example, Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth on the one hand, and for example, the UK TV program “The Great Global warming Swindle “by (“You’re a big daft c**k”) Martin Durkin which was found by independent enquiry to have been partial. Further support comes from Sir Paul Nurse’s expose of AGW denier James Delingpole and the three part UK TV series by the BBC, The Climate Wars by Dr Ian Stewart. In this latter series of 3 programmes, Spencer, particularly, is exposed as the fraudulent scientist he is – and even Patrick Michaels admitted on camera that GW was real! I find it strange that the BBC hasn’t released this series on DVD. I’m sure any of you readers will recall similar ‘visual’ presentations affecting public learning. So what has this to do with climate change communication and http://climatecommunication.org/. ? Well, I simple believe the only way to convince large masses of ‘ordinary’ people of the gravity and causes of Climate Change is by film or television documentary by recognised non-political scientists. That is not to say printed media should be ignored but it is generally recognised that in the USA, much of the media is literally in the pockets of fossil fuel interests and they will never admit to any publishing any real facts that will diminish the profits of those interests, or ‘hurt’ the US economy as they define it. Newspapers also deliberately try to generate debate – to improve sales. So I urge http://climatecommunication.org/ to really consider a series of scientifically based TV documentaries, by appropriate independent scientists and/or effective questioning media presenters, to be sold around the world.
  13. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    "I don't see these facts being called 'Trenberth's Travesties' nor 'Hansen's Howlers' by this site's authors who would have to disagree with these scientist's points. " You completely misunderstand the point of this site then. It is about scientific evidence, not supporting a predetermined position or message regardless of the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence in support of human effects on climate is overwhelming, but there are nuances, gaps and things we understand less. We learn from studying those - that is what science is about. The evidence IS the message. What Christy does with his crocks is deny the evidence. That does not apply to those statements by Hansen and Trenberth, who are actually describing patterns in data.
  14. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Stephen Baines asked, "I guess the concern is with the word "crock" somehow. But why would that word be of concern?" Maybe it depends on where you are from or even one's age. To me and perhaps others the word "crock" is a shortened form of "crock of sh**". That is why it seems offensive.
  15. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Sky and Chris, Even Knutti and Hegerl show that the most recent data (instrument record and past millenia) yield the lowest climate sensitivity values. The 1.75 comes from HadCRU data from 1880-2011. The 10-year moving average of the temperature anomaly increased from -0.31 to +0.46. During that period, atmospheric CO2 levels increased from 285 ppm to 382. You may do the calculations yourself. Here is a more recent paper detailing convection effects. http://www.fisica.edu.uy/~barreiro/papers/BarreiroCherchiMasina2011.pdf
  16. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    I'm not sure what the complaint is about the tone of the titles. The title isn't "Christy is a crock," or "That Crock Christy" or "Christy Crock-it." It's "Christy's crocks." The focus is on the erroneous statements. Christy makes errors in his statements about climate change. Egregious ones at times, at other times subtle but insidious ones. They are his, he owns em. He can disown them if he chooses. He chooses not to. I guess the concern is with the word "crock" somehow. But why would that word be of concern? The only reason I can see is because it is actully effective. It's catchy and colorful -it draws attention to itself. "Christy's mistakes" or "Christy's incorrect statements" would be kind of dry and non-distinctive. Not the kind of thing that recommends itself. But what else is one to do in this case? In science, we draw attention to mistakes in the hopes they will be corrected. Usually, the corrected party is grateful and it doesn't take much. If the mistaken party refuses to acknowledge evident mistakes, as Christy has not, we point the mistakes out louder and more openly, until they are acknowledged/corrected. Soft-shoeing it in this case has not done the job.
  17. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    VeryTallGuy - #50 I agree with your comment. The tone is becoming a bit hysterical. Let's stick to the facts. As a Lukewarmer, I don't think that all errors and exaggerations are confined to the 'skeptic' side of the debate. For example Dr Trenberth has written on this site of a 'stasis in surface temperatures' and the unresolved problem of the 'missing heat' in the oceans, and Dr Hansen has suggested that delayed effects from Mt Pinitubo have contributed to 'lack of warming' over the last 5-6 years. I don't see these facts being called 'Trenberth's Travesties' nor 'Hansen's Howlers' by this site's authors who would have to disagree with these scientist's points.
    Response:

    [DB] Trenberth makes the case for the "missing heat" to be found in the deep ocean (paper in press).  Hansen's "Delayed Effects" point is still being discussed in the literature, as is aersol forcing quantification.

    In this regard, there is no disagreement from SkS.

  18. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    #55 Jonathon. My implication was that you're not taking in the data involved in Knutti and Hegerl, crucially that many sensitivity assessments are the producit of observations, not of climate models. The modelled sensitivities essentially agree well with those observations. That's a scientific assessment, and you've provided no support for your speculations in #53. If you think KH08 needs updating, clearly you think there's newer and better data out there than summarised in KH08. What data?
  19. Hansen etal hit a Climate Home Run -- in 1981
    Shouldn't this article have a "Lessons from Predictions" button and be included in the series?
  20. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    ...whoops; not sure why I said (second last line of just posted) "(from 1988)" when I meant "(from 1880") :-)
  21. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Jonathan (@53) Thta's not true (that the more evidence accumulated the wider the range). You really need to give some evidence in support of that assertion. As skywatcher has pointed out the review by Knutti and Hegerl provides a comprehensive update of data on climate sensitivity and its likely range. Since that time (up to Sept 2011) Knutti and Hegerl have been cited 45 times in other publications (see Web of Science citation database) and not one of these subsequent papers gives any significant evidence for values outside of the range we're discussing. The only papers that do give values that lie outside the range are papers on long term Earth System Sensitivity (as opposed to the Charney sensitivity of interest to us on multidecadal and centennial timescales) which indicate that in the long term Earth system sensitivity may be somewhat larger than the top end of the Charney sensitivity range of 4.5 oC [see e.g. Lunt et al (2010) Nature Geosci. 3, 60-64; Jeffrey and Royer (2011) Am. J. Sci. 311, 1-26] So what subsequent new data are you talking about specifically? "KH08 needs to be updated" with what? You're misunderstanding the estimates of climate sensitivity from the 20th century record. These don't indicated that the climate sensitivity is "close to 2". The analysis of 20th century warming indicates that it's very likely that the climate sensitivity is greater than 2 oC (this arises as I said because we've already had all the warming expected from a 2 oC sensitivity, without considering the "warming in the pipeline" nor the contribution from atmospheric aerosols which has countered a significant part of the warming from enhanced greenhouse gases. I've no idea where your 1.75 oC degree value (from 1988) comes from (I think it's wrong and we could do the calculation), but I expect it also defines a likely lower bound.
  22. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    What Mike said. This site is a fantastic resource, but remember that the deniers like nothing better than a personality or politics based barney. They're good at that, and they have little or nothing to offer in the way of rational scientific debate. Tone down the rhetoric. Stick to technical language. Don't become personal. Above all, don't wrestle with pigs.
  23. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Christy Crocks alliterates. I think that was the priority in the name... And it picks specifically on crocks, not on Christy. There's an argument either way - I wouldn't see myself getting annoyed by "Mark's Mistakes" but perhaps I would be a lot more sensitive in reality.
  24. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Sky, No confusion. I was replying to Chris' post about 20th century observations. The KH08 paper needs to be updated. I fully understand what the models are saying. Reconciling the models with the observations has been a headache for some. Of course, the observations include all the feedbacks. Our job is to accurately determine what there are and how they work. You seem to think that we know all this already. I assure you that we do not, and are not that close. What is your implication about ignoring observations and measurements? You are beginning to sound more like a politician than a scientist.
  25. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    #47, Mike, the term isn't offensive, it's descriptive (and accurate). If Christy had made fewer mistakes and misrepresentations of the science, it wouldn't be accurate or necessary. If a reader isn't going to read a section because of that, then they are not going to last long in any scientific discussion, let alone one about climate.
  26. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Jonathon, you're confusing transient climate sensitivity with equilibrium climate sensitivity, see here for more info. There's a lot of confidence in the 2C-4.5C equilibrium sensitivity thanks to palaeoclimatic observations as well as models, see this post as well as reading Knutti and Hegerl 2008. Since palaeoclimatic and geological observations already include all possible negative feedbacks, the sensitivity range is by no means 'optimistic'. Observations and measurements abound in this branch of science - are you choosing to ignore the ones you don't like?
  27. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    I think the section title "Christy Crocks" is needlessly offensive. You can argue for it on technical grounds, but you don't want to put off new readers who are just looking for information. The "jogging" article by Spencer is obviously sarcastic. It is poorly done. Spencer makes himself look foolish in my view and undercuts his ability to claim his disagreements with mainstream scientific opinion are objective. But the piece is clearly not meant to be taken literally, as Chris at 39 pointed out. This site contains a wealth of scientific information of great use to the general public. Don't let it turn into a personal grudge forum. Most people could care less about blog-vs-blog grudge matches. Rise above it.
  28. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Chris, There is a large body of evidence regarding climate sensitivity. Unfortunately, the more evidence accumulated, the greater the range has become. This is likely due to changes in recent models that were not incorporated into earlier versions, while averaging over the entire dataset. While the observed warming during the 20th century may have resulted in a calculated climate sensitivity close to 2, using data from 1880 - present, yields a climate sensitivity of ~1.75 per doubling of CO2. This assumes that the observed temperature increase was solely due to the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. Incorporating any other direct forcings such as solar, aerosols, or volcanic activity, and indirect forcings such as ENSO events, clouds, urbanization, etc. would not only change that value, but add additional uncertainty. I know some people do not like to talk about the uncertainty because it raises doubts among the general populace, and others like to play up the uncertatinty for the same reason. However, refusing to admit this only fools ourselves. IMO, the 2-4.5 range is rather optimistic as it assumes low forcings for many of the attributes mentioned in this thread, and low tropical convectional heat transfer. This may just be my bias (or age) showing, but I have always maintained that direct observations and measurements are more reliable than modelling.
  29. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    jpat (@ 47) re: "...although I note your assumption that the solar cycle and GCR are exact equivalents, the validity of which I am unsure." Of course I didn't say they are "exact equivalents", but that the solar irradiance and GCR flux have essentially the same (antiphase) relationship with respect to the solar cycle. You can see this here, for example. and I don't understand this: "...you seem to have an ability to distinguish cause from effect that my 35 years have not afforded me." Which cause/effect relationship are you thinking of specifically? Are you suggesting that the very marked warming of the last 40 years is the cause of the massive enhancement of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations?That makes zero sense. Or that changes in tropospheric temperature are the cause of the solar cycle? (only joking!) It would help if you could clarify. "Really? My understanding is that there is great uncertainty about the feedback mechanism by which CO2 exerts its effect on global temperatures, both in process and magnitude." Yes there is uncertainty about the magnitude of the equilibrium response to greenhouse gas forcing. A large body of evidence supports an equilibrium response near 3 oC at equilibrium per doubling of [CO2], but this might be as low as 2 oC and as high as 4.5 oC taking an estimate of 95% certainty into account (the high-climate-sensivity side of the earth respone to greenhouse forcing isn't well constrained). Even simple consideration of 20th century warming indicates that 2 oC per doubling is likely to be an absolute lower limit since we've already had the amount of warming equivalent to a climate sensitivity of 2oC without factoring in the warming still to be accrued due to already emitted grenhouse gases, and the large negative aerosol forcing that counters the effect of enhanced greenhouse forcing. But it's correct to say that the warming we've seen is consistent with expectations, without proving that any specified values of climate sensitivity and response time constants are correct. as for: "Really? The authors of the paper you referenced say "Contrary to recent assessments based on theoretical..." That's good, you've read the paper and you highlight an important point. The examples I gave about concordence of greenhouse-responsive attributes (stratsophereic/tropopause/diurnal temp range effects etc) aren't from models as such but arise from broadly straighforward principles that underlie our understanding of the greenhouse effect. Looking specifically at the Lean/Rind discussion that you highlight indicates that of course the Global Circulation Models (GCM's) are not completely correct. We wouldn't expect them to be, and in fact should be a little suspicious if they purported to be so! So global scale warming is occurring broadly as our basic understanding (and models) predict as described by Lean/Rind (and many other analyses). However detailed descriptions of the latitude-specific responses and so on seem not to be fully captured in models. That highlights the utility of models, since they increase confidence that we've got the broad (higher-level) aspects of the climate system about right, and also show us the (sub-levels) where efforts at imporved understanding might be focussed.
  30. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    In a welcome bit of irony, a new poll finds that the hard anti-science stance amongst most of the GOP presidential candidates may actually be generating increased belief in AGW amongst Americans. Basically, when the crazy guy who thinks the best way to deal with his entire state being on fire is to pray for rain says that 'anthropogenic global warming is a complete fraud'... people start to wonder if maybe they need to take another look at the facts.
  31. Climate's changed before
    Thanks.
  32. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    PCB, yes I noted that water vapor concentrations vary significantly... but the fact that it can get up to 95% of total greenhouse warming, total greenhouse gas molecules, relative humidity, or other factors does not explain what 95% factor Ken was referring to as a constant. As to your claims about water vapor variations not being considered in climate models... they just aren't true. At that, the very term 'CO2 models' suggests a fictional belief system... climate models account for a large number of forcings and feedbacks, not just CO2.
  33. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    I am surprised that no one has pointed out that it actually has warmed from 2003 to 2011, so Pielke is mistaken about 'cooling'. There are plenty of facts out there; it is better to avoid working oneself up in a froth but to keep pointing out the errors.
  34. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    As the ad hominem argument comes back again and again and anyhow in the denialist discourse, I think it's time to introduce the concept of ad hominem fallacy fallacy.
  35. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    villabolo, no I can't offer any papers or other objective evidence. Personal opinion? OK. My view would be that the major influence over this period is the steadily warming ocean waters. Regardless of the season, there is always liquid water beneath all but the tightest of landfast ice. And that water is now warmer, year in, year out, than the same inflows and currents were 15 and more years ago. (Warm being a relative term. I'm not starting swimming classes.) That warmth constantly weakens even if it doesn't actually melt ice. It also means that much less insolation and shorter time periods are needed to get the melt season going. Even if we get our act together to cut ghg emissions, we'll have to see several years, if not decades, of less and less ice because of that ocean heat being unable to dissipate before various currents carry it to the ice.
  36. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    The interpretation here is that his "Pielke Piles It On" posts wanted to start with a pitch in the dirt about ad homenim's: in this case, the titles used on SKS. He used the standard ploy of deflection when his own words mocked his claimed affront at the content. The real intent of his original post was support for the two UAH custodians. The content of his post is a revisionist apology for the seemingly never-ending fixes required to the complex MSU datasets. The lead-in rub at Blog-x (SKS was convenient) was to create underdog sympathy for Christy and Spencer. In that sense it worked. After reading his defence, I feel even sorrier for those two than I did before.
  37. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Wow! I just read Pielke's so-called rebutal. "Hasn't since 2003". What ever happened to noisy data, and long trend lines and statistical signficance? What is that man thinking? And since he does seem to believe in global heat accumulation where does he think the heat is going? Is it just staying in the oceans? What?
  38. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    Silly question of the week. Does anyone have a rough idea how much the ice would have been effected if Solar insolation had not dropped since 2002?
  39. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    NewYorkJ, Not to sound like a concern troll, but I think you would have helped me with the specifics on why Spencer's 1997 work was so wrong. And given Pielke no wiggle room.
  40. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke, Since comments aren't allowed on your blog, I'll address this question here. You say "The ad hominem presentations on this subject include those from the weblog Skeptical Science" with the subject being the robustness of the UAH MSU temperature data. In your response, you do point out an article entitled "Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere". I looked over this article and could not find any ad hominens. In fact, I see a very good analysis of the claim being addressed, which was Bob Carter's fairly recent statement "Satellite measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979, the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly." The article ends with the statement "Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space." which I would hope you can agree with. So please identify the ad hominens in that article on any others dealing with the UAH record. If you find no ad homs, perhaps you could highlight and discuss what specifically you feel is inaccurate. Next, is there anything about Spencer or his work you are willing to criticize? SkepticalScience has been remarkably reserved at staying away from anything personal, given Roy Spencer series of statements overstating his case, past and present. Recall that in 1997, he wrote: "So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity. In theory, one could argue that the computer models are accurate, and that the real measurements have some problem. However this is not the case. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of Nature (page 342). The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time." Accurate Thermometers in Space Given the history and magnitude of the errors, I find it strange that there are many who will swear by the satellite record, all the while depicting the surface record as fraudulent, and those who manage it as frauds. Lastly, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with what Trenberth, Abraham, and Gleick wrote, other than perhaps their use of the word "forced" in reference to the major errors. I suppose "forced" isn't technically true, in that they could have ignored the errors that had become obvious, but such a course of action would have been unlikely. The authors could have done without that word. Could you point out specifically what you feel is inaccurate and what needs to be retracted? Thanks for your time. I'm glad you've stopped by here on occasion and hope you will stick around to read beyond the headlines, and maybe make some constructive contributions here.
  41. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Chris@1204, Come on, please don't try and play it is only "satire" card; this is about science and truth. I am willing to bet you that his target audience would not have seen it that way-- many of his readers at his blog do not believe in the so-called "greenhouse" effect. So they are pretty gullible for the most part and he is preying on that. And you forget, there is in fact a myth out there on the internet that we humans are contributing to the rise of CO2 by exhaling, and Spencer is feeding that myth in a public forum. Do you deny the existence of the myth? Spencer knows better, it is inexcusable. And it is along the lines of Christy twice failing to set the senator straight who fed him the "1970s global cooling scare" myth when he testified before the US Congress recently.
  42. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    47, jpat,
    I am just trying to separate out what we know from observation vs what we think we know from simulation.
    Then start reading. This site is full of information. Start anywhere. Search for anything. Read. Learn. The WUWT [-snip-] mantra that "the models" are the end all and be all, and the weapons of evil and falsehood, is quite simply as I described it... [-snip-] Read and learn, and drop the lame, uninformed comments like "one of the knobs the modelers twirl" (wrong) and "what we think we know from simulation" (gross exaggeration and misdirection).
  43. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    jpat - "We're interested in what causes the trend.", as if the variability in a non-linear dynamic system is incapable in and of itself as causing a trend. I can tell you without fear of contradiction that that is decidedly not the case." You need to look at the boundary conditions, namely conservation of energy - the centerpoints around which chaotic systems (i.e., non-linear systems) must orbit in their strange attractors. See the Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted thread for a discussion of this. Non-linear interactions and state-space changes cannot modify energy levels ab inito - they can cause chaotic variations around energy equivalences, but not create/destroy energy. Non-linear interactions cannot cause an unlimited trend, as any study of strange attractors will tell you.
  44. Climate's changed before
    Mankind's influence aside, should we otherwise be in a cooling phase of a Milankovitch cycle at present, in other words, on a downward slope, chart-wise?
    Response:

    [DB] In the absence of anthropogenic forcings, yes.  Since the Holocene Climatic Optimum some 6,000+ years ago the net forcings (without man) have been negative and the overall temperature trend downward.

    The long, slow slide back to glacial conditions had already begun.  Now evidence shows we have little to worry about (the next cold phase of the ice age cycle).

  45. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    As another example, do you agree with Roy Spencer when he said that as a result of addressing climate change, "Jogging will be outlawed. It is a little known fact that the extra carbon dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem"? You mean you didn't notice the satirical context? Hello?!?!
  46. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    When Skeptical Science and Real Climate use science to critique papers and comments by Spencer, Lindzen, Christie etc, I have never seen a rebutal based on science. Just like Dr. Pielke in this instance, it is inuendo, personal attacks, and change the subject. One can only conclude that their objectives are not scientific, but rather propaganda.
  47. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Also, note the response to Lean and Rind's analysis on trends by Stott and Jones 2009.
  48. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Key statement at Pielke's: Comments Off. On the other hand, the "Insightful interview" he relates, http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/insightful-interview-in-eos-of-dr-de-zheng-sun-climate-dynamics-why-does-climate-vary/ insightfully suggests that things may be worse than we thought.
  49. Climate Communication: Making Science Heard and Understood
    pirate#30: "writing using an economy of words in a way that is easily understandable." That description applies equally well to lab and research reports, which are richer in content. "Writing the survey in the best attempt to remain neutral ... is not an easy task" agreed. So I would think you would want your students to have already learned something about the subject before attempting this difficult task. Unless your school year is vastly different, it's pretty early to have finished the subject of climate change. What information are your students using as the basis for their questions?
  50. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    'if the variability in a non-linear dynamic system is incapable in and of itself as causing a trend." - however, this is not the case for any physical model of climate. You might like to see here "Isn't in fact this sensitivity one of the knobs the modelers twirl?" No, sensitivity is an output not an input. It is bound into the model by way of the equations that describe interactions within the climate system. These are either straight physics or parameterisations from emperical data. With no feedback, it obviously still warms the climate - just slower. For increasing CO2 NOT to warm the planet, then there must exist a negative feedback stronger than the sum of the positive feedbacks. There is no evidence for such a system.

Prev  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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