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  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  Next

Comments 75501 to 75550:

  1. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Philip Armit, unless the research can change the absorption and emission spectra of CO2, CH4, and H20, change measurements of albedo, change cloud and aerosol feedbacks, and change other elements of "current climate models," I doubt if such a paleo study can do much with a "current climate model." Now, if you actually meant "change our understanding of past climate change," then, yes, that's more possible. Further discussion should move to one of the paleo posts/arguments. Don't worry about your comments getting lost on an old thread, as many regulars here watch the "recent comments" page.
  2. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    You mistake my meaning Camburn. The central tendency of the data points to a small effect, not something that overturns the 2-4.5 sensitivity range of the IPPC that centers on 3. The denialist position magnifies this uncertainty to an unworldly extent.
  3. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    136, Norman, I don't have the time right now, but I suggest you play with the numbers. There's a Stefan-Boltzman calculator here. For the sake of this you can use an emissivity of 1, but if you wish to use other values (see the table on the page), that's fine. Try plugging in various temperatures from your own local weather at different times of the day and night. You can estimate inbound solar radiation for different times of the day, maxing out at 1368 W/m2 on the clearest day possible, at noon at the equator. Add estimated DLR from the Philipona paper above, keeping in mind that the daytime/nighttime difference is not as great as you first thought, and that it is also affected by local conditions (e.g. a cloudy day reduces sunlight but might increase DLR). So try to figure out how much the earth is emitting around you, using local temperatures at different times of the day. Compare that to the radiation that is at the same time being replaced by different values of DLR (a lower value from before CO2 levels increased, and a higher value later). You might even be able to take this a step further, and subtract what goes out and add what's coming in to compute a subsequent temperature, to see how comparatively quickly things warm and cool under different conditions, and so see the DTR effect directly, yourself, quantitatively.
  4. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Dave123: You have hit it on the head. You can't make a case with present evidence for clouds doing much. Neither Dessler nor Spencer have shown with any certainty anything. It is good that they are looking at this issue, but as of today, nothing conclusive is derived from either authors papers.
    Response:

    [DB] Camburn, the inescapable conclusion one draws from Dessler's paper and your comments on it is that you simply do not understand what it is you are reading.

  5. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    134, Norman, To better quantify things, this paper (Philipona et al, 2001) measured between 260 and 420 W/m2 DLR in the daytime over an 8 day period in Oklahoma. The paper also measures a range of 270 to 380 w/m2 DLR at night, so the difference between night and day is minor. More importantly, the earth is heating up during the day. It will certainly heat more due to GHGs and increased DLR, but the primary factor is always going to be direct sunlight. Remember Stefan-Boltzman: E = σT4 Because of the T4 relationship to energy emitted, as something gets hot, it becomes harder and harder to make it even hotter. It sheds ever increasing amounts of energy as it heats above and beyond the increase in temperature. Thus, adding more energy during the day, when direct, unimpeded sunlight at noon can deliver 1368 W/m2, is not going to raise temperatures as much. But at night, this DLR is going to prevent cooling. Here, when temperatures are lower, the effects of the same increase in DLR are much greater. Basically, it is easier to merely keep something warm than it is to make it hotter. It is easier to warm a cool object that one that is already hot. As a result, the temperature gain during the day is not increased as much by increases in DLR, while the temperature loss at night is greatly influenced by increase in DLR. Your reference to El Nino is not relevant in this case. El Nino is a condition that can last for months. It raises ocean temperatures and so emits more OLR, and so triggers more DLR, but it does so 24 hours a day. It applies at night as well as during the day, so if anything it decreases the DTR in the same way increases in DLR do as a result of the GHE.
  6. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Norman apparently you discovered that the atmosphere is heated from below by the land or ocean surface. You should have quoted Horace-Bénédict de Saussure who in the late 18th century demonstrated the effect.
  7. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    Thank you Rob, I have read Willis' papers about closing the SLR budget, which is difficult over short periods given the large annual variability and measurement uncertainties. It may be noteworthy that they had trouble closing the budget over the 2003-2006 interval, but were successful from 2006-2010. I suspect this had to do with the extended El Nino during the first interval, and their determination that there was no steric SLR during this time. Enhanced precipitation would definitely influence global sea levels, and may be contributing to the recent change. This may be a result of the recent La Nina. However, one year does not compare to the multi-year changes we have observed during the ENSO cycle, especially since this past year has witnessed more rainfall in certain areas than a typical La Nina. This may fill lakes and reservoirs and lead to increases in the snowpack. A continuation of this pattern would lead to decreased sea levels. Over time, these are the two main components dictating global sea levels (GIA and plate tectonics playing a smaller, but not insignificant role in the short term). ENSO definitely plays a role in the steric component, and possibly in the mass portion also.
  8. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Forgive me, if this comment is off track. Apropos of "accuracy of climate models", a letter in my local paper suggested that current research by Dr Craig Woodward at School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, Uni of Queensland "may have significant impacts on climate models used for predicting global warming". Head of school (I think) Prof James Shulmeister is purported to have said: "All our current climate models may be way off base." Research involved looking at fossilized chitinous head capsules of larvae in mud layers in lake beds for info about climate at the time they lived. Anyone know how that impacts on accuracy of models? Been following weekly blogs and commentary with fascination. But bit new to this form of communication. Hope I haven't broken the thread.
  9. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    I followed Bickmore to MacIntyre and noted two things- MacIntyre ducked key parts of Dressler's analysis, which in one sense is a good thing to admit his lack of knowledge, but then goes on to miss the point entirely- the point being that you can't make a case with present evidence for clouds doing much (short term) to influence the feedback one way or the other. Of course, if you are professionally peddling uncertainty, this isn't a point you want to talk about.
  10. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    A useful summary of events with lots of links over at Carbon Brief.
  11. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Sphaerica @ 132 and muoncounter @133 Here is an article on ENSO that describes exactly what I am saying. There are many graphs. The ocean is warmer during an El Nino event and the downward longwave radiation is greatest during the El Nino cycle and lowest during the La Nina. During the day the ground is very warmer than at night so it will radiate more long wave radiation. More upwelling longwave radiation will mean more downwelling longwave radiation. So the GHE should be greater during the day. The radiation is additive. You get a 20 F increase in temp from shortwave solar insolation but the downwelling longwave radiation of day should be greater than at night so if night time adds 2 F to the temp, daytime downwelling longwave radiation should be higher and the addition of this energy should not make a smaller DTR but actually a slightly bigger one. That is why I think clouds are the major ingredient of the DTR decrease and it has a logical mechanism. Clouds at day keep things cooler but at night have a warming effect which would decrease the DTR. See my post at 101, based upon a peer=reviewed article. Article showing warmer water does produce more Downwelling longwave radiation.
  12. OA not OK: Booklet available
    Doug, Christina & Keith, awesome series of posts. Thanks a bunch!
  13. Models are unreliable
    Thanks a bunch Sky :)
  14. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Here's a nice YouTube on the subject.
  15. Models are unreliable
    #391: watch out for cause-effect relationships between different factors, but you'll also want volcanic forcing in there, and perhaps aerosol forcing too. With a reasonably simple model you can reconstruct surface temperature changes using CO2, SOI, volcanic - see Tamino's Open mind for some examples, one here and a better (superb) one here. I'm not sure about sea level, though a recent post on this site speaks of the impact of ENSO on short-term variations. Simple models don't capture the complexities of the interactions in each system, but they have their value in identifying some of the key elements to a system.
  16. Models are unreliable
    Say I wanted to play around with the data, to look for relationships in a pretty amateur way. There's: Sea Level Surface/Air temp C02 ppm Sunspot number SOI What am I missing and where will such a simple model fail?
  17. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Dana @47, "I think we all know the answer to that question." Indeed we do :) Sadly "skeptics" here and elsewhere knowingly (or not) forget that rather blatant double standard. Really, this is now like amateur hour at the circus. A 'skeptic' at RC is now questioning the validity of the data that they all used. Denial at its finest. It would be hilariously funny were it not for the fact that it is such a serious situation.
  18. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Here's a question - why is McIntyre "auditing" Dessler's work (and doing a piss-poor job of it), but not Spencer's or Lindzen's? I mean, Dessler's paper is basically an audit of Spencer and Lindzen. If McIntyre thinks Dessler's audit is flawed, why doesn't he do one of his own, as the self-proclaimed climate auditing expert? I think we all know the answer to that question.
  19. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Camburn @42, Do you simply, uncritically just believe and parrot anyone says about climate science just b/c it rails against the actual science and data? ClimateAudit was a fad, amongst other things. McIntyre. especially after the Wegman plagiarism affair and his role in the plagiarized Wegman report has no credibility anymore. Dr. Bickmore has responded to Mr. McIntyre's red herrings and strawmen. Really, Mr. McIntyre's 'analysis' amounts to nothing more than saying "look, squirrel!" to distract people from the implosion of Spencer's and Lindzens' papers. Well, I suppose someone had to step forward and try and create some uncertainty and doubt concerning Dessler (2010) and Dessler (2011). Dr. Bickmore's comments: "Steve’s arguments are weak. 1. He reproduces Dessler’s stats, but complains the R^2 value is low. Well of course it is, because the slope is near zero. But Dessler did the right thing and calculated a 95% confidence interval. It is what it is. 2. He faults Dessler for complaining about Spencer and Braswell only using HadCRUT3, when Dessler had also used HadCRUT3. But what he doesn’t show is that it made any difference for Dessler’s analysis. In any case, I wouldn’t be so suspicious if this were the only problem with S&B, because they didn’t claim to analyze any other temperature series. They DID claim to analyze all 14 models, and **forgot** to report the results. 3. Finally, he shows that you can get a different slope by changing the lag time. But since Dessler and S&B had both said this in their papers, I’m not really impressed." Of course Dessler is using HadCRUT, that is what the authors of the paper he is refuting used...duh! Moreover, unlike Spencer, Dessler used multiple datasets, and those data in fact corroborate each other...the outlier is Spencer's. Why? Because he cherry picked those data that would make the models look bad. Pretty telling that you are OK with that. Of course, McIntyre seems to neglect Spencer's and Lindzen's egregious errors (biased much Mr. McINtyre?). Actually think Dr. Bickmore is being very generous in how he is describing Mr. McIntyre's "critique" of Dessler's work. The "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW are frantically trying to throw up smokescreens to save poor old Spencer, One has to wonder how long it will be before they "throw him under the bus" as Spencer is doing more harm than good for his cause right now and is rapidly becoming a liability. Camburn, how you arrive at "Dessler was not good", while McIntyre's blog analysis was "quite good", all the while missing the train wrecks that are Lindzen and Choi (09) and Lindzen and Choi (2011) and Spencer and Braswell (2008) and Spencer and Braswell (2011) is beyond belief. In fact, doing so it is perfectly consistent with someone who is in denial. Finally, can you even begin to explain to us what was "good" about McIntyre's "analysis"? We are waiting.
  20. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Camburn, sorry but it sounds rather like "I would rather believe Spenser than Dessler, so quick find something gives me hope". Now tell what you think the substance of McI criticism is (where the science is flawed because obviously Spenser's is) and let's resolve the matter.
  21. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    This analysis by Steve McIntyre is quit good
    McI has pretty much lost all credibility in the scientific community ... And it's not because he's a penny-stock mining wonk who's smarter than einstein despite the scientific community's unwillingness to acknowledge his genius. Really, at this point, McI is nothing more than a more literate version of Watts.
  22. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Dana1981: I believe your headline is a bit misleading. Dessler paper of 2011 is no better than his paper of 2010 which was not a good paper. This analysis by Steve McIntyre is quit good: Read the comments section. There are some very good comments on the stats of both Dessler and Spencer
    Response:

    [dana1981] if you're just going to engage in empty insults with zero intelligent analysis, and reference somebody else's comments, then I'll just refer you to Barry Bickmore's comments about McIntyre's (exceptionally weak) comments.

    In the future, if you're going to disparage a scientific paper, please at least make more of an effort than "it's not a good paper."  You've added nothing to the discussion here.

  23. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Albatross @18 - yes, I'm talking about changes over a decade or so caused by ENSO.
  24. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    "[Spencer] mind trick: You don't need to see any error bars. Move along." I like it Barry! It would seem that Spencer has, academically, fallen very far now. reading Dessler's paper, it sounds like a teacher trying to explain something to a persistently errant pupil, which would be entertaining if the fallout were not so serious.
  25. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    As the Earth heats up - it would lose more energy through radiation - except for the insulation provided by the CO2. This blanket of CO2 will result in a rise in temperature - until the energy being radiated away reaches equilibrium with the energy being received. Then our temperature will stabilize. The thicker the blanked of CO2, the warmer it gets before this equilibrium is reached. I wonder what the lag is between CO2 levels stabilizing and temperature increase ceasing.
    Response:

    [DB] Try this post Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect

  26. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    Jonathan @ 29 - See the sister SkS post: Extreme Flooding In 2010-2011 Lowers Global Sea Level, there are freely available peer-reviewed papers cited in the post.
  27. Climate's changed before
    whatdocter @207: 1) Your claim about oxygen is simply absurd. Humans do not begin to suffer from oxygen deprivation due to altitude until 2000 meters, with most unaffected to 2400 meters. That represents a 22% reduction in available oxygen, or about 4.5% of the total atmosphere. Consequently, for the reduction in oxygen due to combustion to effect human health, CO2 levels would have to increase from their current 0.04% to 4.5% of the atmosphere. 2) An international agreement based on restricting per capita CO2 production would need to set limits based on a a benchmark year, with national targets based on the population during that benchmark year. Failure to do so would either penalize countries with a low population growth with respect to those with a large population growth, or result in population growth forcing total emissions above the absolute limit required to mitigate climate change. Such a benchmark approach would encourage limiting population growth.
  28. Climate's changed before
    And, whatdoctor, whatever the merits or problems with a per capita approach, it cannot encourage population growth. People don't think about having children in that way. I can't provide a citation, but I suspect you can't either, and I've never heard anyone cite lowering a tax as a reason for having children. Now, true, it might encourage some people to have children because they understand mitigation as foundational to a brighter future.
  29. Climate's changed before
    So we accept that global warming has happened before. We accept that it is happening again now - and that man is contributing to it. In the past, global warming may have been the cause (or a major contributing factor to) mass extinction events. If previous global warming events have shown a positive feedback - more water vapour causing more warming - what eventually turned things around? Is it already too late to take action? I think the focus on "per capita" CO2 production is counter-productive. It encourages countries like Australia to increase their population in order to reduce their per capita pollution. This actually results in more pollution in total. I believe the focus should be on "per area" pollution. This would encourage reductions in population and a reduction in total CO2 production. Of course it helps if we individually reduce our production of CO2 but the big problem is overpopulation. Our planet does not have enough free oxygen (O2 as opposed to CO2) for its current population.
    Response:

    [DB] "Our planet does not have enough free oxygen (O2 as opposed to CO2) for its current population."

    Umm, nope.  Of all the resources consumed by mankind, O2 is the most ample and in no danger of running out.

    Scarce items:

    • Food
    • Water
    • Housing
    • Open land
    • On-topic comments
  30. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    I just weighed in on Dessler's paper here: http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/roy-spencer-persecuted-by-own-data/
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Link activated
  31. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Sphaerica; jmsully That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure that I hadn't missed something. It's been puzzling me. Thanks.
  32. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    32, BBD, 35, jmsully, I see no relevant difference between the three equations (Dessler's notation, LC11 Eq. 8 and SB Eq 1). Am I missing something in how I am interpreting the notation and the clarifying text? FYI, the original comment in question was posted at Bishop Hill here.
  33. There is no consensus
    DSL, I particularly like your post at #411. I think that anyone reading through the last fifty posts, who is still arguing against Global Climate Change is just holding a debating position. All necessary points have already been made. And anyone who doesn't want to read through everything, can find plenty in post #411. And no, I have no idea who DSL is.
  34. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    The first comment on this post hits the nail on the head. The only people who do not see the obvious "grasping at straws" here are those the paper was written for, and those people never read it. They just used it to promote a political agenda. The science has reached the point that the few remaining skeptics in the academic world seem to be submitting papers for their political followers and not for their peers. This could be dangerous if the journals start to dismiss anything that seems the same, so each paper must be evaluated with due care to ensure that truly valid questions get the full light of day.
  35. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Radiative forcings (N) of temperature change could arise, for example, from natural fluctuations in cloud cover which are not the direct or indirect result of a temperature change (that is, not due to feedback) [6]. Examples of non-radiative forcing (S) would be fluctuations in the heat exchange between the mixed layer and deep ocean, or between the mixed layer and the overlying atmosphere. Importantly, satellite radiative budget instruments measure the combined influence of radiative forcing (N) and radiative feedback (- λ∆T) in unknown proportions.
    This above is from SB2011 and seem congruent with Dessler's eqn.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Corrected delta character
  36. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Cornelius @33, That 3rd oder polynomial fit to the tropospheric temperature data is meaningless. But I am confident that Roy knows that and the intent of the graph, despite the caveat, is to mislead and/or allow people to make their own misguided interpretations. Spencer doing that is known as feeding fodder to the "skeptics" and those in denial abut AGW-- in fact, that seems to be one of the main goals of his blog nowadays. Anyways, we'd better leave it at that for now, there are more important developments afoot such as Dessler (2011).
  37. Cornelius Breadbasket at 06:13 AM on 7 September 2011
    Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    I apologise if this is slightly off the thread of this conversation, but has anyone noticed that Roy Spencer has changed the graph he uses for his "Latest Global Temps"? It now has a trend-line through the change in temperatures over the past twenty years which looks like a sine-wave with temperatures currently beginning to fall. Is there any evidence for this?
  38. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Dikran (and anyone else) There's much fulminating about Dessler's response to SB11 and LC11 in certain quarters. I came across this comment:
    [from Dessler (2011)] "LC11 (their Eq. 8) and SB11 (their Eq. 1) both write the Earth’s energy budget as: C dTs/dt = ∆Rcloud + ∆Focean − λ∆Ts" What SB11 actually says is: Cp d∆T/dt = S(t) + N(t) − λ∆T And it is not the same.
    Could anyone clarify if and how the commenter has misunderstood Dessler? To be clear, I'm rather off Spencer these days, so this is not a baited hook. I'm simply confused.
  39. Dikran Marsupial at 05:05 AM on 7 September 2011
    Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Eric (skeptic) No. If the problem was that ENSO was the problem, then it would be reasonable to select the model runs where the modelled ENSO was close to the observed ENSO and then perform the analysis. This would effectively be controlling for ENSO. However, the key point is that S&B11 is dead in the water because they cherry picked BOTH the models and the data that maximise the model-data disparity. Had they instead followed the chess player approach they would have looked at the choices that minimise the disparity as well and tried to work out what was the factor that caused the difference. It is what is known as skepticism, which should always start with self-skepticism. The harder you try an pick holes in your own arguments, the more likely they are to survive peer review and (at least) the first encounter with the research community.
  40. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    I would argue that if models cannot predict the onset of a new cycle as is shown in both papers, then they cannot predict the slope or peak of radiative feedback to temperature as shown in S&B11 only.
  41. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Just to be clear about models simulating ENSO. They can clearly be very useful tools for predicting the evolution of current events and perhaps the start of a new phase in the oscillation-- but that is all on a scale of less than a year or so. So the models can reproduce the ENSO. What I was referring to @27 is AOGCMs running out 100 years most likely not being able to tell us correctly the timing of the next El Nino or La Nina, as those models do not have the luxury on real-time boundary conditions as current models used to predict the evolution of ENSO do. Dikran do I have that more-or-less correct?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Yes, that is my understanding, expecting the ENSO of even the best model initialised a century ago to be in phase today is rather unlikely, to say the least. I suspect the very latest models can track rather longer than a year or so, or the modellers wouldn't be starting to get interested in looking at the skill of decadal projections.
  42. Dikran Marsupial at 04:41 AM on 7 September 2011
    Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Eric (skeptic) wrote: "Doesn't it now mean he must choose the "right" model" No, better not to choose models and if you are going to compare them with the observations, you need to take the uncertainties in both the models and observations into account. I don't know whether that was done in Dessler's earlier paper, but whether it was or not does not change the fact that the SB paper is dead in the water. BTW it is not correct that the models can't track ENSO. The newest models are beginning to be able to make worthwhile decadal predictions. Even then, they can only do so if they are properly initialised so that they have matching ENSOs at the start of the prediction. However that doesn't mean the ones used in the study could, or were initialised so they could. The point is that Spencer would make himself look silly by claiming a model-data mismatch after (i) discarding the models that minimise the mismatch and (ii) discarding the observations that minimise the mismatch. As I said, that is not the "chess player" approach as he is ignoring data that do not support his conclusion, and so is easily refuted by Desslers Figure 1.
  43. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    Interesting claim, as most comments on this site are not supported by citations. Perhaps it would be helpful if the author, Rob in this case, would point out the previous research in this area. I know this is not being submitted for peer-review, but it would be helpful to others. I will try to be more accommodating with citations in the future for those who are not as well versed in the subject matter.
  44. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Eric @25, OK, your reasoning is going downhill very rapidly here. You claim: "The models can't in fact reproduce ENSO at all" A demonstrably false claim-- they can reproduce ENSO (some better than others), what they cannot do in climate simulations is tell when the next La Nina or El Nino event will occur. The rest of your post @25 is incoherent hand waiving. You can do better than that.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Corrected end italics (again!)
  45. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Eric @21, " I'm going to have to refresh my memory on the conservation of energy issue" Please do. "Dessler in his paper makes no such claims either.." Correct, but surely you understand the implications of Dessler's findings in the context of feedbacks and climate sensitivity, and claims that climate sensitive low b/c of a negative feedback from clouds arising from some mystical force. Also, Dessler (2011) exposes the lengths that Spencer and Braswell went to try and mislead people concerning the veracity of the the models discussed in the IPCC reports. Perhaps that action is a reason to have SB11 retracted.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] HTML tags (hopefully) fixed
  46. Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Dikran, the first thing I thought seeing S&B fig 3 is that of course the models aren't going to match the observations when the gain in the observations goes negative (i.e. a new ENSO cycle starts). The models can't in fact reproduce ENSO at all. Dessler's paper backs that up. Why would anyone expect the slope or gain or any other aspect of the ENSO response in the models to match observations? Also I don't see this new Dessler paper doesn't undermine Dessler 2010 in which he used a model to derive the cloud feedback to SST. Doesn't it now mean he must choose the "right" model to get the right results in Dessler 2010?
  47. NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
    27, Jonathan, No. On this site, any argument you make is expected to be supported by citations. The denial world is full of people who make elaborate claims completely without substance. No one is exempt from this in any situation. That you didn't offer up a citation with your original comment is up to you, but when a citation is requested and not forthcoming, that presents a problem, and you can't put the onus of any confusion on the other party for not being as well read in that particular research niche as yourself.
  48. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    Doug do you have a reference for this? average ocean pH has decreased by 0.11 pH units (from 8.25 to 8.14) since the industrial revolution and is on track to decrease by a further 0.3 units Thank you Tony
  49. Dikran Marsupial at 04:08 AM on 7 September 2011
    Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
    Eric (skeptic) wrote: "one of Spencer's goals in the paper is to show that climate models do not match observations" Pity then that he didn't show the results obtained using the models that most closely matched the observations (which as Dessler shows lie within the error bars of the observations). "Dikran your chess analogy is good, but keep in mind that Spencer's paper did not go out on any limbs that can be easily sawn off (he left that to his blog). " No, if showing that the models don't match the observations was one of his goals then not showing the models that give the best match is a definite blunder (to continue the chess analogy) Not considering the error bars on the observations is another easily sawn off limb. "In fact he can simply argue the dispute over model choices is more evidence that the models are wrong." That would be a ludicrous argument, and would demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what the models actually say. The models cannot be expected to reproduce the exact course of chaotic features such as ENSO. Even if you had a model with perfect physics you would only expect the observations (taking into account the error bars on the observations) to lie within the spread of the model runs.
  50. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Norman#131: "During the day time, shortwave radiation dominates" This is merely an expression of daytime warming. Since the ground is increasing in temperature, it cannot be in equilibrium (radiated OLR and all other heat loss must be less than incoming solar). Hence you cannot automatically assume that OLR keeps up with apparent temperature. This is demonstrated for a number of different surface scenarios here. Example: During the day, copious solar radiation is absorbed at the surface, and the ground heats up rapidly. Initially, most of the heat is conducted down into the soil, but as the layer of warmed soil thickens, HS dominates; the heat is primarily transferred to the air. This is promoted by extreme differences (up to 28 K) between the ground temperature and the 2 m air temperature. At night, surface radiative cooling is balanced by an upward ground heat flux. Since the nocturnal boundary layer is very stable, the turbulent heat flux HS is negligible. In this example, HS is the 'upwards surface sensible heat flux.' The point is that greenhouse gases appear to slow the net transfer of the energy radiated from the ground back to space. Most of that transfer is taking place at night, because that is when the ground can cool. Added GHGs make that seem as if nights are warming faster than days - perhaps better put as 'nights aren't cooling as fast as they once did.' The upper of the two graphs from the paper shows a mean warming of 0.2C/decade across all hours; nighttime hours at twice this rate.

Prev  1503  1504  1505  1506  1507  1508  1509  1510  1511  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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