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  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  Next

Comments 77851 to 77900:

  1. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Albatross: ENSO has been neautral since May, but the climatic effects of the La Nina have not been. I was stating the reasons why the drought is prevelant right now in Tex/Ok/Ks etc. I was also stating why the temps are what they are. I don't know where you are from, so it is probable that you don't understand the dynamics of what affects weather in the USA. I farm, the weather dynamics that affect production areas are extremely well understood by farmers. A lack of that knowledge will make or break this profession. In fact, it is so important that it is updated twice a day, and the dynamics are discussed in great detail to allow us to plan accordingly. Are they 100% accurate all the time? No, but the best information available at this time. Thank you in advance for acknowledgeing that.
    Response:

    [DB] A word to the wise:  It is best not to lecture to someone until you are sure that you actually are the expert.

    In this battle you pick, you are far outgunned.

  2. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    KL @ 137 - "Rob Painting I called your error at #101 when you only told half the story and claimed that I 'did not listen'.As the author of the header of this thread, why have you not answered?" Busy with other things Ken, but I see you are still reluctant to admit BP's error, despite Albatross repeatedly going over this.
  3. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    Albatross: If you can't see the very warm temps off the Pacific North West in your map, maybe this one will be clearer. Do you see the are that is labeled 6.2? This is what is causing the blocking high. Hot water creating blocking high
  4. Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    Stephan, actually there are people who deny natural warming. You see it in newspapers every day. People who believe all the warming is human caused. They are in denial that natural warming occurs in the face of evidence some warming is natural some is human.
  5. Daniel Bailey at 07:28 AM on 5 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    Re: Composer99
    "a systematic misrepresentation of evidence to propagate a viewpoint at odds with said evidence"
    This is something that has been displayed several times recently on this very website. Alas.
  6. Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    It should also be noted that denial is in many respects distinct from denialism, which is a systematic misrepresentation of evidence to propagate a viewpoint at odds with said evidence.
  7. Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    Most climate change "skeptics" would categorize themselves as the type of skeptics being described in the video. The problem is that they don't realize that they are coming to the party late. In other words they don't realize that most of the "skeptic" questions have already been discussed and addressed in the published literature over the last several decades. This is why well cited websites like Skeptical Science are such a valuable tool for scientific communication.
  8. Stephen Baines at 07:19 AM on 5 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    Also Dale, noone questions whether climate change has happened naturally. That is a red herring. In a way the effect of CO2 is natural, just as the effects of the sun, albedo, and aerosols are. They effacts are the result of "natural" physical laws. As they have changed so has climate in the past. The only thing different about the current situation is that humans are producing the CO2. FYI... earth is only 4.5 billion years old. You're thinking of the universe.
  9. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    First, I am aware of no study that has demonstrated that teleconnections cause nights to warm faster than days. And the warm nights are not limited to TX and OK, ac clearly stated by NOAA (it was even bolded by muoncounter)the results apply to the whole United States. My, how "skeptics" are quick to attribute these events to teleconnections (yes, they are important and may possibly playing a role in the TX/OK drought and heat wave, but that is not the whole story). ENSO has been neutral since mid May and is expected to stay neutral until at least the fall. I do agree that if another La Nina is in on the cards, that does not bode well for the SW'rn USA. "Skeptics" are not quick to acknowledge the role of feedbacks. That is less rain, lower soil moisture and less vegetation, increase in surface sensible heat flux and as a result higher temperatures. And the impacts are not limited to the boundary layer (see reference below). The low soil moisture is known to have played an important role in elevating temperatures observed during the 2003 European heat wave. See this paper by Fischer et al. (2007): "The evaluation of the experiments with perturbed spring soil moisture shows that this quantity is an important parameter for the evolution of European heat waves. Simulations indicate that without soil moisture anomalies the summer heat anomalies could have been reduced by around 40% in some regions. Moreover, drought conditions are revealed to influence the tropospheric circulation by producing a surface heat low and enhanced ridging in the midtroposphere. This suggests a positive feedback mechanism between soil moisture, continental-scale circulation, and temperature." The same physics probably hold true now in southwest USA. PS: SSTs off the Pacific NW coast are below normal. SSTs in the central Pacific are above normal, reflecting the negative phase of the PDO.
  10. Stephen Baines at 07:09 AM on 5 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    Muoncounter is right, Dale. You are confusing "deny" with "denial." You can deny that a proposition is true - in which case you are just on one side or the other of a debate. That is not denial, however. Denial is when you refuse to accept a proposition despite clear evidence that the proposition is true.
  11. Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    muoncounter, the video gave me the distinct feeling that the term "denial" had been set to only the denial of human effects (the use of the thermometer near the AC). Even if you think that no one sits in the "deny natural" section, you can't say that it doesn't exist. Also I question your comment "until there is some credible evidence of 'it could be natural'". I hate to point out that there's ~15 billion years of natural climate change on Earth. That's some pretty credible evidence that natural climate change does occur. It's just this time, it may or may not be (depending on your view).
  12. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    muoncounter: The cause of the high temps in Texas etc is the warm waters in the Pacific NW. This is causing a blocking high. All signs are now pointing towards another La Nina, so relief from drought in this area will be marginal as the monsoon season during the onset/duration of a La Nina is quit weak. It appears the only hope of substantial drought busting precip in this area will require a hurricane of enough strength to over ride the effects of the blocking high.
  13. Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    Dale#5: "you can also deny the negative argument (ie: deny that it could be natural). " Maybe you missed the part in the video that talked about denial as willfully ignoring the evidence. Until there is some credible evidence of 'it could be natural,' there is nothing to deny on that side.
  14. Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    Just want to point out that technically, denial sits on both sides of skeptic. You can deny the positive argument (ie: deny that humans are causing global warming), but you can also deny the negative argument (ie: deny that it could be natural).
  15. Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    EtR - its not uncommon to see criticism of pro-AGW statements from people associated with AGW. (eg Tamino yesterday. It is extremely rare to see so-called skeptics criticizing denialist claims. (Eric(skeptic) being a rare exception). Haven't exactly noticed this from you so far.
  16. Daniel Bailey at 05:33 AM on 5 August 2011
    Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    Skepticism is valued in science. Indeed, in speaking with climate scientists, it has been my delight to discover the degree of skepticism expressed by the scientists themselves towards their chosen craft/profession. That being said, there is a huge gulf exhibited on this blog between those who base their skepticism on science...and those who base their "skepticism" on "cycles". Climate scientists are in the former camp; "squeptics", the latter. And ne'er the twain shall meet.
  17. Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    The video would be so much better without the too loud and distracting background music. I couldn't listen through the entire video.
  18. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    KR#24: "It seems that great cycles are very attractive to some people" In a way, 'natural cycles' are an escape from the unpleasant details of reality; an assurance that things will eventually return to the way they were in the good old days. We get a free pass from explaining what causes these cycles: They are 'natural' and thus don't need any factual basis. And they certainly can't be our fault. Is it any wonder that the field of 'study' most closely associated with natural cycles is astrology? Ancient civilizations developed it as a system to predict seasonal shifts and interpret celestial cycles as ‘signs’ of ‘divine communications’.
  19. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    From the OP: "the stronger the greenhouse effect, the smaller the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures." And whaddya know? Here's NOAA's assessment of the New Normal: This time around, the 30-year window for the U.S. Climate Normals is 1981-2010: the decade 1971-1980 was dropped, and 2001-2010 was added. Since the ’70s were an unusually cool decade, while 2001-2010 was the warmest ever recorded, it is not surprising that the average temperature rose for most locations. For the United States as a whole, it was not daytime highs (maximum temperatures) but overnight lows (minimum temperatures) that rose the most compared with the 1970s. --emphasis added Anecdotally, the ongoing heat emergency in Texas and Oklahoma isn't likely to be canceled anytime soon, because nighttime temperatures are stubbornly high. Watches, warnings and advisories, Aug 3, 2011 AN EXCESSIVE HEAT WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 10 PM CDT SATURDAY. -- NWS Advisories use all caps (they should be shouting this). * DAYTIME TEMPERATURES: 100 DEGREES BY 10 AM TO NOON. HIGHS GENERALLY 105 TO 113 DEGREES THROUGH SATURDAY. AREAS NORTH AND NORTHWEST MAY SEE LOWER TEMPERATURES...BUT ALSO MUCH GREATER HUMIDITY. THE EFFECT WILL CONTINUE TO BE DANGEROUS HEAT FOR ALL OF THE NORMAN OFFICE FORECAST AREA. * NIGHTTIME TEMPERATURES: 85 TO 95 DEGREES MUCH OF THE NIGHT... FOLLOWED BY ONLY A BRIEF DIP AROUND SUNRISE. * DURATION: MOST LOCATIONS HAVE SEEN HIGHS ABOVE 90 DEGREES EVERY DAY FOR ABOUT 2 MONTHS... AND HIGHS ABOVE 100 DEGREES EVERY DAY FOR 1 TO 5 WEEKS. -- emphasis added Yes, I know, it gets hot during the summer. But this is ridiculous ...
  20. Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
    Nice video. Maybe now people will stop equating skepticism with denialism. Everyone, not just skeptics, should examine all the evidence with regads to climate change.
  21. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Ken @136, You are now resorting to games, arguing strawmen and being argumentative. As any reasonable person reading this thread (as well as other threads) will note, I try and avoid making assertions without content. You are entitled to your own (misguided) opinions but not your own facts. "Where did BP claim that 3.1mm/yr applied for the whole period 2005-2010?" Your continued defense of BP's attempt to use his (inflated) end point values to refute the published works is truly mind boggling. You yourself said @101 that: "All BP did in his calculation was run along the trend line from 2006 to 2010 for BOTH sources of land ice loss" So you too were under the impression that BP was speaking to the 2006-2010 window. Indeed that is what he did, as did I, but his mistake (and I think that is a generous characterization) was to use the end point data, not the means. BP also makes multiple references to the 2005-2011'ish window in his posts @9, 70 and 73. So the reader is left with the very clear impression that his 3.1 mm/yr value was intended to refute the published works dealing with the 2005-2010 window. EOS. And I might add that you are also trying to argue a strawman with Rob.
  22. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    I would suggest, 'tho I'm not a moderator, that discussions of SLR and the components thereof be taken to a more appropriate thread (perhaps How much is sea level rising?), leaving this one for discussing OHC and the current state of deep temperature measurements.
    Response:

    [DB] Seconded; motion carried.  Parties interested in discussing SLR may do so on the thread indicated by KR; OHC & temperature discussions may continue on this thread.

  23. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    There's a interesting discussion (under the title "Riding a Pseudocycle") up on WUWT, where W. Eschenbach critiqued Loehle and Scafetta. He noted that using his favorite tool, periodicity analysis, that there was really no support of their 60 year cycle in the data, and that autocorrelated random signals show almost identical decompositions to HadCRUT3 - i.e., no evidence for cycles whatsoever. Not bad for WUWT, quite frankly, not that it makes up for the average quality of the postings. The fascinating thing for me, however, is that the thread was immediately taken over (>300 comments so far) by the "cyclists" (no insult intended to folks who like bicycles), who are all pushing their favorite solar/Jupiter/Neptune driven cyclic climate theories - stuff from Landscheidt, Carl Smith, Benner, and so on. It seems that great cycles are very attractive to some people - certainly more attractive than dealing with AGW and the like.
  24. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    I think I've commented on this before. Anyway, it's my business to understand how the beliefs of people are transformed. It's a huge subject scattered across education, psychology, political science, economics, art, and other disciplines. As far as economic position is concerned, consider what happens to the politics of a line worker when that worker is promoted to a management position. I've worked in factories, service industries, and owned a business, and I am now working in the ivory tower. In each of those situations, I've seen people (my own father, for example) change their relations as they moved from one position to another. I've seen a man who was a strong believer in collective bargaining and social justice promoted to manager and turn into an apologist for the company and a Republican voter ("all you have to do is work hard and good things will happen"). He'd even bring his new boat to work on Fridays, a behavior he would have found atrocious five years earlier. I've seen a man become wealthy and embrace religion in a way he had laughed at as a young adult (remember, religious belief and economy were once inseparable). I've also been friends with ex-managers who, after having been laid-off, took a good long look at how they had changed and been asked to behave as a manager. What's curious is what happened to these people next, and it depended on what they began to do for work. Pay gradation started out as a way to drive wedges into worker solidarity. Give a guy a tiny raise, and he's a little less likely to complain. It's like a kiss--a promise of future riches--a tiny concrete hook to hang one's dreams on. Suddenly it's about you and not solidarity. Most people simply don't actively monitor how their beliefs are constructed, and so they go through life being blown around on the winds of rhetoric. Their aggregate momentum is displayed in large-scale patterns--democratic oscillations, directionless "live-in-the-now" thinking, hyperindividualism, etc. I want to go into a description of postmodern conditions, but this is all a massive set of circumstances. You're right, though: this is way off topic. Spencer is a useful case, though. Note that people who want a more results-driven, pay-for-performance model of public education probably also tout Spencer as a leading authority on climate change. Insert X noise from old Family Feud episode.
  25. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Rob Painting I called your error at #101 when you only told half the story and claimed that I 'did not listen'. As the author of the header of this thread, why have you not answered?
  26. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Albatross #126 You have avoided the point Albatross - assertion without content. Give us a straight answer to this question: Where did BP claim that 3.1mm/yr applied for the whole period 2005-2010?
  27. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    "I don't know, scadden. It has been demonstrated endlessly that when one's position within the economy changes, one's politics change" Different to what I have read (though I am talking about political values). This is way, way off topic, but can you give me a reference? My very cynical view of politics is that for most voters, utter self-interest rules. For the rich that means "I'm expected to pay $x in tax? But I earned all this" while at the other end its "But I deserve this, its my right,- so someone should pay for it". Left and right then have serious thinkers to provide a backstay to both views. In this sense, I can see how movement in economy would affect vote, but there are values around liberty of action, group loyalty, criminal justice etc. etc. that I dont think are so pliable. I think the right wing denial of climate change goes further than self-interest.
  28. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    DSL @53 Thankyou for restoring my sense of hope. "repeated efforts, observable evidence, and tact" - that was very succinct and hit the nail squarely on the head.
  29. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    I see that the authors were happy to answer questions at Climate etc. Any chance they would post here to answer some questions here? I think L&S owe some of their 'theory' to Samuel Benner. Sam Benner was a 'cycles man' like these guys and is still quoted by some chartists today. According to Benner, "the cause producing the periodicity and length of these cycles may be found in our solar system". "It may be a meteorological fact that Jupiter is the ruling element in our price cycles of natural productions; while also it may be suggested that Saturn exerts an influence regulating the cycles in manufacture and trade". Additionally, Uranus and Neptune "may send forth an electric influence affecting Jupiter, Saturn and, in turn, the Earth". "When certain combinations are ascertained which produce one legitimate invariable manifestation from an analysis of the operations of the combined solar system, we may be enabled to discover the cause producing our price cycles, and the length of their duration. Benner never fully explained the basis of his cycle, but he did make a connection through the weather and climate, suggesting he was aware of the earlier work on sunspots by Jevons, Herschel and others." Pig iron, wheat futures, climate change...all in a days work for these guys...
  30. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    A very nice analysis of just how extreme the current drought really is posted at John Nielsen-Gammon's blog. One can quickly see the mean rainfall pattern -- and the historic variation around the mean in this spaghetti display. I won't be a spoiler; you'll have to see how 2011 compares for yourself.
  31. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    Hrmmm . . . yeah I don't know, scadden. It has been demonstrated endlessly that when one's position within the economy changes, one's politics change. Some of the basic goals might not change (e.g, "end human suffering"), but the willingness to accept certain means to achieve those goals does change. Education can also change politics. Particular political strategies emerge from the defense of economic positions, and this emergence is modified by awareness (knowledge does indeed force responsibility, to some extent). That's why the doubt game works so well. All that is needed is to bump an idea from the "fact" category to the "well, I don't know" category. You have to compete. A group of southerners in the U.S. tried for decades to normalize the idea of slavery. The idea didn't just peter out on its own. Changing someone;s politics can be done, but it takes repeated efforts, observable evidence, and tact. I suspect that even the most apparently unchangeable 'skeptics' who post here have had their politics altered significantly while engaging in the comment stream. That's what it takes: dialogue. Not the article but the discussion that follows. It's a beastly slow process, but it beats shooting people.
  32. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    scaddenp @51 I agree totally. The trouble is that media outlets, at least in Australia and the USA, seem to be becomming more polarised towards representing particular political points of view. Dispassionate representation of facts and background is on the decline. Makes getting a scientific result across to the public rather difficult when news outlets are partisan.
  33. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    It is fairly routine for journals to cause a publication fee (normally called "page charges"). It is also common for journals to encourage authors to suggests reviewers, but the suggestions may be overridden by the editor. It is the responsibility of the editor to verify that the reviewers are qualified and not cronies of the author.
  34. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    Mostly, you cannot change people's political values. We may even be born with them. What you need to do is divorce the facts from a particular political strategy. Normal political narratives (right or left) retell facts and history to fit a values-based outlook on the world. Politicians are extremely adept at this so its best not to try and compete.
  35. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Muoncounter @20, 'Is it customary for a scientific journal to charge authors a publication fee?" Maybe I misunderstood your question, but page charges are not at all unusual. In my discipline page charges are typically around US$2000, but the cost of publishing can vary depending on the number of figures and whether or not they are colour. Of course one only pays that amount when the paper is accepted and goes to press, not before. The same appears to apply to "The Open Atmospheric Science Journal" in which this poor paper was published, so no it is not a "vanity press". So the problem here lies with the editor and the reviewers. A potential issue is this: "Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution." Sadly this is not unusual nowadays, and I fault the editorial boards for that. It would be interesting to determine who, if anyone, L&S suggested to review their paper.
  36. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    This argument was explicitly rebutted in the literature before Lindzen even made the argument in the 1st place (1985): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v315/n6021/abs/315649a0.html
  37. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    dana#18: "It is unfortunate that L&S were able to find a journal to accept this paper" Perhaps a copy of this post should be sent to the editor, who is identified in this editorial in this volume of the 'open journal.' Is it customary for a scientific journal to charge authors a publication fee? (scroll to page bottom for the fee schedule). Doesn't that sound more like a vanity press?
  38. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    Never forget the political effect. Many people view the world through an ideological lens rather than a fact based one. In discussions with some people about climate science, just as I feel I'm about to bring them around to an understanding of the measured effects of climate change, they retreat to their comfortable position of accusing me of being of a certain political persuasion (Jeepers, I'm being careful not to use any specific political terminology here.)Both side of politics do it. Of course one side is traditionally opposed to anything supporting the environment. As a wiser man them me once said, "ideology trumps facts every time". Many of the public have already made up their minds around their political beliefs and only accept evidence which supports what they have already decided. Quality of argument is not relevant and their are plenty of media outlets happy to promulgate pseudoscientific garbage just so long as it supports their own established position - and the facts be damned. Once upon a time I was a policy committee member of a political party. Once I realised that ideology trumps facts I resigned my membership but at least I kept my conscience.
  39. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Nice pattern..is it available in any fabric?
  40. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Thanks Andy and skywatcher. Credit to Albatross for suggesting the comparison between Loehle's model and his reconstruction. I don't consider Loehle's reconstruction on par with peer-reviewed versions like Moberg's, so I hadn't initially included it. But when Albatross suggested it, I had a "why didn't I think of that?" moment. It is unfortunate that L&S were able to find a journal to accept this paper, and also unfortunate that blogs like Curry's and WUWT gave Loehle free reign to advertise it. I'm no climate scientist - if I can immediately see all of these glaring errors in the paper, then somebody like Curry should be able to as well. As should any competent reviewer.
  41. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    John #48 - the scientist in question believes he can be most effective by maintaining his credibility as an impartial climate scientist. I'm not sure how he arrived at that conclusion, since impartial climate science has utterly failed to convince humans as a whole to take sufficient action to address climate change.
  42. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Good grief, what a load of pure guff! Climastrology at its very worst. Thanks for that debunk Dana, your rebuttal seems like nuking fish in a barrel, but it has to be done these days. It's a sad state of affairs when this sort of garbage can be published, even in journals of dubious quality. I'm surprised they didn't include a 12-year cycle for Jupiter on its own (Jupiter's gravity is much much more effective than Saturn's at our distance), after all they could hardly make their fit any worse than it already is! Maybe the relationship between Pluto and Eris accounts for the glacial-interglacial cycle, and Comet Hale-Bopp triggered the super-El Nino of 1997-8? Does Loehle win a prize for publishing two reconstructions that are the most out-of-phase rather than in-phase (at least when they are not totally diverging)?
  43. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    dana1981 writes: "There was one climate scientist I recently asked to do a guest post on SkS - he said even though he liked our site, we had "taken a side" in the debate, and he wanted to remain impartial, so he declined the offer." There's a man whose moral integrity as a scientist is more important to him than his moral integrity as a human being. Like James Hansen, if he really believes what his work is telling him then he should have no doubt what needs doing. Sometimes one has to stand up and be counted for the sake of future generations.
  44. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Excellent rebuttal. I especially like Figure 3, showing that Loehle and Scafetta's model of 60 year cycles only fits Loehle's own temperature reconstruction for about one-half cycle, after 1920. Correlation may not imply causation (xkcd comic) but lack of correlation plainly implies lack of causation. I'm awaiting an equally scathing review of the L&S paper at Climate Audit. I suppose that critical scrutiny of climate science has to be put on the back-burner while they continue to deal with Climategate.
  45. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Daneel - these "skeptics" are pretty clearly just trying to find an alternative explanation for the warming that doesn't involve human GHG emissions. I agree, the problem is that in doing so, they're basically disregarding most of what we've already learned about the climate. Keith - yeah, that's your 'natural' warming trend since about 1700 (a.k.a. "LIA recovery"). A whopping 0.16°C per century.
  46. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Albatross - Agreed. Eric the Red - Groundwater contributions are a red herring without consideration of impoundment. You're again using end point numbers (single years) when discussing 6 year averages. The fact remains that Von Schuckmann has demonstrated directly measured (i.e., thermometers) temperature increases in the oceans, particularly in the deeper sections. Steric expansion is perhaps the most certain contributor to SLR - if you feel the numbers are in error I suggest you look at melt contributions or GIA estimates instead. Don't forget to consider seasonal/yearly variations in the signal. Absolutely none of the cherry picked numbers or arguments that have been bandied about here actually address the thermal readings from Von Schuckmann's paper. And hence, quite frankly, they are off-topic in this thread on OHC.
  47. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    KR @131, You are correct. My post @64, based on Hansen et al. and others, incorporates the uncertainty. And FWIW, Eric is still comparing the wrong data @132-- we are talking about the 2005-2010 window here, not end points, and despite being advised to the contrary he has used the estimated groundwater contributions (note how the goal posts have shifted). The former point concerning the time frame under consideration has been made ad nauseum, and it is inconceivable that they continue to ignore that important fact. Further to that, and with that observation in mind, as a publishing scientist I take very strong exception to the accusation made by EtR: "His avoidance of the issue borders on climate misinformation, as he appears to believe that all these factors can increase simultaneously, while SLR decreases." I request that EtR apologizes for that and for misrepresenting my position which has been very clearly stated in previous posts. The true misinformation being perpetuated here is by BP and his supporters. There are more falsehoods in EtR's post @130, but quite frankly I can't be bothered with them...astute readers following this thread can decide for themselves who is playing fast and loose with the facts here. ( -Snip- )
    Response:

    [DB] Let's try and take the high road here (translation: let me be the bad guy; as moderator, that's my role...keeping electrons from being wasted).

  48. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Does anyone know the average temperature of the volume of melt water being added to the system, and how that distributes over the (significant) upper layer of the ocean? Does that in any way affect the steric component? I'm sure scientists have considered it. Has it entered into any calculations here? Wouldn't a certain amount of heat transfer reduce the steric contribution, temporarily masking its effects due to warming (until the original plus melt water has had time to warm to an equilibrium value)?
    Response:

    [DB] I'll email someone who may know.

  49. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    KR, The contributers with uncertainties (all taken for earlier post). Pre-1990: Groundwater: 0.4 +/- 0.1 mm/yr Mtn Glaciers: 0.4 +/- 0.1 mm/yr GIC & Antarctica: 0.0 +/- 0.2 mm/yr Steric: 0.5 +/- 0.1 mm /yr TOTAL: 1.3 +/- 0.3 mm /yr compared to tidal gauge SLR of 1.5 (uncertainty unknown). Early 2000s: Groundwater: 0.8 +/- 0.1 mm/yr Mtn Glaciers: 1.1 +/- 0.3 mm/yr GIC & Antarctica: 1.3 +/- 0.45 mm/yr Steric: 0.5 +/- 0.1 mm /yr TOTAL: 3.7 +/- 0.5 mm /yr compared to satellite SLR of 3.9 +/- 0.6 mm /yr. 2010: Groundwater: 1.0 +/- 0.2 mm/yr Mtn Glaciers: 1.2 +/- 0.3 mm/yr GIC & Antarctica: 1.7 +/- 0.5 mm/yr Steric: 0.7 +/- 0.15 mm /yr TOTAL: 4.6 +/- 0.65 mm /yr compared to satellite SLR of 2.3 +/- 0.8 mm /yr
  50. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Thanks Dana, I guess I got fooled by the timespan in figure 1.

Prev  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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