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  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  1566  1567  Next

Comments 77951 to 78000:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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’.
  5. 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 ...
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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...
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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?
  24. 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.
  25. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Nice pattern..is it available in any fabric?
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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)?
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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).

  34. 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.

  35. 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
  36. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Thanks Dana, I guess I got fooled by the timespan in figure 1.
  37. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Eric the Red - WRT groundwater influences, please see the Moderator comments in this post. Groundwater contributions, as Wada notes, are so uncertain that they are not incorporated. If you feel otherwise, then I would suggest doing the groundwater study yourself and reducing those uncertainties. Your inclusion of groundwater contributions is not justified due to those, and I consider it rather a red herring. Albatross did not avoid the question, he simply pointed out (unlike some of the posters on this thread) that there are uncertainties on all of the measurements, that anyone should be capable of examining them. If you feel that the range of uncertainties do not overlap, that there is sufficient information to consider some of the numbers unsupportable: Then show your numbers. Demonstrate that the input/output values differ by more than is understandable given their uncertainties. Demanding that others do your work for you (as you did with Albatross), and implying that they are incorrect if they don't, is a Burden of Proof fallacious argument, one that I see on this site entirely too often from the skeptics. If you feel the numbers are wrong, that published work is incorrect, demonstrate it with the uncertainty ranges.
  38. keithpickering at 04:53 AM on 4 August 2011
    Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    L&S use a value of .0016°C/yr for their constant C, or .16°C per century. In other words, 1 degree every six hundred years.
  39. Rob Honeycutt at 04:50 AM on 4 August 2011
    Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Daneel... Oh, I think it's quite clear that Spencer's purpose is not to create good science but to merely add noise to the climate denial echo chamber.
  40. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    What I don't understand is why would anyone make such poor research that add next to nothing to our scientific understanding. I mean, this kind of model would be acceptable if it were a preliminary and first approximation to a problem but is just useless when we've had decades of research and piles of better models. That do take into account our previous knowledge. I might be wrong, but this seems to me like trying to fit the movements of the planets using circular orbits and epicycles. It may very well have been an useful model but now that we know about Kepler's laws and gravity you gain nothing by ignoring them.
  41. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    KR, The uncertainties have been discussed several times previously. The point I was trying to make is that all the the listed contributions to SLR were increasing, and were significant beyond the error bars (at least according to the published papers). Since SLR has been decelerating recently, this is a contradiction; ALL the factors contributing to SLR cannot increase at the same time that SLR is decreasing. ( -Snip -). BTW, the issue of groudwater being held in reservoirs was addressed in Wada 2011, and found to reduce the runoff to the oceans significantly also.
    Response:

    [DB] Per Wada 2010, uncertainties in groundwater contributions are large enough to make them unquantifiable.

    As for the rest, please note that inflammatory tone and accusations of misconduct contravene the Comments Policy and were deleted.  Keep the focus on the science and avoid personalizing the discussions.

    As has been already noted on this very thread, posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Personally, moderating this site is a PITA, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.  Please also note that there will be no other warnings to you in this matter.  We look forward to your future positive contributions to the dialogue and discussion on this blog.

    Have a nice day.

  42. Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
    A new paper from Oregon State University states: "If water were to warm by about 2 degrees under the ice shelves that are found along the edges of much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Marcott said, it might greatly increase the rate of melting to more than 30 feet a year. This could cause many of the ice shelves to melt in less than a century, he said, and is probably the most likely mechanism that could create such rapid changes of the ice sheet." http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/aug/ancient-glacial-melting-similar-concerns-about-antarctica
  43. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Eric#391: Doll and Sieber 2010 define 'extreme events' in a scientific manner, making no reference to financial loss. Many of the above disasters are caused be extreme weather events. The IPCC (2001) has defined an extreme weather event as an event that is rare within its statistical reference distribution at a particular place. Definitions of ‗rare‘ vary, but an extreme weather event would normally be as rare as or rarer than the 10th or 90th percentile. Their figure 5, disasters due to natural hazards in EEA member countries 1980-2009 is remarkably similar to the Munich Re graphics. the number of disasters in Europe has been showing an upward trend since 1980, largely due to the continuous increase of meteorological and hydrological events. KR#394 is correct; if you really believe that all the evidence of trends in extreme weather here is wrong, present some to substantiate your case.
  44. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    Exactly Paul. Makes you wonder why Curry gave Loehle a guest post on her blog to advertise this joke of a paper. We've come to expect this behavior from WUWT, but Curry's blog appears to be little better.
  45. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Eric the Red - Regarding groundwater contributions: Don't forget that groundwater depletion is not the only direct human influence on the hydrological cycle. Dam building (Fiedler and Conrad 2010) has offset something like 30.0 mm (∼10,800 km^3) over the 20th century. While dam construction has slowed over the last several decades, and groundwater depletion only increased, are the numbers you are giving corrected for impoundment to show a total contribution? And, to second Albatross on this, why have you not stated any uncertainties in those numbers?
  46. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    EtR @127, You are determined to argue/debate in circles here-- we are now at post #128. I'm not biting or wasting more time on this, so please do not try and bait me with a Gish Gallop, or by moving the goal posts. "In your opinion which value(s) do feel are most in error? " All the values cited in Hansen et al. (2011) and Leuliette and Willis (2011) and von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011), as well as the various estimates of GSL have error bars or uncertainty ranges-- figure it out yourself, but without preconceived biases. I'm intrigued that until now "skeptics" on this thread have expressed little or no interest in error bars or uncertainty. Finally, it might help your credibility in future if you bothered read the papers (and the stated caveats and limitations) that BP carefully cites, instead of uncritically accepting his claims. BP's cherry picking of Wada (2010) being the most recent example. I am no longer going to engage people on this thread who are not here to discuss these matters in good faith, or who give free pass to repeated deception by the likes of BP.
  47. Just Put the Model Down, Roy
    Badger#45: "sarcasm" Me, sarcastic about phyzzics teachers? 10 years ago I couldn't even spell it and now I are one.
  48. 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
    Eric (skeptic) - My objections to Norman's posts are primarily in (a) extremely limited geographic extent, as we can expect climate change to have considerable local variances (and at 4% of the surface, the US rates as 'local'), and (b) his continuing overly-simplistic take on weather interactions, despite input from various knowledgeable people. In regards to your event definition questions, I'll note that even the links you provided contain statements by Munich Re to the effect that while reporting has increased, the number of weather related events has increased faster than reporting or economic expansion alone can account for. So - according to the folks providing the data, this is not only an effect of population, economic valuation, or reporting levels. There is an increase in weather related events over and above those other causes. And, since you've been in the discussion from the beginning, you should know that! And yet - after almost 400 posts on this thread you continue to hunt for a reporting change or other data distortion that would account for the increased weather events they see. I consider that to be beating a dead horse. It's simply isn't going to get off the ground and trot away...
  49. Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
    Albatross, How do you reconcile the following: Groundwater depletion has increased its contribution to SLR from 0.4 (pre-1990) to 0.8 mm/yr (2000), and expected to continue rising. Mountain glacial runoff has increased its contribution from 0.4 (pre-1990) to 1.1 mm /yr (2006), and expected to rise 10% by 2010. Greenland and Antarctic did not contribute to SLR prior to 1993, but had increased to 1.3 mm/yr by 2006, and continues to increase to ~1.7 mm/yr currently. The steric rise component has increased from ~0.5 mm/yr to 0.7 mm/yr today (the average of your posted values @108). Granted there are large uncertainties in each of these measurements, but the summation of groundwater, mountain glaciers, GIS & Antarctica, and steric rise has increased from 1.3 mm/yr prior to 1990 to 3.7 mm/yr around 2000 and to 4.6 mm/yr today. According to tidal gauge measurements, the SLR prior to 1990 was ~1.5 mm/yr, good agreement with the summation value. According to the University of Colorado, SLR reached a maximum increase of ~3.9 mm/yr around 2000, another good agreement. However, since then, the SLR has decreased to ~2.3 mm/yr, about half the summation value. Do you see the dichotomy here? In your opinion which value(s) do feel are most in error?
  50. Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
    It's silly, just plain silly. Geez, anyone can knock together some sine and cosine functions and make pretty patterns, claiming a match to something. There is a good reason why this junk isn't published in reputable journals, even I can see that. It's the sort of thing that an imaginative teenager might have cobbled together, after reading some conspiracy fiction.

Prev  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  1566  1567  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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