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  1576  1577  1578  1579  1580  1581  1582  1583  1584  1585  1586  1587  1588  1589  1590  1591  Next

Comments 79151 to 79200:

  1. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    First Off: Thank you DB 2nd off: Tom...if you can't see that the first graph shows UAH and GISS as almost identical then you need glasses. Then the 2nd graph is presented, which is about the same as the 1st graph. Then.....the 3rd graph is presented of UAH alone....and it is not even close to the first two graphs that are suppose to be UAH temps. So, yes, I have legitimate questions as to the basis of said graphs. As far as Mr. Carter, my comment of what I think of him has been snipped twice. And appropriately so on consideration. In a more gentle tone..let's just say that in my humble opinion he has no validity. Good enough? Once again thank you DB. I look forward to reading tamino's post you posted.
  2. Daniel Bailey at 10:58 AM on 17 July 2011
    Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    Tamino has a new post up on trends & noise: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/trend-and-noise/ Very timely and related to the ongoing understanding issues present.
  3. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    Camburn, you give the game away, as if we did not already know it, when you write "Too many questions here to make a good analysis so far". Really? In what way can there be any doubt that simply picking three points at the same temperature instead of analyzing the linear trend is a bad analysis? In what way can there be any doubt that simply drawing in flat lines as a substitute for the actual linear trends is a bad analysis? Your questions of Tamino's analysis are clearly a desperate attempt to find a gnat to strain at so that we do not notice that Carter want's us to swallow camels. It will not work, and try as you might, you will not escape they fact that you have been caught blatantly cherry picking! You say, "He used a short baseline as well......remember? 1997 or such". No he did not! Every graph shown by Tamino above, including those by Carter show at least three decades. You say, "Another reason I used the shorter version is that the graph shows UAH and GISS extremely close. Yet when looking at the graphs further in the piece....they don't match the UAH graph in the first illustration." On the contrary, the match is very similar both before and post 1998. Indeed, the match is almost exact in all years except strong El Nino and La Nina years which are known to have a much larger effect on space born temperature measurements than on surface data (and has the same effect on the RSS index). There is no question about the difference between the first two and later graphs as the only difference between them is the difference between annual averages and monthly averages, and can be determined by counting the number of data points per year. There is no question about the difference between the UAH lower troposphere data as Tamino clearly labels it and the TLT 5.3 except that WoodforTrees (not Tamino) may be using the very slightly different version 5.3 of the UAH data rather than the current version 5.4. There is no question about the baseline of the anomalies, which is clearly identical. And there is no question that you have been around the woods long enough to pick up these things for yourself. So there is no legitimacy to your questions.
  4. Daniel Bailey at 10:51 AM on 17 July 2011
    Arctic sea ice has recovered
    Courtesy of Lord Soth, a reader and contributor on Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog, the field markers (stadias) viewable from North Pole webcam 2 have gone from 4 markers: Down to 3: Apparently they don't float.
  5. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    Albatross: Maybe calling Carter an (-Snip-) is a bit strong. I can't figure out his conclusions either.
    Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

  6. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    DB: But even with those removed.....what is he using? GISS and UAH.....it is obvious.......the graphs don't match and I don't know why, nor can figure out why. I thought someone might know.
    Response:

    [DB] Much of this analysis done by Tamino is based on work he had originally done earlier this year:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/sharper-focus/

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fast-is-earth-warming/

  7. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    Albatross: Carter is an (-Snip-). I am trying to do an analysis of Tamino's post but without more information it may be impossible.
    Response:

    [DB] Carter is many things, but that adjective applied to him is not correct, nor nice.  Tamino makes it clear that Carter, from a scientific and statistical standpoint, is being deceitful.

  8. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    Trivial question. Would filtering out Mt. Pinatubo, which should have been El Nino years, make much of a difference on the trend line?
    Response:

    [DB] Tamino's second figure has El Nino and volcanic effects removed.

  9. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    So Camburn, are you here to defend Carter's scientific misconduct or what? It sadly certainly seems so.
  10. It's the sun
    Eric (skeptic) @872: 1) While the change in UV radiation absorbed in the stratosphere may change weather patterns because of its effect on jet streams and the Hadley circulation. It will not result in a different level of energy absorbed than that predicted by Line By Line models for that change. It certainly does not result in no effective change in the energy balance at either the top of the troposphere or the surface as you are implying. 2) The change in TSI associated with the solar cycle has been shown to have small effect on the solar cycle. The best prediction of the lag involved is 2 months (see discussion for Dikran's link). For large changes in solar output, as for example between 1910 and 1950, the lag is ten years. The reason for the difference is that the rate of change in surface temperature depends on the difference between the current temperature and the equilibrium temperature. For small changes as with the solar cycle, a small change in surface temperature will bring the surface close to equilibrium and slow further changes beneath the level of statistical detectability. For large continuous changes the disequilibrium is long lasting and hence the change in temperature detectable for a long time. 3) There is a difference between a change that induces a change in equilibrium, and a change that counters a previous change that effects equilibrium. If there is a forcing of +1 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere, the surface needs to warm to bring OLR and solar radiation back into balance. The heat required to bring the temperature back to balance is large compared to the additional heat gained each year due to the imbalance, hence thermal lag. But if there is a temporary reduction in TOA forcing by 1 W/m^2, the surface is already at the right temperature for the new, but temporary TOA balance. As no change of temperature is required, not lag will be present. This is the circumstance when a solar minimum is superimposed on a background of rising temperatures due to a rising GHG concentration. The rising GHG concentration requires a higher surface temperature to re-establish equilibrium. But the solar minimum reduces the surface temperature required for the temporary equilibrium, thereby immediately reducing rates of warming.
  11. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    The next question is: What are the base years for the anomolies in the first temp graph? The base years would have to match or the illustration is not credible. Too many questions here to make a good analysis so far.
    Response:

    [DB] The obvious question at this point is:

    1. What statistical methodology is needed for a good "Camburn analysis"?
  12. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    Same thing in the 2nd graph......hence my question.
  13. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    Tom: Look at your longer version. Another reason I used the shorter version is that the graph shows UAH and GISS extremely close. Yet when looking at the graphs further in the piece....they don't match the UAH graph in the first illustration. Tamino is no dummy....so there must be a logical explanation, which I don't see.
  14. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    Tom: He used a short baseline as well......remember? 1997 or such. I am talking about the difference in the graphs. The first graph says it is UAH Mid Trop temps. Ok, the following graphs should be the same then...right? That is my first question....and you didn't answer it. The wood for trees analysis shows that you can do different things by cherry picking. My main question still is.....why the difference in the graphs? Aren't they suppose to be the same thing? And instead of being accusatory....this is a ligitimate question.
  15. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    Camburn@2, it is odd, for when I follow your link I find this: But when I stop blatantly cherry picking, and use 1979 as the start date instead of 1998, I find this, which is obviously the same data as is being used by Tamino and Carter: So you have some explaining to do. Why did you post a link to such a blatantly cherry picked range of years when it is clear from Tamino's graphs that he is using the data from 1979 to present?
  16. OA not OK part 2: Thermodynamic duo
    What I meant to say above is: Please know that I understand thoroughly that the ocean is not at equilibrium. I also know that all spontaneous processes proceed in the direction of equilibrium. Therefore as a starting point for considering the direction of chemical processes it is useful to start with a determination of the equilibrium of a model system. That is what I thought you were doing. My point is that the correct approach to considering the equilibrium state of a model system is to list the chemical species present,find all constarints on the system (one equilibrium constant for each independent net reaction and charge balance) and then solve the resultant equations for the equilibrium concentrations of the species. To say, as you do, that thermodynamics tells us the reaction 1 is spontaneous in the surface oceans is incorrect. What is correct is to say that on average the surface oceans are, so long as the partial pressure of carbon dioxide increases, continously perturbed by the addition of carbon dioxide from the vapor phase and that this pertubation results in an increase in the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide, dissolved bicarbonate ion, dissolved hydrogen ion and, unless the ion product equals the solubity product, carbonate ion. If the local ion product equals or exceeds the solubity product of calcium carbonate then solid calcium carbonate sponateously precipitates. Your equation 1 implies a spontaneity without providing the perturbation driving it. Eq.1, in fact, implies that the precipitation of calcium carbonate drives an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the vapor hase whereas the opposite is the case.
  17. Rob Painting at 08:44 AM on 17 July 2011
    Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
    David Lewis - The linear trend in the IPCC graph totally obscures the recent 'slow-down'. Again - the point of the article is not that long-term global warming is happening (shucks, we know that), it's examining short-term variability.
  18. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    I looked at Woodfortrees to see if I could find a similiar UAH temperature record. This is what I found: UAH temperature record
  19. Carter Confusion #3: Surface Temperature Record Cherries
    I have a question: The first graph supposedly shows UAH and GISS temp data. Then the UAH LT 5.3 shows something different. Which graph is the correct one? They can't both be as the data is different. Or am I reading this wrong?
  20. Climate's changed before
    Doug, the heat flux through the earth is of enormous importance to the oil industry since it is a critical component for calculating when sediments with an organic components will produce oil and gas. As a result, it is measured. The heat flux from the core around 0.04W/m2 - 0.06W/m2. Compare this with 300+/W/m2 from sun.
  21. Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
    Kevin Trenberth led the IPCC group that produced this chart:

    He says: "We used 25 years in Chapter 3 of IPCC as the lowest trend we provided that was meaningful…."

    All the denier noise about "trends" with shorter time periods is much ado about nothing.
    Moderator Response: [RH] Rescaled image to 450.
  22. Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
    Climate Progress has a recent post about citizen science as well: "Tapping Social Media To Muster a Vast Green Army".
  23. Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
    I understand that people are surprised that I included surfacestations.org to the list. The fact is that it does fit the definition of citizen climate science. Although some people contribute to the project with a bias in mind, it doesn't mean it isn't still a useful project, whose efforts the NCDC has already expressed appreciation for. To remove from the list what is surely the most popular citizen climate science project in the US simply because we disagree with the views of its participants would be a pretty biased action in my opinion.
  24. Dikran Marsupial at 04:48 AM on 17 July 2011
    It's the sun
    Eric (skeptic) The physics of transmission of radiation as a function of wavelength is pretty solid (e.g. MODTRAN); it really isn't a source of significant uncertainty. The comment regarding thermal inertia of the oceans is also misguided. The thermal inertia of the oceans is a large part of the reason that there is unrealised warming to come due to the CO2 emissions made so far. However that doesn't mean there is not also an "instantaneous" response to a change in forcings. To demonstrate that is the case, the aerosols from volcanic eruptions cause an immediate drop in temperatures for a couple of years. If thermal inertia of the oceans buffers use from changes in solar forcing, you need to explain why it doesn't also buffer us from the negative forcing from volcanos. If you think that the comment that the solar minimum should have an effect is unsubstantiated, then again you are incorrect. Tamino has shown that solar activity has a small, but non-zero effect on temperature, see this post for details, the plot of the effect of solar activity on temperatures is below The peak-to-trough difference is about 0.1-0.2 degrees C, depending on which dataset you look at.
  25. Bob Lacatena at 04:16 AM on 17 July 2011
    OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
    Doug:
    The oceans are not full of salts (NaCl and/or carbonate species etc).
    Is the word "not" supposed to be there?
    Moderator Response: The 'not' is correct. You can take seawater and add more salt to it. Therefore seawater is not full or saturated with salts. But good point about language use and that bullet point changed. Thanks. Doug.
  26. OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
    Thanks for clearing that up, Patrick.
  27. Eric (skeptic) at 00:20 AM on 17 July 2011
    It's the sun
    Tom, I don't think we can measure all the effects of TSI completely even if we can measure it accurately outside the earth's atmosphere. For starters the spectral changes can make a big difference (e.g. solar UV dropped a lot more by %age than TSI and although solar UV is less energetic, it has a large effect on the stratosphere). Second, the effects of TSI or any other energy changes are subject to the same constraint as GHG energy equivalents, namely that there is a thermal lag caused by the ocean. That lag is very difficult to measure since OHC is a difficult measurement especially over the short run. To reiterate my basic point, the comment that the solar minimum since 2008 should have caused cooling but didn't (or words to that effect) is unsubstantiated. It shows up a lot on other threads.
  28. Eric (skeptic) at 00:08 AM on 17 July 2011
    Climate's changed before
    Oddly enough, the theory that most heat comes from within the earth does not contradict GH theory since outgoing LW would still be absorbed by GHGs.
  29. Climate's changed before
    Wow, Doug #184 I would like to see one of your physics classes if that is what you teach! It sounds like you are suggesting that planet Earth would be pretty much just fine without the Sun, among other things. Yours is a great comment for any resident skeptics to debunk (good start Eric), as I think they could safely do it without causing damage to their own understandings of the climate system, even if they are not too close to the truth about climate. A starter for 10 - how does Doug's hypothesis account for the poles being markedly cooler than the equator, if most heat comes from within Earth? I might even have to come up with a new term for DougCotton's understanding of climate!
  30. Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
    Yes, the surface stations project doesn't really belong. Real citizen science projects (such as the christmas bird count) are unbiased attempts to gather data, because, as mspelto says, citizens can provide much greater data density than researchers alone. Typically such projects make use of citizen expertise in an area, for instance count organizers and team leaders in the christmas bird count are typically expert amateur birders. The surface stations project set out to "prove" an ideologically-driven belief that the global temperature record has been manipulated, and was organized and the "data" (photos) presented with that in mind. There was no effort to train or recruit volunteers to classify stations other than via photographs. It turns out that slicing and dicing the dataset via the surface station project's site categorization doesn't affect the trend, but the person who started the project continues to insist that they've proven the data's been manipulated to show warming that doesn't exist. It's citizen pseudo-science, and listing it alongside real citizen science efforts is an insult to the latter.
  31. Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
    My participation is a website http://climateinsight.wordpress.com, exploring issues in sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change. I have a B.Sc. (Mathematics & Physics) from Canada's Royal Military College, have served in our RCAF and am now retired after a 45-year career with a focus on emergency response and public safety. I kept up my interest on science throughout my career and am now trying to act as an ambassador between scientists, their studies with the lay public who have been misled by the "Merchants of Doubt", primarily by mainstream media commentary. This site is one of my favorite citations. Alan Burke Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  32. Eric (skeptic) at 23:07 PM on 16 July 2011
    Climate's changed before
    DougCotton, it looks like your featured evidence for "global cooling", comparing 2003 to 2011 is cherry-picked. For example in your chart http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg you show that 'the mean for the first half of 2011 was less than the mean for the first half of 2003" and "the mean for the second half of 2010 was less than the mean for the second half of 2003". In your graph linked above there is more support for saying "the mean for the first half of 2010 was significantly higher than the mean for the first half of 2003 and considering that those were both El Nino years, it suggests warming". Your comparison of 2011 to 2003 is not useful since 2003 was El Nino and 2011 was La Nina. You use AMSU sea surface temperatures which are only representative of part of the planet (missing all land) and heavily reflect SST which fluctuates due to ENSO. In fact the AMSU sensor that you use tracks closely to the ICOADS values of actual SST measurements, see http://news.cisc.gmu.edu/doc/publications/Jackson%20et%20al_2010.pdf figure 1.
  33. Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
    Hve to agree with Tom about the surfacestations project. It's hard to imagine a project that has a greater initial conceptual bias toward hoped-for results. And their results have already been shown to have no significant effect on the global temperature record by Menne et al.
  34. Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
    #18 - a very good point. Changes in glacier snowlines are now occurring so rapidly that most glaciers are far out of equilibrium (of their mass balance). Consequently, glaciers around the world will continue retreating for years, and for most larger glaciers, many decades, before reaching equilibrium, even if temperature/precipitation regimes were held at today's levels. The Tasman Glacier has obviously retreated far in the past years (you pretty much need binoculars from the tourist viewpoint now), but it's going to continue retreating considerably further, just like comparable glaciers in Iceland, unless the climate cools a lot. Most past changes happened slowly enough that small glaciers (valley / corrie glaciers) could reach some sort of equilibrium with prevailing climate. Modern changes are much faster than the equilibrium response rates of nearly all glaciers, and so comparting their present terminus position to their past positions is not telling you much about how today's climate compares to previous warm episodes. It just tells you it's warming quickly!
  35. Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
    An excellent climate project that I participate in with my college classes is Project Budburst, which uses Plant Phenology as climate indicators. Citizens can provide much greater data density than researchers alone.
  36. Rob Painting at 20:31 PM on 16 July 2011
    Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
    It's been interesting reading the comments. I thought the "skeptics" were the only ones who 'can't see the woods for the trees', apparently not so. Some "warmists" are gonna have conniptions reading the comments from studies I'm writing about now!
  37. Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
    There are a number of UK yearly events. The RSPB - Big Garden Birdwatch: http://www.rspb.org.uk/birdwatch/ A new one is the Big Butterfly Count: http://www.bigbutterflycount.org/
  38. Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites
    I should add the the glacier and sealevel proxies have an issue with equilibrium. If I stand at the bottom of say our Tasman glacier, I can see the HCO mark well up the valley. However, unless the temperature actually drops sharply. most of it will melt anyway. Does the temperature need to rise for it to melt back to the HCO? I dont know. Similarly, if temperature stayed the same, would sealevel still rise by a metre? The temperature rise the HCO was much slower by comparison. Is there a better short-acting proxy for temperatures at the HCO?
  39. Great Barrier Reef Part 3: Acidification, Warming, and Past Coral Survival
    DLB@9: Of course you have a reference or other evidence for this hypothesis of yours?
  40. OA not OK part 5: Reservoir dogs
    It boots nothing for you to play word games like this. Come, give us some specific examples of your doubts.
  41. Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
    The attempt to relate the claimed slower rate of warming in the 00's to the solar cycle has been debunked repeatedly. It can be statistically manipulated into apparent existence (Ricky Lintzen had the biggest float in that parade). Trouble is, these statistical evaluations don't match the observational evidence - heat-signature extremes and anomalies. There's a good scientific case for a warming booster from the aerosol decline in 90s (bye-bye USSR), and a masking effect from the ABC in the 00's ... but the notion that these 'x-year moving averages' from source subset du jour is 'the warming trend' is lame. Most of them would be altered if they didn't support the pre-determined conclusion.
  42. Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
    I don't know why you included Surfacestations.org, which is run in conjunction with WUWT. Although classifying the quality of surface stations is itself a worthwhile task, they classifying team a surfacestations.org have a demontrable bias. Taking one example, in a recent classification of Australian sites, they classified the Oodnadatta Airport site as "not rural". While a site located within Oodnadatta (pop 277) itself may have effected temperature readings due to the presence of a (singular) lawn and, no doubt, some air-conditioners, Oodnadatta Airport differs from the surrounding scrub solely in that some spinifex has been bulldozed to make three runways. The notion that it (or Ceduna Airport, or half a dozen other examples) should be classified as not rural is an absurdity. Consequently I consider their classification of most US stations as rating 3 or lower as being an expression of their bias rather than an objective analysis, and participation in their effort as a furtherance of pseudo-science.
  43. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    barry @86, I am not one of those who says that the "oscillatory" patterns just shift heat around. Indeed, ENSO does shift heat around, but it has too large an effect relative to its proportion of the globes surface area for that to be the case. What is more, its greatest effect on global temperatures is delayed by several months from its peak. Clearly ENSO has an additional effect beyond that of the heat shifting. Personally, I consider that to be evidence of a high, and positive climate feedback. When additional surface warmth in the tropical Pacific results in a greater global warming than can be accounted for just by the change in surface temperature involved, it is difficult to interpret it any other way. However, given a high climate feedback, and given the known variations in anthropogenic SO4, it is difficult to find room for variation left for the AMO or PDO to explain. Further, contrary to denier claims, the PDO has been decreasing in average strength since around 1985. That means that even if it has an effect, it may have contributed part of the rapid rise in temperature from 1975 to 1985, but it would have been reducing the rate of temperature increase since then. That there is little difference between the rates of increase between the two periods again suggests a minor influence of the PDO on global temperatures, if any:
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed linked image (system didn't like that jpg).

  44. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    I am being mistaken for someone arguing about future climate states based on nominal multi-decadal oscillations. I assume this is a hangover from previous discussions on the PDO. Let me be clear: I am not proposing, or hoping to propose, a coming cooling period based on PDO-like indices. I was intrigued by Tamino's posts where he subtracts natural variations (solar, ENSO, volcanic) from the temp record, [Eg.], and how that impacts trends in the temp records. To restate: I am curious to know, with what confidence have the apparent decadal fluctuations of the PDO been ruled out as a low-frequency oscillation influencing global temperatures on decadal, rather than centennial, time scales.
    1)If the the PDO is just "a long term index related to ENSO", then its effect is completely included by including the effects of ENSO.
    I'm not sure that "related to" = "is purely an artifact of". I appreciate conjecture, but am curious about the degree of confidence on this. Tamino has probably had a go at quantifying a possible relationship. I read an old post of his recently on the AMO, but that was more about long-term trends. I think my interest stems from the advice that apparent oscillatory ocean/atmosphere patterns (PDO/AMO etc) simply 'shift heat around'. I had thought this was also the case with ENSO. I'm 99.9% confident it's just a hole in my understanding - and this is a good place to remedy that.
  45. Climate's changed before
    Tom@186: Thankfully, I didn't miss this one. I just havvve to read this. Thank you.
  46. Eric (skeptic) at 13:39 PM on 16 July 2011
    Climate's changed before
    #184, how do you quantified the gravitational energy that you claim to be 200,000 times greater than solar energy? What units and what conversions?
  47. Climate's changed before
    I would like to see some of our resident deniers comment on DougCotton @184.
  48. Ari Jokimäki at 13:32 PM on 16 July 2011
    Citizen Science: Climatology for Everyone
    I'd like to note that there's one aspect of citizen science that this post ignores: independently researching some issue and writing a peer-reviewed paper about it. There is a continuous (but not very numerous) stream of scientific papers published by laypeople in different branches of science, astronomy being one of the prime examples of that. There is a common misunderstanding that one needs to be "official scientist" before you are allowed to publish in scientific journals, but this is not true at least for most of the journals. One only needs to make the research, write a paper about it, and submit it to a journal for peer-review.
  49. Climate's changed before
    Yes, climate has changed before. When grapes were grown near the Scotish border in Roman times it was probably warmer than when I was there this time last year (in summer) experiencing winds so strong I could hardly open the car door. My arguments are far too detailed to repeat here - see them at http://earth-climate.com and at least note just two things ... (a) Consider the sound physical proof given there that solar insolation contributes a mean of less than 10 degrees whereas over 280 degrees K comes from heat coming through the surface from the core and the crust which warms the lower atmosphere we live in from absolute zero to above 280 deg.K, even at night. So the IPCC "theory" has only those 10 degrees to play with for a start. (b) All the available photons from the sun are already captured each day by water vapour and CO2 etc and there is surplus vapour and CO2 left over. Even what heat goes into the ground is lost again that night. (For example, hot sand on a beach cools at night.) You cannot create energy. Speaking as one who teaches Physics and has marked university assignments, I can assure you that the IPCC argument about this feedback leading to more warming each year is totally incorrect. All feedback only leads to temporary warming and I don't care if 70 odd "scientists" mostly in other disciplines seem to think energy can be created by extra CO2. It can't be. And it isn't. Equilibrium will be established at the level dictated (at least 96%) by the heat flow from the Earth which has natural long-term cyclic variations regulated by the planets by at least three mechanisms explained on my site. THAT is the reason there has been no increase in mean temperatures from Jan 2003 to July 2011 despite increased CO2. Get up to date here: http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg I welcome ANY discussion via my email address on the site, provided you indicate that you have read all that is there.
  50. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    barry @84, 1) If the the PDO is just "a long term index related to ENSO", then its effect is completely included by including the effects of ENSO. 2) Further, evidence suggests that the ENSO pattern is changing, both in that neutral conditions are starting to resemble an unusual El Nino like state; and there is some evidence that with warmer conditions true El Nino like states become more frequent and stronger. Given that, if the PDO is related to ENSO, past fluctuations are not a guide to future behaviour, which can be expected to change. 3) Further, if the PDO is related to ENSO, and given the response of ENSO to a warming world, the correlation between the PDO and global temperatures is more likely a causal response of ENSO (and hence the PDO) to global temperature fluctuations than a causal response of global temperatures to fluctuations in the PDO. 4) This leaves aside the issue that evidence for an actual cyclical behaviour by the PDO and AMO are weak. Using the AMO as an example, Tamino tested the case for true periodicity and found it very weak. Often tests of statistical significance for such periodicity are based mathematically on the assumption that only one period is tested, whereas in fact many periods are tested. Allowing for this, Tamino shows the only significant period in the AMO as tested using the Greenland Icecore is around 6,500 years long. Given this, and given that we have no knowledge of the causal antecedents of the PDO, predictions of it future behaviour are simply guess work.

Prev  1576  1577  1578  1579  1580  1581  1582  1583  1584  1585  1586  1587  1588  1589  1590  1591  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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