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  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  Next

Comments 84301 to 84350:

  1. Ari Jokimäki at 21:42 PM on 31 May 2011
    Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
    Paul: "Local results can have a global context. eg. if it can occur in one location, then logically it may occur in another location due to AGW given the right circumstances." Yes, but remember that we are classifying only a single paper, we are not making statistics of several papers of different locations. For that single local paper, it is impossible to say anything about the global situation.
  2. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    Just found this NYT timeline which starts in the same year, although later it deviates from purely research papers: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/12/07/science/20091207_CLIMATE_TIMELINE.html However it has a similar groupings of events, with a greater density in modern times.
  3. Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
    Local results can have a global context. eg. if it can occur in one location, then logically it may occur in another location due to AGW given the right circumstances. Are there examples that can be discussed?? Would be interesting. Maybe the neutral circles in the visualisation should just drop to the floor in a pile, rather than cluster in a group :-)
  4. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    Refutations. Might require a fair bit of faffing about. 1. Providing a link to a published paper which explicitly refutes the evidence/ conclusions after publication of the relevant item should be fairly straightforward. A little red dot, per paper rather than per refutation, in the relevant circle would be handy. 2. Some egregiously wrong papers which ignore or try to override others' well-accepted work could also have some indication (with a pale pink dot?) / link to a list of published works which contradicted the paper before it was ever written. 3. The thorny problem. Many truly dreadful papers are not refuted in formal papers by others after publication because the competent scientists just can't be bothered (again, and again, and again). But there are letters and similar critical responses where bad papers somehow made it into reputable journals. No idea how this might be incorporated.
  5. Glenn Tamblyn at 19:00 PM on 31 May 2011
    Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Wow, I am of the net for a day due to 'technology problems' and my post is already into specific stations and ice sheets! The purpose of this series is to look at the broader issues and 'encourage debate' and consideration of how to think about this subject, in the mathematical sense. I would like to make a general point. The concept of Teleconnection is well established in Climatology/Meteorology. Things are connected together. Damorbel has suggested that things such as elevation need to be considered. However this can easily fall into the trap of looking at temperatures rather than temperature anomalies. The graph from Hansen & Lebedeff 87 shown in post 1a (sorry but with the declining health of my laptop, posting a link is too hard). Is a plot of the correlation of Temperature Variation (Anomaly) vs station separation for station pairs. And it is based on randomly selecting those station pairs. Including variation in elevation. This is the key point, which can easily distract us. Long term climatic conditions at differing locations out to 1000 km or so ARE correlated, based on the evidence. Not that they have the same climate. But that their climates are related. Damorbel makes a valid observation that this will start to breakdown at the land/ocean interface. Even more so, we can't project this correlation out into the ocean. But these analyses only apply to land data. Ocean temps are processed separately. And this aligns with the observation I make that the correlation between stations and how they decline with separation is clearest in those latitudes with the highest proportion of land. However, Damorbel suggests that a 1200 km link is in some way unreasonable without supporting data. Firstly, the analysis from HL97 provides the supporting data. As I mention, commonality of weather systems passing over 'adjacent' locations provides a mechanism by which adjacent locations can see comparable temperature variations (anomalies). And from the data the 1200 km range is most reasonable at latitudes where there are high proportions of land. This is where the difference between temperature and temperature anomaly, climate vs climate variability can be a bit of a head bender. The mathematically valid approach doesn't align with our unconscious, intuitive sense. The unconscious is strong, but in this context it is strong. I will discuss some of these issues further in the last 2 parts of the series. But with the tight publication schedule here at SkS, that won't be till the end of the week.
  6. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    Well done. Nice presentation. Tor B's idea above to improve it is important. Some are likely to use the same graphic and say "Look! There is a substantial number of papers that argue against AGW. Hardly a consensus!" It would be very useful to be able to identify refuted and erroneous papers and even remove them from the graphic as well. This would also reflect the actual nature of scientific consensus: that it is not merely majoritarianism.
  7. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    RSVP "...(If on the other hand, it seems there is more "evidence" in support of the effects of AGHG's, it is only because this line of thinking gets more airtime.)" I can assure you that a good paper with good evidence contradicting our current understanding would get a very, very good reception from at least this reader. There are a couple I'd be deeply, truly, really, really happy to see. The first one would be a demonstration that CO2 in the atmosphere behaves differently (and better for us) from CO2 in a laser. The knowledge that the warming we've seen so far is not necessarily indicative of what's to come would be fantastic. The other one would be a convincing then-and-now demonstration that the climate sensitivity shown by e.g. the escape from the 'snowball earth' state, is inapplicable in current circumstances because .... several valid reasons. Another occasion for rejoicing. (My longer list of unlikely demands includes a paper showing that a sea ice free Arctic can be maintained as a seasonal phenomenon rather than as a transient condition on the way to year-round ice free conditions. And a baker's dozen of others.) I'm pretty certain that many regulars here would give more, plenty more, 'airtime' to worthwhile papers giving quality evidence of this kind.
  8. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:09 PM on 31 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    John I have spent some time over the years discussing AGW on Unleashed. And I have never seen so many comments, so fast from so many DIFFERENT people. You really have dragged the lurkers out into the limelight. Do I get the sense that your somewhat more acerbic than usual tone has pressed a few peoples buttons. Quite a few people with tones of anger. It has been my experience of life that when you see anger, it is usually best to start looking for the fear that lives behind the anger. What fear could your post engender? The fear that the rather jerry-built edifice of 'Climate Denial Science' might be revealed for the house of cards that it is. And if the house falls down, well then they might have to deal with the reality that must be avoided at all costs. Confronting the reality that humanity is in D@@p S**t, and we have to do something about it. And treasured ideas of our sense of our place in the world may be one of the first and necessary casualties. This is the real denial. That their sense of how the world works, what is meaningful, may not actually match reality. And that they actually need to abandon that sense and replace it with one more grounded in reality. This is an existential burden that is hard on anyone. But there is one final arbiter of which 'view' of life is correct. Her view over-rules everyone else. Her name is Mother Nature. Her bat and ball, her back yard. So her rules. And if what we think doesn't match that, we loose. Thgis is hard for some people to handle, probably hard for their personality type to accept. The last vestiges of the Anthropocentric view of the Universe reside in the conservative, individualist personality type.
  9. Ari Jokimäki at 17:33 PM on 31 May 2011
    Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
    Caroza: "Isn't your definition of "neutral" going to artificially inflate the neutral bucket? A paper which is local in scope but which accepts AGW as causative or even axiomatic is not neutral in viewpoint, yet that is how it will be counted." As long as we are classifying these papers per argument, we need to do it like that. If the argument is global, then paper on one location is irrelevant for the argument, because local results can be remarkably different from global results.
  10. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    DB at #99. KL: "Camburn has made several valid and reasonable points" DB: Which fail to stand up to scientific rigor and scrutiny. Well DB how about answering my #96, which goes back to your chart post at #58 and the issue of the validity or not of UCAR SLR chart. I see no scientific rigor in your posting conflicting chart evidence and then not explaining which is correct.
  11. Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
    "I also think this same logic should be applied to research dealing with the effects of AGW on certain species: studies that focus on one plant species and how it will respond to AGW, for instance, are classified as “neutral” as well, as generalizations among plant species (especially) are illogical to make." Isn't your definition of "neutral" going to artificially inflate the neutral bucket? A paper which is local in scope but which accepts AGW as causative or even axiomatic is not neutral in viewpoint, yet that is how it will be counted. I think you're right that you probably need to extend the database to cater for classification per argument rather than only per paper, but perhaps you also need more classification dimensions.
  12. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    philipm: oh, dear, not PDEs! (I really should have studied more during that subject at uni, it was the most interesting engineering maths subject I did. 20 years later, though, and I can barely even remember what a PDE looks like, let alone solve one!)
  13. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Hah, 326 comments and counting... looks like that analysis might take a while there, John! Certainly plenty of material, though... [rolls eyes]
  14. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    The deniers are out in force at the Drum now. All repeating tired cliches. If there is indeed an argument against the mainstream science, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. Conspiracy theory is so passé. Science is supposed to be stuff like calculus. These people should get a grip and solve some PDEs, then report back on what they know about science. :(
  15. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    RSVP: Kindly point out some 'evidence' against AGW, that has not already been debunked on this site. Those of us who support the science know there are uncertainties. We also know roughly how big they are, where they are, and what impact they have on the overall conclusion as to the existence of AGW (the phrase that comes to mind is "two thirds of stuff all"). Anyone with half a brain knows there is uncertainty. The only people who think the uncertainty is all on the low side (i.e. it all runs counter-AGW) *only* have half a brain... Is there a slim chance that some fluke of natural climate variability just happens to have produced a warming signature that exactly matches that of increased GHGs, right at the time when humans are emitting billions of tons of the stuff? Yes, there is. Is there a slim chance that you can jump out of plane kilometres above the ground without a parachute, and survive? Yes, there is. It's probably not a good idea to try it, though. The odds are somewhat against you.
  16. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    What Hansen is doing is looking to see if he can reconstruct temperature records where there aren't any which is creative, not scientific.
    And yet this 'creative, not scientific' approach produces basically the same results as everything else. Apparently, Hansen is some sort of wizard.
  17. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    it is worth noting that N.C.D.C. uses Empirical Orthogonal Teleconnections to fill in areas that are not well represented,so it's not just an average of stations in a 5 by 5 grid cell, I don't mean to take way from any other points being made thanks jacob l
  18. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    skywatcher@71 "It's rather hard to have ice ages with low sensitivity." In Defense of Milankovitch Gerard Roe GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L24703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027817, 200 Received 9 August 2006; accepted 3 November 2006; published 21 December 2006 http://courses.washington.edu/pcc589/2009/readings/Roe.pdf
  19. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    "Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views." ...as is the case of AGW GHG supporters. These however, deny their denial, making for "denial squared". (If on the other hand, it seems there is more "evidence" in support of the effects of AGHG's, it is only because this line of thinking gets more airtime.)
  20. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    That's a large accusation to make without evidence there Tim Curtain, and yes you are cherry-picking, be it individual stations or individual records. The glaciers are 'cooked' as well, explains why nearly all of them are retreating...
  21. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Deniers and skeptics is way too ivory tower ... or ivory soap. They're pro-pollutionists. (Hint: try the phrase out, and count to ten, then count the number of 'CO2 isn't pollution' responses). The mindset was bottom-lined on alt.globalwarming almost 15 years ago: "The notion that Man can have any effect on the climate is hubris." They truly believe that there are petty consequences to inaction; versus higher taxes/wrecked economies/3rd transfer plots/world government conspiracies ... reducing the pollution. The basic issue at street level, unfortunately, is intelligence. Some of the banal comments here illustrate that: restart and redefine the terms; invent a fictitious expectation and then claim valid skepticism when it isn't found; warn people that discussing those terms could polarize the discussion; develop a CO2-thermostat that will turn down CO2 emissions, and atmospheric levels will fall; somehow make the Greenhouse Effect 'go away' or stop working. It's turned into a Clown Convention for the Anti-Science Society. It's the reason crypto-science like WUWT out-vote realclimate as best science blog.. Skeptical Science does a great job of getting the science out to the non-science world. Unfortunately, it comes up short of being a decent bug-lamp.
  22. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Tom: so why does GISS have 2 different figures for Canberra, depending on the 250 or 1200 km radius? If Wagga is good enough for one (and I have been to the met.station there)why is it not good enough for the other? Your data confirm that Wagga is more convenient than Canberra. Canberra does have a number of met.sites. I prefer real data to the confections of Gistemp.
  23. Climate's changed before
    Just to add to comments on CO2 measurement, you might like to look at this on measurement of CO2 in general and problems with the old chemical measurement. Further Keeling, responded to Beck's stuff with this comment. "It should be added that Beck's analysis also runs afoul of a basic accounting problem. Beck's 11-year averages show large swings, including an increase from 310 to 420 ppm between 1920 and 1945 (Beck's Figure 11). To drive an increase of this magnitude globally requires the release of 233 billion metric tons of C to the atmosphere. The amount is equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally. Other CO2 swings noted by Beck require similarly large releases or uptakes. To make a credible case, Beck would have needed to offer evidence for losses or gains of carbon of this magnitude from somewhere. He offered none. " Are you sure that measurements you refer to dont run foul of same issue? (mass balance).
  24. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Moderators, Please snip all text written by on this thread me that has violated the house rules. I do not want any claims of favoritism being made, nor do I expect any favoritism. The body of science stands on its own anyways. The cherry-picking of statistically meaningless and insignificant windows continues @102..... Please also delete this message if you wish.
    Response:

    [DB] The issues in play have been discussed and dealt with.

  25. Climate's changed before
    1/ I agree TOA energy imbalance includes all sources of energy, but there is no way to infer from OLR that there natural warming going on. In contrast, the spectral signature of OLR matches the expected spectra for OLR. An increase in OLR W/m2 just tells you planet is warming. By itself this tells you nothing. Energy balance is difference with energy in and that is what we expect. This is a very confusing argument. 2/ Look at the whole list of proxies available in WG1 report, with and without tree proxies. The different published proxies vary in detail but support a consistent picture. We are getting hotter. 3/ Please provide a reference to these. The usual source of this argument is EG Beck's collection of old references. Got a better reference. All proxies have problem, ice data just happen to be among the best. What's your reference for problems with ice bubble data that you think allows for a different interpretation?
  26. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Tim Curtin @23, the highest High Quality network station to Canberra is Wagga Wagga. If GISS just used the nearest station, that is the temperature record they would use. As it happens, GISS shows a 1910 to 2010 trend of between 0.2 and 0.5 degrees C per century in South Eastern NSW (including Wagga and Canberra). In contrast, BOM shows a 0.9 degree warming trend over the same period at Wagga Wagga. I checked the Canberra location only because you brought it into discussion. Clearly your concerns about GISS artificially inflating its temperature trends are unwarranted, a fact we already knew from the similarity between GISS trends and other major surface temperature indices.
  27. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Albatross: When I am discussing an issue I prefer not to ruffle feathers, so I shall not post to this thread in the future. I have pointed out that sea level rise has slowed. Why does that upset you so much? I have pointed out that according to ARGO data, 0-700M OHC is static since 2003. When you go to woodfortrees.org and plot hadcrut ocean anomlies from 2005 thru 2011, the trend is also flat. These are observations that are recent. To me they indicate a change in trend as three very large metrics concerning heat show a flat trajectory. You also seem to have a problem with Houston and Dean's paper. Tell me what the problem is with it please. It is actually a quit wide ranging paper, talks, with references, about the current problems in determining the rate of SLR. I wish you well. The counter arguement, if you think it is an arguement, is not weak, as it is supported by empirical data and the link you so graciously provided that I quoted, in ref to the data that is currently present.
    Response:

    [DB] "I have pointed out that sea level rise has slowed.  Why does that upset you so much?

    I have pointed out that according to ARGO data, 0-700M OHC is static since 2003.

    When you go to woodfortrees.org and plot hadcrut ocean anomlies from 2005 thru 2011, the trend is also flat."

    Several problems here, chief of which is the focus on statistically insignificant timescales (which is also called cherry-picking).  This issue has been pointed out to you in the past.  For a recent discussion of the issues with that practice, see here and here.  Also, 0-700m is not the whole ocean.  Various other studies show heat being transported deeper than that.

    Sea Level Rise:

    SLR

    OHC:

    OHC

    "You also seem to have a problem with Houston and Dean's paper."

    Many others do as well.  Commentary by Church and White begins here.  Longer analysis found here (which you were given previously).

  28. Ari Jokimäki at 14:35 PM on 31 May 2011
    An Interactive History of Climate Science
    Perhaps the refuted paper should travel to "refuted" bin after the year the refutation has been published?
  29. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Ken @99, So you too endorse quote mining, cherry-picking and misrepresenting scientists' findings and position on certain issues then? As I and others have demonstrated that is what a certain poster has been doing. And now you seem to be endorsing that behavior... Tamino perfectly described what Camburn, and now you it seems, are up to. Camburn states that according to ARGO data global SSTs are "presently static". Presently? Framing the argument that way is disingenuous, we all know that cherry-picking short-term, statistically insignificant windows is meaningless. You seem to be claiming that to do so is a valid and reasonable point? Camburn ignoring the data presented to him here by me and others is reasonable? Him uncritically accepting Houston and Dean's troubled paper is reasonable? You guys are desperately trying to advance a very weak counter argument here, and it is showing. Now good night.
  30. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Daniel, To add to your Figure above @98. Long-term SST, statistically significant trends are very much UP. [Source]
    Response:

    [DB] Thank you.

  31. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    DB at #98 DB is confusing us at #98. viz: "ARGO says otherwise' - then reproducing Fig 1 of Levitus 2009. Only the 2003 and later portions of the chart are from ARGO. Reason: Full deployment did not start until the 2001-03 period. The step jump in this chart in that 2001-03 period has been discussed elsewhere - and is more likely an artifact of the splicing of Argo to pre-2001 XBT and other methods. Camburn has made several valid and reasonable points to be called 'recalcitrant, deluded, disingenuous' by Albatros. Why is Albatros immune from moderation?
    Response:

    [DB] "DB is confusing us at #98."

    "Us"?

    "viz: "ARGO says otherwise' - then reproducing Fig 1 of Levitus 2009."

    If you had clicked on the image itself or had followed the source link you could have easily noted that the graphic in question is hosted by the ARGO website and is used by them to display the very same information as related here.

    "Camburn has made several valid and reasonable points"

    Which fail to stand up to scientific rigor and scrutiny.

  32. Climate's changed before
    1 Yes Partially correct..Its indeed part of the TOA imbalance, but the TOA imbalance includes more than just the CO2 spectrum. NOAA/CPC both show increasing avg outgoing LW radiation...indicating that there is natural warming going on as well: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.interp_OLR.html Note the Increase is by several W/m^2, in fact it has increased by about 3W/m^2 since 2002, and since 1980 there has been an overall increase. That is not only indicative of nautral warming from the planet (not caused by CO2), but also a negative feedback since 3W/m^2 is more than the 1.6W/m^2 cited by the IPCC since 1790, which should supposedly due to positive feebacks have amplified to the 0.8C we've increase we've seen, since per Doubling the increase in temps is progged around 1.2C. The changes in CO2 energy increase has been significantly less than the obsevred OLR change in the time we've measured, and we've likely mis-represented the feedbacks to CO2 warming. 2) No they don't actually, although it depends on the tree-rings used. Ice core proxies show the polar temperature to have been warmer by 2C at time in the past...so if Tree ring proxies show the same thing...why are the similarities invivible??? 3) What makes you think these CO2 measurements were taken only in "polluted cities"? And no not referring to "beck", but more of the measurements in geenral. Do you know what happens to data trapped in Ice Cores over time? take a guess :-)
  33. CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
    Dikran Marsupial @3. I did read the link you provided and did some further research. It was a real eye opener to understand how the greenhouse effect works in a gas. It's not like your car or a greenhouse. That is why I went so far as to suggest a possible mechanism for CO2 control knob function as a lid in the stratosphere. (I've often wondered why thunder clouds anvil off so sharply when they hit the bottom of the stratosphere. Sure, they are on a moist adiabadic path and the stratosphere is very dry, but there is no dry adiabadic inversion there) How do you know the oceans are a carbon sink and not a source? Because they are acidifying? What if the acidification came from subsurface CO2 via metnane?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Had you read the RC article, you would not have written "In the parts of the absorbtion spectra where CO2 and water vapor overlap water vapor seems to dominate the absorbtion and reduce the effect of CO2." as the article explicitly says that this is not the case (I even gave the relevant quote in my reply on the other thread, and put it in bold so you must have seen it). As for knowledge regarding the oceans being a carbon sink, see the work of Corinne Le Quere (for example). As to carbon being the "control knob", it is actually more like a thermostat (it only becomes a control knob if the natural feedback mechanisms are over-ridden by e.g. fossil fuel emissions), see the book by David Archer reviewed here.
  34. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    I feel somewhat vindicated in the comment I left on the ABC Drum site noting that there was a dearth of reference to supporting evidence on the part of the commenters who took offence to being characterized as deniers, as that behaviour appears to have remained characteristic (with very rare exceptions) on the comment thread.
  35. actually thoughtful at 13:45 PM on 31 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    J Bob: "P.S. One of the things about engineering, is that it’s very clear what happens if one doesn’t consider all the factors. It’s called job lose & litigation." Information you could have found by searching this very site - not even requiring a Google search Good thing you didn't base your job on your post above - you would be unemployed!
  36. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Albatross: My statement that sea level rise has slowed, which it has, was considered unreliable. I provided, from your link, what others have observed. There is nothing disingenuous about that. What has changed is that according to AGRO data, sea surface temps are presently static. This goes hand in hand with the reduction in the part of sea level rise caused by OHC. I use charts all the time in my business. One of the successful ways to use a chart it to recognize a change in a trend. We are now, for whatever reason, seeing a change in trend. Will it continue for 10 years? 20 years? I don't know, but the preponderance of current temperature evidence indicates that it may. The last sentence is an opinion....."Ocean heat uptake will surely resume, so acceleration of sea level rise in the next few years may occur." I was stateing known facts, not opinions. That is why I did not include it in my quote. The opinion may bear fruit, it may not bear fruit. I am not deluding myself in the least. The evidence is quit clear.
    Response:

    [DB] "What has changed is that according to AGRO data, sea surface temps are presently static.  This goes hand in hand with the reduction in the part of sea level rise caused by OHC."

    ARGO says otherwise:

    ARGO

    [Source]

    As for SST's, they change all the time with the sun rising and setting, with the seasons, and with those oscillations squeptics are so enamored with, like EN/SO:

    ENSO SSTs

    [Source; above graphic updates daily]

    The evidence is indeed quite clear.

  37. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    In Cook’s item about skeptics, a note is made about increased sea levels. In looking at the tidal sea level data from the Gulf & Atlantic, it would appear that while there is a increase in sea levels, the rate has been pretty much constant. There have been some ups & downs along the way, from the late 1800’s (NY). From the gulf area (early 1900’s), again it’s been pretty much a constant change, without the acceleration factor one would expect if CO2 increases were a major factor. http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/n_amer_s_e_composite_4-har7A.jpg Looking at more long term temperature data, a similar pattern seems to be present. The following graphs show long term temperature readings from central & western European stations. The plots are averages of the station anomalies (1970-2000 base ref.), and are “smoothed” using a Fourier 50 yr. filter. 1 station, starting record prior to 1700 (CEL) http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave1_2010_ff_50yr-lr7es.jpg 4 stations, starting records prior to 1750 (CEL, Debilt, Berlin, Upsalla) http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave4_2010_ff_50yr-j0g0I.jpg 14 stations, starting records prior to 1800 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave14_2010_ff_50yr-4mWjL.jpg Looking at the smoothed & raw data, there is a long term upward trend, along with some ups & downs. However, again I don’t see the correlation, such as an sustained acceleration upward that would correlate to a increase CO2. Considering the complexity of thermo-fluid dynamics, and the limited knowledge of how this planet operates, it might be a little premature to lay any significant increase in global temperature to human activity. Hence you might call me a skeptic. P.S. One of the things about engineering, is that it’s very clear what happens if one doesn’t consider all the factors. It’s called job lose & litigation.
  38. Climate's changed before
    1/ - but those natural factors are not is causing the current imbalance. The imbalance is from increasing GHG. 2/ - proxy reconstructions without tree rings deliver the same picture (esp ice core). 3/ - low accuracy measurements in polluted cities are exceedingly poor proxies for real atmospheric CO2. If you are referring to Beck's nonsense, then please see the link in this for some real analysis.
  39. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    Harry@47 "...if we don't identify the sources, then how do we address them?" In the end, if the planet is warming or cooling on a trajectory that we see as dangerous to civilisation, identifying the sources is secondary to identifying the things that are within our capacity to control. If the planet were warming or cooling for any reason (say TSI increasing or decreasing), CO2 would still be the "biggest control knob" available to use. Why? Because we _can_ control the concentration by our activities. We can artificially speed up geological processes by burning a lot, or a lot less, carbon rich fossils. We can pulverise carbon absorbing rocks or protect them from weathering. We can sequester or release carbon by promoting release in the form of methane by creating fetid swamps, or hold it back by processes like biochar. Same for forests, burn them or cut them down to release soil carbon by exposure and consequent oxidation or replace/ extend them to claim carbon dioxide back from the lower atmosphere. The other item we can influence to some extent is albedo. Some of that is the same as some of the carbon processes, more or less land clearing, more or less forestry. As for cities, we can paint all roofs and roads black (or white) to affect local climate, maybe not so much effect on global temperature though. Of course, all this overlooks the issue of ocean acidification. Even without the link to temperature, keeping our fisheries healthy would be a good enough reason to extract CO2 from the atmosphere-ocean system.
  40. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Camburn, I am done engaging you. You are being disingenuous, and your recalcitrance is astounding. First cherry picking, then quote mining to misrepresent Church and White, and now more quote mining to misrepresent Hansen's group-- they are of the opinion that GMSL increase has slowed somewhat the last few years. Tamino has shown otherwise, but regardless Hansen and Sato are wisely most definitely are not using noise in the data record as a reason to claim that we are not facing a whole lot of trouble down the road if we continue along those path. So you have misrepresented Hansen's position. How about giving the full context of the text from Sato and Hansen's page (unlike your cherry-picked sentence): The reason seems to be that ocean heat storage decreased in the past five years reducing thermal expansion. Reduced heat storage may be related in part to solar minimum radiation. Ocean heat uptake will surely resume, so acceleration of sea level rise in the next few years may occur." That is the peril of you intentionally misleading people, your credibility tanks really fast. The following statement made by the Australian Climate Commission is accurate: "Sea-level has risen at a higher rate over the past two decades, consistent with ocean warming and an increasing contribution from the large polar ice sheets." Feel free to delude yourself, but it is highly irresponsible (and shameful) of you to try and mislead others on this forum. The quoted text by Tamio at #87 perfectly fits what you are trying to. Sadly you do not realize that your posts are only proving him right, again.
  41. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    DB at #58 DB is confusing me at #58. He seems to suggest that the UCAR satellite plot (top figure) needs further 'correction' and then includes Fig 7 from Church & White 2011 which is based on 'Coastal and Island Sea Level Data'. The latter shows an uptick in the 2000-2011 period. DB - please explaim which is the 'global' sea level measurement? I would have thought that the satellite series from UCAR meauring the surface of the oceans from orbit would be the best theoretical method. Practical degradation problems are encountered in all methods. Unless the instrument is degrading year-year in an uncorrectable way, satellites are supposed to have high precision in year-year measurement for the SAME instrument, with calibration difficulties between different instruments. Are you suggesting that the UCAR chart is not the best measure of global SLR?
  42. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Tom: Please note the table in the link provided. Average salinity for sea water is 35g/kg You will note that sea water expands from 0-5C. http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_9.html
  43. actually thoughtful at 12:26 PM on 31 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    A pirate - I actually formulated my statement with people like you in mind (and you in particular). Your views on climate change are so muddled you often get lost in even trying to express what your issue with the science is. Those of us who base our opinions strictly on the science can see the problem - you would like to pick and choose your scientific results. So I crafted a statement that lets folks like yourself see exactly where you stand: The body of evidence in climate science REQUIRES an active mitigation response. We know the body of evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW. We know we are the "A" in AGW - so the conclusion follows directly from the science. My statement, while encapsulating a judgement, is also a statement of fact. (Fact in the logical sense:a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) I will amend the statement to more completely express the issue: This situation - the body of evidence in climate science and the desire to continue living in a world hospitable to human civilization and a population greater than 6 billion - REQUIRES an active mitigation response. It effectively removes your (and like minded folks) ability to wiggle around and say "what about this tiny little corner of dispute?" Or "what about the last 4 months" or "what about any other minuscule slice?" (aka a cherry pick) you want to do. It forces you to evaluate the totality of the evidence, and not live in the muddled middle you have demonstrated over the last few months. In reality there is no muddled middle. Only people trying to dance away from the inevitable conclusion of climate science. So I am painting in black and white. The fact that it makes you uncomfortable confirms I have hit near the bullseye. Thank you for that. Now, you would like to portray me as an extremist. I will answer the question you have failed to answer. I asked you what evidence would convince you that AGW is real, happening now, etc. You couldn't come up with anything and wandered off into your usual state of confusion. So the question in reverse - what would convince me that the current settled science is not, in fact settled? The answer is OHC. If the oceans aren't warming, the world isn't warming (we can just open the windows as it were). And finally, we can play the credentials game - I am published in my field, which is not climate science. I hold no advanced degrees (I am a proud Cornell PhD. drop out...). But if you play the credentials game - wouldn't those who actively publish and who have spent their entire graduate studies and dedicated their lives to the study and understanding of the climate trump you and me? Now you are stuck with the 97 (AGW) vs 2 (neutral) vs 1 (skeptical of at least (and sometimes ONLY) one pillar of AGW). So your position is NOT supported by appealing to credentials. As you might be able to tell - one of my degrees is in philosophy/philosophy of science/logic. Thus my limited patience with your inability to communicate clearly. I sincerely hope you do better in front of your students than you do here on skepticalscience. Some people are better verbally than in writing. I hope you are one of them.
  44. Climate's changed before
    The Earth has always had a TOA imbalance, it'll always have one. 1) Looking at the Arctic and Antarctic Ice Cores, both clearly show todays temperature has been exceeded in those regions by 1-2C in the past due to natural factors. Also knowing the "Methane Feedback" that would occur in that circumstance, or a general positive feedback, would have a global impact. 2) Tree ring proxies are aweful, and are often used in reconstructions to temperature. Thats a problem. 3) Why are we using CO2 data from Ice cores before 1960, and not the 80,000+ bottle measurements? These clearly show a higher CO2 level, around 335ppm, from 1920-1950, some higher, some lower, but the mean is clustered.
  45. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    TSI is one thing, but Direct and Indirect Solar forcing Mechanisms on the Climate System Are another thing completely. The Whole argument "TSI has been decreasing since 1980" really is not even relevant because its assuming that overall "equilibrium" is reached immediately after changes in TSI occur. In this case of "rapid equilibrium", TSI energy changes from the Sun are the only way the sun can modulate the climate. But that is assumption. TSI basically covers changes in total energies from the Sun itself, but not how the climate system responds to these changes, whether it be long term changes in Cloud Cover, Effects on the Ozone layer changing the amount of UV rays that can enter the atmosphere/oceans etc... I could go on and on. If we were to look at low clouds, for example..none of our measurement systems are "state of the art", so to speak, in measuring them. Its for this reason though...as if to say that clouds will remain fairly constant unless inflenced by AGW (with no mechanism to boot), that Either Direct or Indirect solar influence cannot affect them. A change in total clouds of 3% would have a significant radiative impact to the Surface Heating, a 0.5W/m^2 Net Radiative Impact, and a change in low clouds only of 3% would apply a 1.8W/m^2 of increased energy. Even if those Values are incorrect, Changes in Low Clouds would act to ( -All caps usage snipped- ) through more incoming SW radiation....and that is exactly what we have seen thus far, Satellite measurements of the entire tropospere showing less warming overall that the surface measurements...AGW works the other way around. And the small Proposed effect from GCR's to cloud cover... if GCR's are excessively low for some time, may have a significant effect on Low Clouds Overtime. So Arguing for TSI in the first place, at least short term, is really a bunch of semantics.
    Response:

    [DB] Please familiarize yourself with the Skeptical Science Comments Policy and refrain from the use of All-Caps.  Thanks!

  46. Shaping Tomorrow's World After One Month
    Just visited the above site. I'm looking forward to reading additional posts. It looks like a winner! Tom
  47. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Further to my last, I did NOT cherry pick Oxford & Eskdalemuir as I had no reason to believe in advance that they were cooling. The opportunity for cherry picking is with GISS, and BoM, both notorious for that as well as for adjusting historic temperature records downwards (eg Gistemp now has the 1998 anomaly about 0.07 down on the actual as first reported). The Giss system so well described in part 2 by Glen Tamblyn produces the following real anomalies for the ACT: using the 1200 km radius it gets the ACT's cooling in March 2011 down to -0.16 from -0.44 at 250 km. So that means it has no actual record of temperature in Canberra, for if it did it would use it and it would be the same in both data sets. Instead Hansen casts round for a warming spot not more than 1200 km away, say Bateman's Bay or Dubbo (bugger the different latitude and longitude, both warmer and warming). Using 250km, why not Wagga Wagga, generally warmer and more warming than the ACT. Perish the thought that GISS ever uses actual temperature data for any single location on earth, as its 250 and 1200 readings are always different - in my admittedly random spot checks. ( -Profanity snipped- ), only actual site records should be allowed for the global so aptly named "anomaly", as it is just that, a fictional deviation from the actuals.
    Response:

    [DB] Please acquaint yourself with the SkS Comments Policy.  Future comments with such profanity will be deleted in their entirety.

  48. apiratelooksat50 at 11:34 AM on 31 May 2011
    Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    scaddenp at 48 Thank you. And, finally some common ground.
  49. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    @46 - well that is a viewpoint I can respect, even if I struggle with the basis of your skepticism on AGW.
  50. An Interactive History of Climate Science
    On a funny, and off topic note, I note that the applet gave a decent representation of the dynamic of granulate segregation. Hence, if you move slowly the slider circle land in a orderly way as the smaller one drop on each other first. But, if you move the slider fast, all circle fall at the same moment. Nevertheless, the smaller one end up in the core as expected from the granulate physical behaviour. Double dip science in progress.

Prev  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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