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  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  Next

Comments 84651 to 84700:

  1. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 159), "3. Your argument that models "assume" and require a positive cloud feedback is wrong." It's not really "my argument". The IPCC report specifically says this in the fine print, which I have posted here. "While clouds do represent a large area of uncertainty in the models, it is incorrect to think that the scientists who have done the modeling have not thought things through a little more carefully, and in more detail, than you have. You cast aspersions by generalizing their work into the word "assume," and yet provide no direct evidence (other than the general positive/negative thing) that their work is not well considered." No, I have not seen the evidence their work on the cloud feedback has been carefully considered at all, especially because it seems to ignore the basic physics of water vapor and clouds.
  2. Clouds provide negative feedback
    Sphaerica (RE: 159), "2. Your theory is inconsistent with the observational evidence (Dessler 2010) that demonstrates a positive, not negative, feedback in response to short-term warming. While this cannot necessarily directly support a long-term positive effect, it directly refutes your "was negative before, so must be negative in the future" theory." Dessler 2010 is primarily just looking at TOA net fluxes and temperatures – he’s made little (if any) attempt to carefully discern cause and effect, and has not come up with any physical reasons or mechanisms behind his interpretation of the data. He admits in the paper at the beginning that the net effect of clouds in the current climate is to cool by about 20 W/m^2, yet doesn’t seem to ascribe much significance to this or express any curiosity as to why this is the case when clearly it needs to be explained. Furthermore, I notice that the SW component is also positive, which seems to be consistent with decreasing clouds causing the warming rather than warming causing decreasing clouds. Even if the claim is warming causes decreasing clouds for positive feedback, how is this consistent with increasing water vapor from warming? Does increasing water vapor from warming cause decreasing clouds? That doesn’t make any sense since water vapor concentration drives cloud formation. It seems to me that unless Dessler can explain all of this and corroborate it with all the other data and system behavior, he really doesn’t have a case.
  3. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    I would like to point out to potential readers that your book contains certain political statements that they can either agree or disagree with: “A sustainabl­e society will require fairness (equity) and justice locally and globally.” – John Cook (“Climate Change Denial”, 2011). “Preventin­g the collapse of human civilizati­on requires nothing less than a wholesale transforma­tion of dominant consumer culture.” – John Cook (“Climate Change Denial”, 2011). “Just because there a professor of something denying climate change does not mean it is not true, it is just that the professor is in denial. This is why one must make use of the prepondera­nce of evidence in science, the collective view.” – John Cook (“Climate Change Denial”, 2011).
  4. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    With regard to the NorthWest Passage, you can compare the map given in the link provided by Tom Curtis : (4. ST. ROCH: Northern Deep-Water Route (East-West) 1944 [Yellow line]) With a more recent one giving the likely commercial opportunities opening up :
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed images

  5. Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
    Thank you for a clear description of the methods and the reasons for choosing them.
  6. CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
    This site has very high standards requiring explicit physical mechanisms, yet in the notion that CO2 controls water I have heard nothing but metaphor. Described variously as a "skin", "skeleton", "relentless ratchet", and now designated driver (1.), this control knob implies something more than just a steady supply of radiative forcing. I can understand how CO2 mixed into the stratosphere could act as some sort of lid and as a backstop for escaping photons. It now appears ice and CO2 mix into the mesosphere (although how they get through the ozone inversion is problematic unless they leaked through the holes). 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. Whither the control?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You raised the point about the overlapping absorption bands of water vapour and CO2 here and I answered it for you here. This is not the first time (to say the least) you have received an answer to a question and ignored it and moved off onto another thread to start afresh. This does your credibility no good at all. Further discussion should return to the thread where the question was initially raised.

    As to CO2 controls water, it influences the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere because the warmer the air, the more water vapour it can hold. If you don't believe me, buy a hygrometer and watch relative humidity fall in winter and rise in summer.

  7. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Fascinating. this graph is doing the "denyosphere" rounds, not least of all goddard showing sea level as being the lowest since 2004; but an overall rise of 0.76mm/year... It comes from aviso for Envisat without Glacial Isostatic Adjustments applied. With those corrections it would be 1.6mm/year (2004-2011). The site also allows you to view each altimeter individually, all on the same graph; with and without their various adjustments. In addition to 'just' showing Envisat - the oddest looking results and therefor the favorite of the "denyosphere" - you can see Jason-1 and Joson-2 individually - showing 2.75mm/year (2003-2011) and (a very wobbly) 2.44 mm/year (2009-2011). Their overall processing result is, as in 54, 3.25mm/year (1993-2011) as shown here. My point being that it's just childish to quote one or two numbers out of context and then claim 'fowl'. The data and tools out there are so good... why do people just quote a couple of numbers and 'eyeball' trend-lines. weird!
    Response:

    [DB] Les, it's all about adjusting the data to meet one's preconceived curve expectations...

  8. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    tallbloke wrote : "Gavin Schmidt declined the invitation to join us, but he did prejudge us, like you just have." I don't think he prejudged you at all : he was very explicit in his reply to the invitation : The Invitation At this stage we are planning to have a workshop where the main scientific issues can be discussed, so that some clarity on points of agreement and disagreement might be reached. We would try to stay off the policy issues, and will also exclude personal arguments. The issues we have in mind are Medieval Warm Period, ice, climate sensitivity, and temperature data. We would hope to have smaller groups discussing these in some detail, hopefully with scientists who are very familiar with the technical issues to lead the discussion. The "Thanks, but no thanks" response Thanks for the invitation. However, I’m a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position. You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific ‘controversies’. tallbloke also wrote : "I find that kind of a priori thinking rarely goes together with even handedness, though you may disagree. I'm not sure who these 'opponents of climate science' you refer to are. Not Judith Curry for sure, since she is herself an eminent and well published climate scientist." Even handedness ? Like this : Tallbloke gave her a commemorative t-shirt with a Josh cartoon on it — the cartoon depicts a trash can labelled “Climate Science”. Curry quips “My reaction to climate change”. Say no more… Climate science being shown to be in a trash can is in agrrement with her "reaction to climate change" ? Yes, very even handed...not.
  9. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Yes Skywatcher @38, a pretty damning refutation of McIntyre's data manipulation.
  10. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Albatross@35 Both McIntyre and Curry can verify that I challenge them on their scientific viewpoints as much as I do anyone else. I am my own sceptic. [reciprocal challenge snipped]
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can everybody exercise a bit more restraint and avoid making things personal. It is possible to discuss the causes and effects of denial without focussing on the individuals taking part.
  11. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Sorry Albatross, hit send before I saw that. Sill, Deep Climate's expose of McIntyre is well worth a read.
  12. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    #33 tallbloke. This would be the same Steve McIntyre who wrote a piece of code that created 10,000 sets of null proxy datasets, created an index of how much like a 'hockey stick' each proxy was, sorted the datasets in order of how much like a hockey stick they were, then selected 12 graphs from within those top 1% of red noise diagrams that looked most like a hockey stick. He then presents those 12 carefully selected graphs as a random pick from the original 10,000 and uses it to claim Mann's hockey stick was false. Now I have a lot of experience with writing computer code, and these falsehoods of McIntyre, as found by Deep Climate are not the sort of things you can do by accident. Unfortunately for you, a balanced and honest assessment of climate science, as done by John Cook, or by the many independent inquiries of last year, does not tend to read favourably for the opponents of science.
  13. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Tom@34, you use the word 'so' to commence your final paragraph as if it somehow logically followed from the rest of your comment. McIntyre spends his time trying to replicate the results of the work which supports the IPCC consensus, in order to ensure it is properly carried out and verified scientific work. Curry is engaged in novel research of her own, and in blogging about the problem she sees as the inadequate scientific support the IPCC consensus position has. From what I can see, they both have disagreements of opinion with both IPCC consensus supporters and detractors. This is all in the rough and tumble of normal scientific discourse. Science has to be challenged, or it is dogma. Scientists who are confident of the correctness of their results welcome challenges, because it gives them the opportunity to show where the challenger is mistaken, and set their science on a more secure footing by honing their arguments and improving their supporting evidence. It is part of the essence of the scientific method and true scientific scepticism. How else can science progress?
  14. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Tom @34, Be wary of the poster you are engaging @33-- D-K alert. The person in question was involved in sharing Gavin Schmidt's private email with Fred Pearce and McIntyre. For some entertainment go to DeepClimate (see also Part 2) and Deltoid and SheWonk. As you have probably gathered by now, the person is an uncritical acolyte of Curry and McIntyre. Please folks, DNFTT.
  15. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Regarding the absolute nonsense being peddled @51 regarding the trend in global sea level. From the CSIRO sea-level page: [Source] Trend in global SL is 3.2 mm/yr.
  16. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    tallbloke @33, as a "qualified historian and philosopher of science" you should be adverse to misusing terminology. Consequently you should be aware that to prejudge somebody I (and Schmidt) would have to judge them, not before meeting them, but before reading their works. As that is true in neither case, you are showing your prejudice in your choice of words. So also does your claim that Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre are "well balanced", which I do not doubt. But do you think that Schneider, or Hansen, or I are not? What does the ability of somebody to be more or less urbane, and more or less sane have to do with the quality of their intellectual work? The simple fact is that both Curry and McIntyre has shown a willingness to stitch up climate scientists and climate science (Curry's membership of the former group not-with-standing) on limited evidence that is capable of, and in some case inconsistent with anything other than a more charitable interpretation. At the same time they show themselves to be almost entirely uncritical of astonishing flaws from their fellow travellers. So, it is not properly carried out and verified scientific work that Curry, McIntyre, and as you include yourself in their club, you, are keen on; but only such work that be seen as challenging the IPCC consensus.
  17. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Tom@31, I've met both Steve McIntyre and Judith Curry in person, and discussed climate science with them extensively. I found them both to be well balanced people with well developed specialist knowledge in the climate science field. Gavin Schmidt declined the invitation to join us, but he did prejudge us, like you just have. I find that kind of a priori thinking rarely goes together with even handedness, though you may disagree. I'm not sure who these 'opponents of climate science' you refer to are. Not Judith Curry for sure, since she is herself an eminent and well published climate scientist. And certainly not me. As a qualified historian and philosopher of science I stand in support of correctly carried out and properly verified scientific work. McIntyre seems keen on that too.
  18. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    #51 ... and just what proportion of the whole record is 2002 - 2011? When did we start calculating climatic trends on ~9 years of data? 1992 - 1997 looks slower too, yet the overall trend is clearly much larger than your cherry pick. This reminds me of the way in which you can break down the entire 100+ year GISS tmperature record into short (<10 years or so) negative-trending segments, yet the overall trend is still resoundingly upwards. #51 KL and #48 okatiniko: On acceleration. If there is no acceleration, or indeed if there is a 'flattening' of the trend, then why is it that when you plot the GISTEMP temperature data trend from 1981-2000, then plot the temperatue trend from 1981 to 2010, the trend line steepens up? Do this on woodfortrees if you like. Doesn't look awfully much like a 'flattening' or 'decelerating' trend to me. In fact, it looks rather more like an accelerating trend with entirely expected noise. With HADCRUT3, despite it being very much a non-global series, there's also an acceleration, though smaller, and in UAH there is a large acceleration when 'noughties' data is added. I'll second Tom Curtis' comment in #35 - the diversion by KL onto East Antarctica is truly disingenuous - does he really think we should not worry about Greenland and West Antarctica's melt (which will lead to metre-scale sea level rise) just because East Antarctica is currently relatively stable? To Gish Gallop and plant the seeds of misinformation in the unsuspecting readers takes seconds; to debunk even obvious disinformation like #13 takes rather longer.
  19. If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
    NikFromNYC - Excellent graphic, a rare presentation of the Gish Gallop in visual form. If you're not familiar with the Gish Gallop, it's the spewing of half-truths, inaccuracies, misstatements, etc, hoping to overwhelm any rational response. It's the embodiment of "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull." I spent a few moments looking through the various statements in your poster, and I believe that ~95% could be located in various discussions in Skeptical Science by using the "Search" box. They just don't hold up to a rational point of view. Which isn't terribly surprising, given the emotional approach your poster presents. Perhaps better points of optimism might be reaching the Moon? Or the Peace Corps? The post-WWII support of and economic redevelopment of Europe?
  20. How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
    Mike, I think you're referring to "post-structuralist" views of language. Postmodernism is, as Fredric Jameson has it, "the cultural logic of late [global] capitalism." While the post-structuralism of the 60s and 70s may have been energized by the general postmodern conditions within the larger middle-class segments of the economy, the slipperiness of the link between signified and signifier has been noted for quite a while. Interestingly, post-modernity is expressed (well, one expression) in the rejection of metanarratives, and some view the scientific method as a metanarrative, one that places the mind exclusively within the material context, contradicting all other bases of "reality." Science is not, however, an individual pathway to reality. Science is socially developed. This makes it resistant to postmodern conditions. I strongly suspect, given Tom's record, that you'll find little postmodernity expressed in his comments. What the postmodern boils down to for Jameson, Baudrillard, even Hutcheon, et al., is that the generation of capital has become the central logos. People in the postmodern condition are willing to do anything--revise and mix up history, treat science as a cafeteria, treat anything and everything as commodity, etc.--in order to accomplish the neverending quest to generate more capital [Hi there, Michaels, Lindzen, Watts, et al.].
  21. Can we trust climate models?
    trunkmonkey @57, Dikran Marsupial's response is more than adequate. However, as a simple matter of logic, with a fluctuating CO2 level as has occurred over deep time, if the the relationship was not reversable, than any doubling of CO2 would bring a small increase in temperature, but halving the CO2 back to the original level would bring not bring temperatures back down to the original level. Over time, CO2 fluctuations would act as a ratchet, and in a fairly short time in geological terms you would have a runaway greenhouse. No climate scientist, however, is that alarmist - and the relationship is fully reversible.
  22. Can we trust climate models?
    Tom Curtis @ 43. It is not clear to me that the logarithmic incremental forcing works in reverse. The logarithmic effect is due to crowding, saturation etc.,that only apply for increases. If CO2 is the "relentless ratchet", should it not, like a ratchet, spin freely in reverse? Isn't this the reason in paleo studies CO2 is treated as "feedback only"?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The logarithmic relationship applies both for increasing and decreasing CO2, as for decreasing CO2 there is a complementary de-crowding and de-saturation etc. In paleoclimate studies CO2 is primarily treated as a feedback as the only source/sink of CO2 that counts as a forcing is volcanic emissions and changes in geological weathering due to e.g. plate tectonics. Neither of those things have a great deal of effect on climate on the timescales we are normally interested in.
  23. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    The Jason 1 and 2 data taken from the homepage you linked to gives 2.3 mm/yr, not 1.7-2.0 as you say. Be carefull when quoting numbers if you care of being taken seriously. To explain why you drop part of the record with no apparent reason is another story.
  24. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    For those who want to check SLR see this link: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ For Jason 1 & 2 - note that 2002-07 half of the smoothed curve is above the 3.1mm/year trend line and the 2007-11 half is below the trend line. Jason 1 & 2 are clearly on a lower slope trend line which is estimated at 1.7-2.0mm/year.
  25. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Agnostic #34 "Hansen et al (2011) warn that as a result of anthropogenic emissions and these slow emissions, polar temperature can be expected to more rapidly reduce sea ice and increase Arctic amplification. This is predicted to result in decadal doubling of ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet, initiating its eventual collapse and raising sea level by 5m before 2100." The SLR for Jason 1 and 2 is flattening to a global 1.7-2.0mm/year - down fom the official longer term trend of 3.1mm/year - and tide gauges are showing less than 1.7mm/year. Jason 1 & 2 have been in operation since 2002. What could be explanation for this slowing of SLR when CO2GHG forcing and ice melts are supposed to be accelerating? BTW, Hansen has just reduced the warming imbalance from roughly 0.9W/sq.m to 0.6W/sq.m for the 2005-10 period. While his underestimated Aerosols presumably coming from 'unmeasured developing countries' is a feasible explanation, his delyed Pinitubo effect is quite preposterous. His own charts show no forcing from Pinitubo after year 2000.
  26. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    DB, is it correct to say that the trend doesn't show any significant acceleration as well? an average 0.17°C /decade means that we would need 120 years to reach 2°C - is it the correct order of magnitude, or is a significant acceleration term expected, and when is it expected to be measurable ?
    Response:

    [DB] Currently the obfuscationists deny that it is warming at all AND that what warming is occurring is natural and less-than-linear in rate.  Tamino debunks that last point here and here.

    As far as the warming in the pipeline, consider this and this.  The thermal inertia of the oceans, coupled with the albedo changes due to the loss of the Northern Hemisphere's refridgeration system (the ongoing loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean) and increasing outgassing of GHG's from melting permafrost & clathrates mean that our descendants will have a rough go of things.  Especially if we continue to refuse to do anything about it now, while our actions can still make a difference.

    Time remains to have a say in our descendants future, should we demonstrate the collective will to do so.  Or not.

    Our history we write daily will testify about us rather starkly.

  27. Can we trust climate models?
    Kevin C @51, myself @52 .. Like many things, it is obvious in hindsight. The correct expression for each R(t) coefficient is {exp(-t/tau) - exp(-[t-1]/tau} * step size. The step size in this case is 1 year, so it drops out. Since integral of exp(-x) = exp(-x), the above equation is the area of the response curve for that year. The area of R(t)becomes 1.000 using the above equation for the coefficients, since the sum of the R(t) series becomes exp(-0)-exp(-infinity)=1. This means that the scale factors for the two boxes (0.0434 and 0.0215 in your post #33) will become the equilibrium temp rise for a unit step, i.e. 0.0889 and 0.5440. This revision to the equation might help your optimizer routine, since tau would no longer affect the total equilibrium delta T.
  28. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    Say, I went down to the local shopping centre book store, the lass at the counter was not interested in ordering it in at all, although they had a copy of Naomi Oreskes book "Merchants of Doubt". Interestingly, you have appeared to have severely rattled the cages of Jo Nova, Bob Fernley-Jones and Anthony Watts, who are calling the Robyn Williams interview "The Worst “Cook”book Interview Ever?". Keep up the good work! Since the book store doesn't want my money, I shall be ordering this book on line in due course.
  29. The Climate Show Episode 13: James Hansen and The Critical Decade
    James Hansen? Oh that's the 1988 prophet, "the first to ring the bell" which lead to the IPCC! How is his prophecy working out, I wonder? But wait, I thought it was worse than predicted, and then worse still, even though his best case scenario has not been exceeded (not even by GISTEMP). Hmm.... He makes the circular argument that the much higher past T shown in the Greenland ice core didn't matter since mud cores from non polar regions show lesser high past T since warming is "amplified" on top of an ice sheet. But he fails to complete the circle of logic, by rights discounting in kind that current T rise in Greenland must also be "amplified" instead of representative. What he should have said, of course is that mud cores UNDERNEATH THE OCEAN are in fact attenuated due to the massive thermal inertia of the oceans, and the much vaunted Global Average Temperature does not refer to the bottom of the sea but to the air and the top of the sea. He again mentions massive sea level rise that will require a rate 5X as high as what actual sea level rise has been stuck at 3 mm/year (and recently plunging) for decades and tide gauges still show more like 2 mm/year instead ramping up to match the satellite record. And yet I'm in "denial" if I don't believe his prediction of the future? I certainly do deny that his past predictions have shown any competency whatsoever. That NYC where I live two blocks down from Tom's Diner and GISS was to have the West Side Highway next to the Hudson River under water in 20 (later retroactively switched to 40 by the reporter involved) years from 1988, well, wouldn't *that* require that the NYC tide gauge would show some sort of trend change? It doesn't. Have any of you taken the time to actually browse single site tide gauge records to confirm what you would expect, namely that the oldest records that continue to this day, dozens of them, should mostly show a recent upturn in the rate of sea level rise? Good luck hunting for any that do! I think I found one or two, a tiny minority, that did in a literal sea of unwavering trends. Those that show declining trend also show no slower decline, recently. But, never mind, at least you have statistical studies that prove your case even though the input data doesn't support the results.
    Response:

    [DB] Thank you for providing a clear example of the non-contextual cherry-picking that "squeptics" typically use to distort & dissemble in their promulgation of their ideology.  Your link to "Triple-Point/CO2 Snow" Goddard is revealing as is your focus on single data points to conflate into global trends.  Please refrain from the use of all-caps.

  30. How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
    mike williams @42, the reason I refer adversely to your character is quite simple, you have taken my words and misrepresented their content. I am careful with my wording because I am used to that tactic by both evolution deniers and AGW deniers (not to mention various 911 deniers, lunar landing deniers and other kooks I have had the misfortune of encountering on the internet) I stated that the sentence, "The biggest misunderstanding about the tropospheric hot spot is the mistaken notion that it's caused by the greenhouse effect" was poorly phrased because it did not properly express the intended meaning of its author. That intended meaning was "that the tropospheric hotspot is not uniquely caused by the greenhouse effect", as I stated in my 36. And of course, that is true. Therefore the original sentence was poorly phrased, not "wrong" because that would be incorrectly interpreted as an error of belief by the author, where no such error existed. Of course, you wanted that misinterpretation to flourish, hence your post 40. You show the same trolling pattern in your 42 when you bring in the term postmodernism as a rhetorical cudgel (which you incorrectly apply, and misdiagnose). What is more, instead of directing it at my actual response to you, you just choose technical terms at random (and evidently without understanding) to support your rhetorical attack. Plainly, for your, effect is far more important than relevance or cogency.
  31. How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
    mike williams, you have been posing as a fair minded enquirer seeking illumination, but it is quite plain from the tenor of your questions and comments that you are in fact a denier trying various rhetorical gambits. For example, let's take your question about in what other fields is wind shear used as a measure of temperature. Clearly your purpose is to delegitimize the method on the basis that it is not used in any other field (if that is in fact the case). That represents an evasion on your part in that you are avoiding discussion of the physical basis of the method, a ground on which, no doubt you have no ground. So rather than tackling the science where it is strong, you use innuendo. Now, the correct answer to your question is, who cares? It does not matter that variation in the propagation speeds of sound waves is only used to measure the temperature beneath the surface of the sun (if that is in fact the case). What matters is whether temperature affects the propagation speeds of sound waves, and sufficient data can be gathered from this to determine internal temperatures. So, if it happens to be the case that only the sciences of meteorology and climatology use wind shear to measure temperature, so what? If oceanographers do not use wind shear to measure temperature, that is irrelevant to the use of the method. Likewise if metallurgists have also neglected this technique, or geologists. In fact, only sciences which measure wind (of which their are only three) could conceivably use this technique and two of those are so closely related that in this area they are not separate fields. The third science that could conceivably use this technique is astronomy. Whether astronomers ever have or not, well I hardly claim to be up on all the papers in that field, and I doubt many contributors to Skeptical Science are. But it is irrelevant whether they have or not. So, the proper interpretation to the silence that met your question (silence, note - not evasion because there was no response to your initial question at all by anybody), is that nobody cared. Your question was irrelevant. Of course, when you asked it a second time, it was clear what your rhetorical game was. So I provided an answer to the rhetorical point, your unsubtle suggestion that the method was ad hoc. And by the way, the method has been used before, though not in another field. In fact, the method was first used (that I know of) in climatology by that well known champion of AGW denialism, Roger Pielke Snr in 1998. As always, it is not the method deniers really have a problem with - it is the result.
  32. Dikran Marsupial at 21:20 PM on 29 May 2011
    Can we trust climate models?
    GC@53 If you mean this diagram, then I rather doubt Hubert Lamb would have approved of anyone in 2011 preferring an essentially qualitative plot based on central England (rather than global) temperatures as a proxy for global paleoclimate, when there is far more global proxy data available now and 30 years more research on paleoclimate. See Appendix A of P. D. Jones et al., The Holocene 19,1 (2009) pp. 3–49, High-resolution palaeoclimatology of the last millennium: a review of current status and future prospects available here, for details.
  33. If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
    "How would Janis Joplin or Jimi Hendrix tackle global warming?" By writing songs that point out how oppressive and totalitarian the alarmist movement is. As a person who grew up with The Whole Earth Catalog as my adolescent bible (one that championed Bucky Fuller's anti Malthusian and anti Ehrlickian sense of optimism), as a person inspired to pursue chemistry due to an interest in neurochemistry inspired by having read all of Tim Leary's books, I can tell you that the counter-cultural swing of the 60s was very much anti-state, anti-war and very libertarian. Your whole vibe is however authoritarian, statist and left wing. It is profoundly anti libertarian. I was inspired recently to capture some of this bitter pill flavor in a new poster graphic that I call Authority. Several quotes from your book with Hayden feature in it. Since you are pursing a statist solution to a perceived problem, I suggest looking not at counter examples like the dionysian 60s but to other successful statist youth movements. History has a few to offer. First you need to demonize a perceived enemy.... -=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. (Columbia/Harvard)
  34. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Page 9, 'Climate Commission, The Critical Decade', A recent model study comparing the relative importance of various greenhouse gases for the climate estimates a sensitivity of approximately 4 °C for a doubling of CO2 (Lacis et al. 2010). Lacis et al 2010, For the doubled CO2 and the 2% solar irradiance forcings, for which the direct no-feedback responses of the global surface temperature are 1.2° and 1.3°C, respectively, the ~4°C surface warming implies respective feedback factors of 3.3 and 3.0 (5). (5) Hansen et al 1984, Our 3-D global climate model yields a warming of ~4°C for either a 2 percent increase of So or doubled CO2 1984 is recent?
  35. mike williams at 20:39 PM on 29 May 2011
    How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
    "As to using wind speed as a measure of temperature, we currently use the following methods to measure temperture:" Thats correct Tom..but as you are more than aware..I was not asking you what other indirect ways do we measure temperature,I was asking you about using wind. My original question was What other fields is wind shear used for measuring temperature.? And you still didnt answer it..I will not bother you on this "sensitive" point anymore Tom.. The answer to my question from the silence and evasion was probably...None.. :)
  36. mike williams at 20:13 PM on 29 May 2011
    How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
    mike williams @40, my statement was correct. If you want to replace it with a falsehood for your own rhetorical purposes, it is only informative about your character. Hi Tom... You have to love postmodernism views on science and the meaning of words.. :) "The biggest misunderstanding about the tropospheric hot spot is the mistaken notion that it's caused by the greenhouse effect." Turns into "enhanced greenhouse effect" The IPCC use the term greenhouse effect Tom.. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html And there doesnt appear to be a difference between greenhouse effect and enhanced greenhouse effect in their interchanging usage in the IPCC papers either Tom.. As for your strange and slightly juvenile "attack" on my character Tom..I gather you are exempt from the "ad hominem comments will be deleted" policy on the board..or do post modernists have a new interpretation of ad hominem as well as other words. ? : ) As to using wind speed as a measure of temperature, we currently use the following methods to measure temperture: Thanks you very much for those examples Tom..much appreciated. ! You learn something new every day.! "As you have not advanced a single argument against the method beyond your disbelief, that shows us only that you are rejecting the analysis because you dislike the conclusions." I had no belief either way..there are papers for it..there are papers against it..their are scientists for and against.. I was just puzzled about the use of wind for temperature..sorry to express my puzzlement.. :)
  37. mike williams at 19:55 PM on 29 May 2011
    The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    "When preparing for negotiations, you must have a clear idea of what you are prepared to concede..Again in short, we need to take action now or we will not be in a position to comply with any global negotiated agreement." Yes Tom..I understand that...but the elephant in the corner of the room is the comments by the chief climate scientist. Now, as many suspect, the "big polluters" like India/China/Russia/USA etc will never cut back on CO2 emission..and ,,lets face it..unless we spend more money on alternative energy systems..dirty old coal technology will still be powering alot of things in the future. And I assume Australia will still take the moral high ground..but as you and I both know.. but only one of us will admit..if this happens..then our actions are a complete and utter waste of time. Perhaps I have missed something in the media recently. So my two questions are 1/Does a minority of CAGW supporters/enviromentalists etc disagree with Flannerys statements and if so can anyone please point to MSM reports/interviews etc where these views are expressed and on what technical grounds. 2/Will someone in this interesting thread be explaining how a tax on CO2 in Australia will make Australian climate "better" in the future when the other industrial "polluters" dont reduce their own CO2 emissions. Thanks..!!
    Response:

    [dana1981] This is seriously off-topic, but China is preparing to implement a carbon cap and trade system, Europe already has one in place, and the US EPA is regulating carbon emissions from large sources (and eventually we'll have a cap and trade system too, once Republicans stop blocking it).  Anyway, your argument is Tragedy of the Commons - please take further discussion of the subject to that thread.

  38. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    tallbloke @30, your remind me with the denier search for an "honest broker". By that they mean somebody who will largely agree with their talking points, but an honest broker is actually one that tells the truth, no matter how unpalatable. In the global warming debate, it is the Gavin Schmidts of the climate science community who are honest brokers, not the Judith Currys, and most certainly not the McIntyres. In this case what we in fact have is in fact an even handed book, one which distributes praise and damnation based on merit and without regard to person. Unfortunately for the opponents of climate science, that means they cop a lot of criticism in it, as they would in any genuinely even handed book on the climate debate.
  39. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Hansen & Sato feel the sea rise estimates to be a non linear process in their recent research paper 'Paleoclimate Implications for Climate Change..... January 2011 They feel that up to 5 meters is possible by 2095. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
  40. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    mike williams @40, while hoping not to tread on toes for future contributions to this series, let me state the obvious. When preparing for negotiations, you must have a clear idea of what you are prepared to concede, and what is the minimum reasonable position you will accept from other participants. If you have that in mind, then it will restrict your current strategies. It will restrict them because some actions, if taken, will prevent you ever being able to concede what in theory you are prepared to concede; or require of your negotiating partners more than the minimum reasonable position. In short, some actions will guarantee failure of any potential negotiations by changing the facts on the ground to such an extent that no reasonable negotiation can succeed. If you are seriously intent on a negotiated solution to a problem, you will not take actions that preclude a successful negotiated solution. How is that relevant to climate change? Well, by the best available evidence, if humans do not restrict their future emissions to under one trillion tonnes of Carbon, they will face damages from climate change sufficiently severe that the continuation of our civilization (civilization, not species) is in significant doubt. So any serious negotiation must be premised on keeping total emissions under 1 trillion tonnes of carbon. Further, any serious negotiations must also be premised on equitable burdens. That means in the simplest terms equal per capita emissions quotas for all nations. Considered in those terms, we face the unpleasant fact that the US will exceed its "carbon budget" within six years, even with no growth in emissions. Australia will do the same. It is not possible to eliminate US or Australian emissions in 6 years, and nor do they need to do so within a negotiated emissions trading framework. However, to fit within even a negotiated emissions trading solution, we need to be reducing our emissions now. Failure to do so simply is a vote for a "solution" to the problem of global warming that will not save the great barrier reef, or our economy, or (in all probability) our civilization. Again in short, we need to take action now or we will not be in a position to comply with any global negotiated agreement. Put another way, if we don't take action now, you can be very sure that any negotiated agreement that is signed when the world's leaders finally become desperate enough to take proper action will include the requirement to buy emissions permits retrospectively for our emissions now. The fundamental equation is this - the longer you wait to take action, the more expensive it will be to take adequate action. Waiting for negotiations to succeed will not save us one iota of that cost. But acting early may well help get an earlier negotiated agreement.
  41. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    What I feel some here are implying, is that the event of 1944 proves that the arctic melt minimum of 2007, but also the ice losses in 2008, 2010 where not unusual- which is basically saying that what has happened the last 6 years is nothing to be concerned about and there is no danger from CO2 and its GHG warming. Denialists? Likely.
  42. Climate Change Denial book now available!
    "would be surprised if the person offering the negative review has even read the book in its entirety." " I added my review (having read most of the book). Definitely worth 5 stars!" Clearly, people form opinions of books without reading them in their entirety. However, the negative reviewer makes statements which (s)he couldn't be certain of without doing so. I think (s)he misses the point though. Why would (s)he expect a book with this title and cover to be a middle of the road, even handed review?
  43. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    According to my Data UAH shows a warming trend of +0.0174 degrees per year for the last decade (2000-2010), RSS shows a warming trend of +0.009 degrees per year for this same period. GISS shows a warming trend of +0.015 degrees per year for the last decade. Oddly, the CRU (the ones the Contrarians accuse of "doctoring" climate data) show only a +0.005 degree warming per year for 2000-2010.
    I'd imagine the error bars on each of those encompass the point estimate for the trend over the previous 20-30 years, too.
    Response:

    [DB] Certainly, one could imagine it.  But that would be unnecessary, as the actual analysis has already been done:

    CRU

    GISS

    Note the error bars do not include zero in either dataset until 2001; thus, the warming since 2000 is statististically significant.

    And remember that the Aughts (the decade 2001-2010) were the warmest in the instrumental record, with 2010 being tied for the warmest year on record.  So, one can safely say that GW is carrying on its busy, obeying-the-laws-of-physics way, blissfully ignorant to the dissembling of those who would have us debate the existence of gravity.

  44. How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
    mike williams @40, my statement was correct. If you want to replace it with a falsehood for your own rhetorical purposes, it is only informative about your character. As to using wind speed as a measure of temperature, we currently use the following methods to measure temperture: a) the expansion of metals in glass tubes; b) the differential expansion of different metals; c) the change of plasticity in waxs and other compounds; d) the change in colour of waxes; e) the change in conductivity of metals; f) the colour of light from a source; and g) the change in the velocity of sound. Those methods are just the ones that come immediately to mind, and I am sure they are not exhaustive. Apparently you cannot recognise the use of wind shear data as a valid means of measuring temperature. As you have not advanced a single argument against the method beyond your disbelief, that shows us only that you are rejecting the analysis because you dislike the conclusions.
  45. mike williams at 16:43 PM on 29 May 2011
    The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    "In Parts 2 and 3 we will examine the report's chapters on risks associated with climate change and implications of the science for emissions reductions." Should be interesting..will you be explaining how a tax on CO2 in Australia will make Australian climate "better" in the future when the other industrial "polluters" dont reduce their own CO2 emissions. Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly. Quote"It's also important to note that uncertainties can go either way, and the consequences of climate change are just as likely to be more damaging than we expect as less. Uncertainty is not our friend." Translated..it might not be as bad as 99% of the stories in the media portray.. I am not sure why a lot of the posters on this excellent site really worry so much about the science being misrepresented or not.. We are getting a CO2 tax..which is exactly what you all wanted..!! We will probably get emissions trading..which is exactly what you wanted right.? The majority of the media never question any statement by anyone rightly or wrongly trying to link absolutely anything on earth to Human created CO2..which is exactly what you want right..? And..who could have predicted the Orwellian term "Minister for Climate Change"..ever being created..You must be happy with that as well. ?? And last but not least..all the political parties support CAGW..at different extremes of course.. CAGW...has won.!! Relax.. : )
    Response:

    [DB] "Translated..it might not be as bad as 99% of the stories in the media portray.."

    Further translated:  It might be worse.

  46. mike williams at 16:18 PM on 29 May 2011
    How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
    Tom Curtis at 13:51 PM on 24 May, 2011 mike williams @34, the sentence you quote is poorly phrased. As the current warming is predominantly due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, any tropospheric hotspot observed will also be due to that enhanced greenhouse effect. Thanks Tom..perhaps it should be.."the sentence you quote is wrong". : ) I still dont understand if using "..indirect calculations of temperature based trends in the vertical differential in zonal wind acceleration from radiosonde measurements." is using a novel/ad hoc ? method for measuring temperature. When I asked what other areas of science use methods like this no one replied..so i will stay confused. Regarding John Cook`s statement "It fails to explain how we can have short-term positive feedback and long-term negative feedback",, Thanks for that, it rare to see the term "negative feedback" mentioned in the msm.
  47. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Camburn @38, in its 1944 voyage, the St Roch sailed north of Victoria Island and South of Banks Island, as shown here. As you can see on the following map, in 2007 it was clearly possible to follow a route north of Banks Island: The route north of Banks Island was also ice free in 2010, though not in 2008 and 2009: In contrast, the even the St Roch's more southerly 1944 rout was not entirely ice free.
  48. Can we trust climate models?
    No GC - history also show MCA occurring at different times in different places in agreement with paleoclimate reconstructions. History shows it was cold globally, especially in NH, also in agreement with paleoclimate. Where is problem there? No denial of history at all. What you falsely claim is that models cant reproduce this. I just showed you that they can. Any of them on that diagram. Still think TV trumps science? The gist of your argument I guess was that if models couldnt reproduce historical climate then there is some deep mysterious forcing at work that is miraculously going to save us. However, not so, when you have a global picture which show that you can reproduce it all from known forcings. That is not to say that there might not be something that somehow eludes our measuring systems but that is hope in the face of data. By MBH 1998 and related, can I take it you mean all paleoclimate reconstructions done since then by all groups? with all sorts of proxies. You seriously think that is a realistic position that we should respect?
  49. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    JMurphy@24: The passage that the St Roch sailed has not been sailed since. The ships are so far using the southern route in the NWP. The northern route that the St Roch sailed is still closed. I can once again only suggest that you contact the museum in Vancouver to get the book that has the logs of Capt Larson in them. I have asked for permission to post them online, but so far it has not been granted.
  50. The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
    Tom: From your quote on the link embedded: "This evidence clearly supports the view that ice loss from West Antarctica significantly excedes that from East Antarctica, but is ambiguous about whether East Antarctica is loosing ice. On balance, it is probably loosing ice, but the GRACE experiment may well be overestimating the rate of loss" When you read current literature about East Antarctica, no one is claiming that it is loosing ice. They all admit, as you do, that there is no trend plus or minus.

Prev  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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