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  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  1703  1704  Next

Comments 84801 to 84850:

  1. Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    Albatross: You are correct. I should have been thinking April 10th verses now as that is the context of the subject matter. The temps to the north in April were even colder than the present deviation, so it was a very strong clash.
  2. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Apirate @93, I'll remind you of the question: "Can you find a "skeptical" site that you consider to demonstrate good science?" So stop insulting us by playing games and answer the question posed @64. The poster was very clear, and asked you to provide a "skeptic" site (note the quotation marks). While your sad attempt to avoid the question is entertaining, I for one would appreciate an unambiguous answer. Truth is you will not be able to find a 'skeptic'/contrarian/denier site that meets specified criteria. Sad that fact does not seem to register with your or bother you in the least.
  3. Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    Camburn @17, Sorry for not being clear-- I was specifically referring to the SST anomalies during the super outbreak/s in April as per Dr. Master's blog. Positive anomalies have weakened since then, but here are the mean anomalies for the past month, still above the 1971-2000 average in parts of the GOM. This is what Dr. Master said (in the link that I provided @16) when referring to the record breaking outbreak in April: "April 2011 sea surface temperature in the Gulf of Mexico were at their third highest levels of the past 100 years, so there was plenty of warm, moist air available to create high instability, whenever approaching storm systems pulled the Gulf air northwards into Tornado Alley, and brought cold, dry air south from Canada." It would help if contrarians actually followed the links provided before opining. Since then the SST anomalies have weakened, here are the mean anomalies (wrt the 1971-2000 base period) for the past month. Mean SST anomalies have still been above average over portions of the Gulf over that time. [Source]
  4. apiratelooksat50 at 02:40 AM on 26 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Sphaerica @ 64 Can you find a "pro" site that you consider to demonstrate good science? Just one? One that demonstrates the science in a balanced way, with no games, no tricks, no misrepresentations, no blatant falsehoods? I will play your game and say that I do get some good information from WUWT. I also get some good information from SKS. Eventually, though, investigation will lead to sites like the following 3 examples: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ http://www.noaa.gov/ http://www.nasa.gov/
  5. Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    DB: I understand the AMO quit well, and know that it is a long term oscillation. We know that the AMO and the AO affect central upper plains of the USA weather. The result of the current status of them combined is keeping an open door to cold coming south. We have been between .7 and .4 degrees F below 30 year averages for several months now, and current forcast show no easing of this pattern. This is enhancing the development of tornados as the contrast is very strong.
  6. Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    Albatross@16: Actually, current SST anomoly of the Gulf shows that it is not much above. Parts are warmer and parts are colder. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data
  7. Eric the Red at 02:15 AM on 26 May 2011
    Can we trust climate models?
    Kevin, I read both today's and yesterday's posts. I think the result of Hansen's paper is that there is still a lot that we do not understand. He offers several possible explanations; all which will coincide with the observed data. However, that does not tell us which is correct, if any. My opinion is that many of the models underestimate several forcings, in addition to the aerosols. Ocean cycles are still being updated for model use, and may play a much mroe vital role that previously thought. Camel's link to Greenland temperatures may be largely due to the cylcic nature of the AMO. Phil Jones has co-uthored a paper recently in Nature which shows the changes in SST in the north Atlantic during the past century. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/nature09394.html
  8. Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
    My attention was drawn to Happer's article when I saw it referenced on a website I visit. Of course, it was being quoted in favour of the denialist position. It astonishing that it contains no references to peer-reviewed science at all, just Happer's unsupported assertions. If anything, it showed his lack of acquaintance with climatology. A miserable effort from someone who must have been once quite distinguished.
  9. gallopingcamel at 01:48 AM on 26 May 2011
    Can we trust climate models?
    Bern, Yes, I was aware of that 1981 Hansen prediction. I agree that it looks pretty good. So good in fact than one might be tempted to extrapolate it forwards to 2100 or backwards to 1930 or even 1850. However, when you extend the timescales, the wonderful correlation breaks down. Anyone who believes that CO2 is a major driver of global temperature is looking for hockey stick trends because that is what the CO2 concentration is doing. I tried to match the CO2 hockey stick to the Greenland temperatures shown in the attached graph which I prepared with the idea that temperature trends are magnified at high latitudes. Can you see the correlation? http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/coastal-average.png?w=1024&h=621
  10. Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
    He does not imply that the Earth has cooled 10ºC in the Younger Drias. He actually states that: "During the “Younger Dryas” some 12,000 years ago, the earth very dramatically cooled and warmed by as much as 10 degrees Celsius in fifty years." What would be the correct statement here? Maybe "During the Youger Drias Greenland has warmed by as much as 10ºC in fifty years"? No comments about the rest. Really disappointing from someone that probably knows how unscientific, unaccurate and harmful to our society that kind of text is.
  11. Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
    Nice post, Chris. It's worthwhile to read Happer's article just to see the sheer number of absurd claims he makes. The article contains on the order of 20 of the SkS climate myths. A true Gish Gallop unworthy of a Princeton physicist.
  12. Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
    @Kevin C, #34 re climate response function and Hansen 2011 et al. Hansen's sections 5,6, and 7 and figure 9 discuss only the ocean mixing in regards to the climate response function. It seems to me that, since the forcing for Figs 7, 8a and 9 is a step doubling of CO2, then there are some additional important time constants related to the decrease of CO2. Perhaps CO2 is the cause of the change in slope around 700 years on Figure 7 and around 50 years on fig 8a. For CO2, IPCC AR4 defines a response to a step in CO2 that has 4 time constants. "About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years." ref: 2nd bullet under Carbon Cycle.. at AR Exec summary Chap 7, WG1 The specific time constants are given in note a of Table 2.14 in AR4 WG1 errata.. It gives 3 time constants, with the 4th time constant of infinity implied by the fixed a0 = 0.217. Note that the 50% decrease in 30 years in the exec summary descriptive text above is the combined result of A2/tau2 and A3/tau3 pairs of 19% decaying with 1 year e-folding period and 34% of the CO2 decaying with 19 year e-folding period. The 30% in a few centuries text corresponds to the A2/tau2 of 33.8%, tau2 of 172.9 years. The twenty percent remaining corresponds to the a0 of 21.7 and a tau of infinity Charlie
    Response:

    [DB] OK, let's try to rein in the off-topic discussion here.  Plenty of threads exist to discuss specific options, like sensitivity or models.  This thread is about a repost of Professor Bickmore's piece on Spencer's latest attempt to un-physicalize the downsides of the anthropogenic GHG contributions to global warming.  IMHO, the Spencer series should be called "Spencer Straws", as the grasping going on is plainly evident.

  13. Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
    "I find Ross McKittrick's comments on Keynesian marginal propensity to consume (MPC) model and Friedman Permanent Income Hypothesis (PIH) model (the comment just above the graph) a rather interesting parallel...." Enough said. McKitrick (an economist) and his forays in to climate science have been debunked so many times that I have lost count. Here is the most recent example. But this post is about Spencer failing again....and contrarians, 'skeptics" and those in denial have been unable to refute Dr. Bickmore's analysis. So instead resort to obfuscation and attempts to detract from Spencer's failings. What is striking is how the estimates for climate sensitivity keep converging on a number very close to +3 C for doubling CO2 (at least when the analysis is done correctly). Recently, Spencer was also trying to claim that natural variability could explain almost all of the observed warming the last century. I wish he would make up his mind instead of groping around in the dark for silver bullets. Really, at this point, one really has to wonder whether his systematic bias towards lower CS in his calculations are really attributable to ignorance or incompetence. Someone of his standing surely knows better than to systematically make such egregious errors...
  14. Humlum is at it again
    No surprises here. The Norwegian magazine that printed the article (Teknisk Ukeblad) is a denialist rag edited by a hardcore denier. Norway has become a hotspot for climate change denial, not surprising, since the country is a major exporter of oil and gas. A few cold Decembers have caused the public opinion to flip to anti science mode and the MSM is taking advantage by reprinting every denier lie known to man, no questions asked. The country sits at the Arctic circle, but December/January temperatures below freezing is now front page material almost every single day during the winter. Almost no mention of the warmest April on record, with folks going to the beaches and swimming in the ocean during the Easter Holiday up here at the latitude of Labrador.
  15. Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    Eric @15, "Tornadoes are not caused so much by warming, but the metting of warm air and cold." It is much more complicated than that-- there are a number of factors at play here, including much above average ocean temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico providing a source of super juicy low-level air to fuel the storms, drought in Texas and OK panhandle that may be affecting the location and strength of the dryline. The juxtaposition of the great plains low-level jet and the polar jet is also playing a role in enhancing low-level vertical wind shear critical for supercell thunderstorms that produce tornadoes. Dr. Jeff Masters has an excellent article on this issue. I recommend people read it. Ultimately it boils down to this: "In summary, this year’s incredibly violent tornado season is not part of a trend. It is either a fluke, the start of a new trend, or an early warning symptom that the climate is growing unstable and is transitioning to a new, higher energy state with the potential to create unprecedented weather and climate events. All are reasonable explanations, but we don’t have a long enough history of good tornado data to judge which is most likely to be correct." Masters also notes that there have been several billion dollar storms/events in the USA so far in 2011, with damages exceeding 20 billion dollars so far.
  16. Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
    Kevin C -- it does not appear that any of the usual posters here will discuss your questions. The ratio between short term sensitivity and the equilibrium sensitivity can be varied by changing various parameters in the model. Obviously, one extreme is the 1 box model. The graph below shows how a simple linear + 1 lag model can have the nearly identical 1880-2003 hindcast as GISS-E, but have equilibrium sensitivity be identical to transient sensitivity. An important thing to understand (and this relates back to this actual topic of this thread - going from a 55 year span of OHC to equilibrium sensitivity) is that the goodness of fit from 1800-2003 tells us very little about equilibrium sensitivity over the span of a 1000 years. Any transient sensitivity diagnosed by looking at upper ocean OHC over a period of 55 years could be consistent with almost any equilibrium sensitivity. If long term feedbacks are positive, then equilibrium sensitivity will be higher. If long term feedbacks are negative, then equilibrium sensitivity will be lower. This graph below is the response to a flattening of CO2 at current levels in a model that emulates GISS-E very closely from 1880-2003, but has no long term component. Context and info on the above graph I find Ross McKittrick's comments on Keynesian marginal propensity to consume (MPC) model and Friedman Permanent Income Hypothesis (PIH) model (the comment just above the graph) a rather interesting parallel to the current situation with GCMs.
  17. The Climate Show Episode 13: James Hansen and The Critical Decade
    This is going to be a good one! Now to find the time to watch it....
    Response: [JC] That's why God invented mp3 players - The Climate Show is ideal for driving or doing chores. I have to go out to UQ campus tomorrow so looking forward to listening to the whole TCS episode, esp the Hansen interview, in transit.
  18. Eric the Red at 00:06 AM on 26 May 2011
    Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    Nice pun Rob, Tornadoes have not been modelled very well due largely to reporting issues. Previously, many tornadoes that occurred went unreported because no one saw them, or they did not cause any damage. The best long-term data comes from the so-called violent tornadoes; defined as being at least an F3 or F4 (depending on the researcher). Chagnon and Hewings have compiled some statistics lookign at violent tornadoes (among other things) and found a downward trend from 1950-1997, although the data has a large scatter. Tornadoes are not caused so much by warming, but the metting of warm air and cold. The abundance of cold air over the plains has probably been the biggest contributor to the storms this year. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/01/big-time-la-nina-tornado-and-spring-flood-season-possible/ https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/DaveLegates03-d/Changnon03.pdf
  19. apiratelooksat50 at 00:06 AM on 26 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Sphaerica at 89 How dare you call me ignorant. That is a very arrogant assumption on your part because you and I do not exactly agree. Once again - my stance on this issue: 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to global warming, which is necessary for life on Earth as we know it. 2. The burning of fossil fuels and land use practices by humans affects the amount of CO2 entering the atmospheres and oceans. 3. Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon. 4. However, humans are partially responsible for changes in the climate. 5. Climate change effects may range from benign to serious and there are some catastrophic predictions. That is what I teach. I also encourage my students to explore and research on their own before they come to any conclusions. I teach them how to think and how to research and to have open minds. You and I really aren't far apart on GCC. We differ on what we believe the effects will be and methods of mitigation.
  20. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    jonicol - Tamino's expressed area of interest and expertise on that blog is in time series analysis, not the underlying physics. In other words, does the data support or not support various hypotheses. For the physics the Science of Doom blog is good. In that realm, time series analysis, he's one of the best I've seen.
  21. Michael Searcy at 23:59 PM on 25 May 2011
    Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    pkm, Obviously I disagree. I think there are many benefits to noting weather anomalies in the context of a climate discussion, as does NOAA apparently. Most of the weather event related details and statistics are drawn from their monthly "State of the Climate" summaries, which are also linked within the discussion in several places. And you'll notice, not by accident, that no climatic trend conclusions are drawn from these singular weather event or singular seasonal notations. That said, all weather events (yes, even cold ones) are influenced by changes to the encapsulating environment in which they occur. Those influences may be large or small, direct or indirect. But they are there, in the same manner that all bodily functions are impacted in varying degrees that change over time by a rising internal body temperature. Inclusion of the weather anomalies in these summaries serves several purposes:
    1. It provides a context for other concurrent events
    2. It puts a relatable human perspective on impacts from severe weather events including fatalities, costs (direct and indirect), and disruptions to human processes (e.g., crop and livestock losses as a result of drought, shipping closures on the Mississippi as a result of flooding, etc.)
    3. It provides a compact historical record of anomalous weather events within the frame of a warming world.
    While you may disagree, I think all of these items make such summaries worthwhile.
  22. Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    DB: I meant the AMO: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data Note the trend since the middle of 2010.
    Response:

    [DB] I would suggest learning a little time-series analysis.  Using the EyecrometerTM does not give you appropriate context.  What about the first 5 months of 2009 then?  The AMO is a 20-40 YEAR oscillation.  On a monthly basis, much variability/noise is present.  All you can look at is if the monthly number is positive or negative and then all you can infer from that is "Hmm, interesting."  All else is cherry-picking.

  23. Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    skyhunter Yup. They're called seasons.
  24. UQ Physics Colloquium this Friday: Communicating Climate Science and Countering Disinformation
    Sorry, of topic and all, but I have to do it: QUEENSLANDER QUEENSLANDER QUEENSLANDER!!!!
    Response: [JC] As a Queenslander, I'm going to allow it.
  25. Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    adelady But weren't the buffalo herds movements effected by changing weather and climate patterns?
  26. Can we trust climate models?
    While we're at it, I have a load of questions about GCMs which maybe someone can answer. Most of my detailed knowledge of GCMs comes from Science Of Doom's articles, which I may in turn have misunderstood. Here goes: 1. I understand from SoD that all but a handful (no more than 5) processes in GCMs are implemented directly from the underlying physics (with the only issues being fineness of sampling). The remaining 5 or so cannot be modelled on an appropriate scale and so have to be handled with empirical models. Is that correct? Does anyone know what these processes are? Can the empirical models be determined by fine-scale modelling of smaller systems? 2. My impression from SoD is that the parameters for the empirically determined processes are determined by fitting by fitting a stable pre-industrial climate and the forced 20th century climate - but only by fitting global observations such as global mean temperature or precipitation. Is that correct? If so, it would presumably be correct to regard any local behaviour as a true prediction of the model, which gives an independent (if hard to enumerate) indication of the validity of the model. 3. The 2011 Hansen draft paper linked by Eric@2 (thanks, I wrote a précis of it yesterday here) suggests that the rate of deep ocean mixing is wrong in GCMs. Is the deep ocean mixing modelled from the physics, or empirically? If empirically, then the error is already explained - the incorrect aerosol forcing. If physically, then some explanation is required of why the physical model is producing aphysical results. Has any been suggested? Thanks in advance for any pointers on these questions!
  27. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    Thanks Tom. I am having difficulty in accessing the paper by Ramanathan... which IE keeps telling me it cannot access even though th elink lleads to what looks like a sensible web address and when I go to Climate physics which also presents the Ramanathan... paper the same thing happens. Do you know of another source? Thanks. John Nicol
    Response:

    [DB] I found it through Ramanathan's website here:

    http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr15.pdf

    If it takes too long to load IE may give you that message.  Try another browser or a faster connection.  Worked for me.

  28. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 19:34 PM on 25 May 2011
    Can we trust climate models?
    Good article. I'm interested to know whether you are going to cover methods for downscaling in future articles? Global temperature trends are good to know but they don't tell us an awful lot about impacts in specific areas. Prediction of future rainfall trends for example. These are helpful in determining planning needs for water resources and flood protection. Such models exist in the UK and can predict rainfall trends at a resolution of 5km2. Predictions from the UK Climate Projections are used extensively in future UK planning at both a national and regional levels. It is better to have an estimate with a degree of uncertainty than no estimate at all. That way at least you have some method for determining adaptation measures.
  29. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    jonicol, while I highly recommend Science of Doom as being the best single website for explaining the physics of greenhouse, I think you would be better of reading the text books first. In fact, SOD has a list of text books that he recommends, which would be a good place to start. I also highly recommend Raymond Pierrehumbert's Principles of Planetary Climate, of which I had the good fortune to read a draft which (pre-publication) was available free on the net. If you want something easier to access, explanations by Chris Colose are note worthy for their clarity.
  30. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    Adelady. As a physicist I would have to say that the site of correlation to hell does not appear to me to reflect an open mind. I'll pick this up again on the other site that Tony Curtis kindly directe me to. I find it a bit childish actually to resort to abusive type headings like "Mathturbation". Thermodynamics is important but it isn't the be-all and end-all behind climate science and, as you scaddenp will know, is sadly not well understood generally. Scaddenp: Thanks again. Yeah, people quote the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics when these are totally inapplicable in the situation in which they are used such as where convection, conduction and adiabatic effects underlie the processes which are being analysed according to these laws. And thanks for the links to those other articles. John Nicol
  31. Can we trust climate models?
    jarch Climate models ... Considerable confidence? About as much confidence as the rest of us have in our seasonal climate experience. Xmas Day for instance. Australians and others have visions of our Xmas Day spent playing cricket on the beach and Brits have similar idealised visions of a white Christmas. It's absolutely true that each is more likely in its own geographic area, but no sensible person does more than hope for those ideals. The Aussies might be stuck on a beach in a freezing wind. The Brits can look out over a miserable grey day with no sign of the picture postcard white blanket. These are perfectly natural variations within certain bounds. And climate models are much like our direct experience. Britons will never, ever have a calm, sunny 33C day for a Xmas lunch under a cloudless sky. Aussies will never, ever wake up on Xmas morning to a crisp white blanket of pristine snow over Sydney or Perth or Adelaide's suburban expanses. Climate models tell us what features are more likely in various places at various times. Most importantly, models, like our experience, tells us what is and is not surprising in particular places.
  32. Can we trust climate models?
    jarch: so you're saying that a complex, detailed climate model that predicts future climate trends that later observations closely match is not credible? I agree that we need a longer time period (30 years would be good, like the Hansen predictions I linked in my previous comment) to be really sure they're accurate, but if the best simulations of the climate agree closely with what actually happens over the following years, surely that's an indication that the simulations are at least a usefully good approximation of reality? In any event, did you actually look up the reference linked in that paragraph you quoted? It seems the agreement is pretty good, and the 'error' is much, much less than the range of natural year-to-year variability. The other point to consider, of course, is this: using our best understanding of all the factors that affect climate, scientists have constructed a model that closely matches what the earth's climate actually does. One of those factors (indeed, the dominant one lately) is the large & growing influence of human greenhouse gas emissions. Without greenhouse gases included, the model results are completely wrong. If you cannot demonstrate that the current understanding of natural climate forcings is completely wrong, then you have no valid argument.
  33. Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    RSVP "Plains Indians were nomadic..." because they followed the buffalo herds. But not all - others lived fairly settled lives with near-permanent villages and consistent agriculture. pkm - the News section is certainly weather rather than climate. But the Research roundup is a neat feature.
  34. Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    Although admittedly well-presented, this "Monthly Climate" initiative is definitely a step in the wrong direction. None of these events can ever be directly related to climate change. The whole term "Monthly Climate" is a ridiculous contradictio in terminis. This forced attempt to relate a cold winter or a longer-than-normal tornado season to climate change ultimately undermines the credibility of climate scientists: the same scientists who, rightly so, warn against the denialist practice of computing climate trends shorter than 10 years. Let us climate scientists continue to focus and work hard on extending data series and do smart long-term analysis rather than be drawn into this hysterical propaganda. Skeptical Science, please stop re-posting this.
  35. Can we trust climate models?
    "Climate models have successfully forecast key climate features. For example, model projections of sea level rise and temperature produced in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR - 2001) for 1990 – 2006 show good agreement with subsequent observations over that period." As far as I can see, the "good agreement" is only within a large natural variability , implying large error bars, meaning that they are only loosely constrained. What is the meaning thus of : "There is considerable confidence that AOGCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales" ? where does this "considerable confidence" come from ? what "credible quantitative estimates" can be done ? it seems that they are "credible" only because the large error bars make "credible" that reality will sure lie somewhere inside ! for me a "good" model must reduce very significantly the uncertainty with respect to very crude estimates, for instance simple extrapolations of the past (which don't need any "model" actually). Only this can allow "non trivial" predictions. I don't see yet where AOGCM have had better performances than these simple crude estimates.
  36. Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    The fact that the Plains Indians were nomadic might suggest historic climate instability in this part of the world.
  37. Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
    Ross, this thread is about whether his model was correct. For discussion of oceans, look at Oceans are cooling, especially the recent discussion concerning Von Schuckmann & La Traon 0-2000 OHC over past 5 years, and then implications of this in Hansen 2011. Links to both on that thread.
  38. Ross Handsaker at 15:24 PM on 25 May 2011
    Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
    I would have thought the important issue about Spencer's article is not whether his computer model is correct but rather his observation of the vertical temperature profile of the ocean, the negligible warming at depth of 700 metres, and its implications for locating a missing heat sink in the oceans.
  39. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    Yeah, "models" that violate thermodynamics to start with. I do like the term "mathturbation".
  40. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    jonicol@45 '...cyclical phenomena influence the climate...' You may save yourself a bit of work (and maybe a bit of later heartache) if you do a bit of checking on "cycles" first. I just did this search over at Open Mind for a list of articles on cycles. And you might also want to avoid the correlation-and-to-hell-with-causation principle trap.
  41. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    jonicol "...to ask if you could let me have a list of the articles on the interactions of atmospheric carbon dioxide which you or others consider most important in leading the argument ..." If you want an overview of the radiative physics of CO2, a good place to start would be Science of Doom , this is part 3 of a 12 part series. Anything you need that's not here you can find in one of the other parts.
  42. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    See post in suggested tread, but you ask what is basis used for actual climate science? SoD recommends these text books: Engineering Calculations in Radiative Heat Transfer, by Gray and Müller (1974) Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, by Robert Siegel and John R. Howell. Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, Goody & Yung The theoretical work in core of radiative models is based as far as I know on Ramanathan and Coakley.
  43. Can we trust climate models?
    scaddenp: I don't know, I think I can make a fairly good prediction for the next few months. Right around here, it's going to get steadily cooler for about two months, then it's going to gradually stop cooling, and start warming up again. I rather suspect those living in the northern hemisphere (like our friend GC) will see the weather get a bit warmer over the next few months, then gradually start to cool. How do I know this? Because I have a model in my head about how the seasons work, based on a lot of personal experience, along with education about historical records that go back a very long time, and an understanding of the very large natural forcing factors that influence (regional) temperature on month-to-year timescales. Is that an accurate model? To some extent. Is it useful? Certainly! Even more so if you combine it with similar regional models of precipitation & sunshine. Farmers rely on such models every year when they plant their crops. Folks very much closer to the poles than I or GC might use it to tell them when to stock up on firewood, or check the furnace works, or similar such actions. I can't tell you what the temperature is going to be next Monday, though - you need a very different, far more sophisticated model for that. The weather bureau just happens to have one, though, and they're telling me it's going to be about the same max temperature as today, but with some showers around. Again, a useful model, with pretty good accuracy in the short term, and increasing uncertainty the further out you go. Kind of like the climate models, although on a different scale both temporally and spatially. gallopingcamel, have you read this post about Hansen's 1981 predictions? Looking at the 30 years of global temperature data prior to 1980, would you have made the same predictions that Hansen did back in 1980? I know I wouldn't have, without a lot of persuasion. Turns out his climate model was pretty much on the money, though. It's been more-or-less right for 30 years now, despite being orders of magnitude simpler than current climate models, and despite there being so much more discovered about how the climate works. So it's a useful model, certainly. (And the natural variability evident in the measured temperatures in that graph should educate you as to why asking for accurate predictions over any period less than 10-15 years is a fool's game)
  44. CO2 effect is saturated
    jonicol - instead making a post with your theories, perhaps you are better to put up your paper on arXiv.org in publication format so world can look at it. Post link here. Frankly any amount of non-physical rubbish has been published about influence of cycles etc. Let see the radiative physics first so we can see if there is a real physical basis first.
  45. Can we trust climate models?
    GC - he is predicting temperature trends - which in climate is 30 year basis. You might have noticed that models do that job well.
  46. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    Tom Curtis. Thank you for pointing out to me this alternative thread which I will use in future, and soon. My last comment here would be to ask if you could let me have a list of the articles on the interactions of atmospheric carbon dioxide which you or others consider most important in leading the argument for considering the existence of a serious imbalance in an earlier state of thermal equilibrium and thus lead to climate change. If the bodies I referred to earlier are simply fobbing me off as you suggest may be the case, I would be grateful if you could help me in getting my request through to them for a sensible use in comparing their analysis with my own and those of other scientists who are questioning the role of carbon dioxide as indicated by the IPCC.
  47. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    Scaddenp at 8:04 25/4. Thank you for your invitation to show you the "workings". I had earlier indicated here a much longer contribution with some scientific arguments, but it was, probably correctly, snipped fro being off topic. I am in the process of preparing both a general statement to explain the broad range of evidence which shows how other cyclical phenomena influence the climate from the regularly occuring ice ages to extremely warm holocenes in the past, the present and the future. I am also completing a paper for submission for publication. I will value your criticisms and perhaps we could establish an exchange forum where such in depth scientific debate could be used to exchange worthwhile ideas from both sides with criticisms focussed solely on the scientific arguments. If you are interested, pleasse let me know. I will also be putting material, very soon I hope, onto the thread suggested by Tom Curtis "the saturation of the Green house effect". In any case, I would value your help in trying to understand the fundamental case of carbon dioxides action in the atmosphere in terms of the modern physical analysis which must be available somewhere but which I have been unable to find or to be provided by people from the several Climate Science Units I have contacted over the last four or five years. I will look forward to hearing from you. Thanks.
  48. Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
    VOA @ 23- Hmm, you sure about funding of primary and secondary education from the state level? Might want to check those numbers again. It varies from state to state, but on average state governments put in 46%, local school districts another 37% and the difference comes from federal and private sources (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html). As a result, the resources available to local school districts can vary substantially even within a given city or county.
  49. Rob Painting at 13:26 PM on 25 May 2011
    Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
    Phil Scadden - I'm drafting up a post on tornadoes & severe thunderstorms. The gist I get from many climate blogs, is that very few commenters have actually looked at the peer-reviewed literature. Modelling definitely indicates an increase in severe thunderstorm frequency. But as for tornadoes, which are spawned from severe thunderstorms, that's still very much up in the air (pun intentional).
  50. gallopingcamel at 13:23 PM on 25 May 2011
    Can we trust climate models?
    Kevin C, I used to hang out here frequently but the discussions are becoming less and less realistic. In your comment (#1 on this thread) you imply that future temperature trends can be predicted. If you can do this, please share your predictions. Can you predict temperature trends for the next few months? How about the next few years or the next few decades? Please submit your response in a graphical or spreadsheet format.

Prev  1689  1690  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  1703  1704  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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