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  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  1703  1704  1705  1706  1707  1708  1709  1710  1711  Next

Comments 85151 to 85200:

  1. Humlum is at it again
    Tom: From Dr. Trenbeth's email: " Roger I don’t believe any of the current dozen or so estimates of ocean heat content are correct. The TOA estimates are probably closer to being correct but they too have problems. The data may be robust since 2005 but the analysis methods are not. Kevin" As I have stated, there are problems with OHC. I will just leave it at that as I will show you evidence, but I am not going to try to force you to think outside of the box per se.
  2. Humlum is at it again
    The IPCC never did rigorous scientific analysis because they were never set to do that- They were set up to summarise the scientfic record which is not the same thing. If there was such a massive paper (it would have to be a meta-study), Skeptical Science would leap to point to it. The IPCC was a massive opportunity wasted to either prove or disprove or more likely indicate that the scientific tools/data is not able to evaluate whatever precise AGW hypothesis is formed. A theory is more vague than a hypothesis.
  3. Humlum is at it again
    Tom: I have to let others who are immenently qualified speak clearer than I can I guess: I do think that Pielke Sr, Dr. Trenbeth and Josh Willis have a pretty good idea of what they are talking about: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/further-feedback-from-kevin-trenberth-and-feedback-from-josh-willis-on-the-ucar-press-release/
  4. Humlum is at it again
    Tom@11: The discussion is on a link provided by Dana 1981. No, it is not the dislike of the conclusion. It is the probability the conclusions are correct that is in question. I refer you to the link.
  5. Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
    Hi Charlie, I used the GISS data through 2003, because that's all I could find, but for the next few years I just digitized the data from Spencer's graph. I don't know where he got it, or if he just extrapolated.
  6. CO2 limits will harm the economy
    I am new to this site and am yet to get my head around a lot of what I am reading. I do want to protect the environment, I would love to see more effort being put into renewable resources. Taxing carbon might be the best way on paper. The part that makes it so scary for me is the ongoing greed of big business. I fear that the cost of living will increase dramatically due to their greed, not based on the logically put predictions made by those proposing the solution.
  7. Humlum is at it again
    Camburn @10, the appropriate conclusion when you claim that Schukmann has problems in her paper but do not link to a discussion of those problems is that this is just hand waving, and you are rejecting the paper solely based on your dislike of the conclusions.
  8. Humlum is at it again
    Camburn @7: Your memory fails you:
    "The basic materials for this study are the monthly gridded fi elds of temperature and salinity properties of the upper 2000m over the period 2003-2008. These fi elds were obtained by optimal analysis of the large in-situ data set provided by the Argo array of profi ling oats (www.argo.net). Complementary measurements from drifting buoys,CTDs and moorings are also used. Two important data sets have been excluded from the analysis because of proven or suspected biases. They are fi rst, the XBTs and XCTDs for which uncertainties in the accuracy of the fall rate remain, and second, a small subset of Argo float profi les of type SOLO (Sounding Oceanographic Lagrangian Observer) that suff er a labelling error in the pressure [Willis et al., 2007]. The data set was downloaded from the Coriolis data center (one of Argo Global Data Acquisition Center, GDAC) at three dates: the period 2003-2006 was extracted in August 2007, the year 2007 in January 2008 and the year 2008 in February 2009. In total, the Argo measurements account for at least 90% in 2003 and increase to more than 95% since 2006."
    As you can see, all XBT and XCTD profiles where excluded because of uncertainties related to the pressure at each data point. ARGO profiles for which there was similar uncertainty were also excluded. I am sure that, being consistent, you would want all the XBT profiles included if and only if you were to include ARGO profiles of uncertain pressure readings are also excluded. Or do you just want to cherry pick?
  9. Humlum is at it again
    Bern: My comments on OHC were derived from what was written in the post: "The informed reader will notice that so-called climate skeptics very seldom mention the ocean in their quest against the AGW theory, since doing so would severely impact their conclusions." I still stand that OHC of 0-700 meters is flat to negative. I have not read parker yet, so I will not comment on his paper. Schuckman has problems in his paper. I had read it earlier, and will do so again. However, I will not discuss it on this thread as it is considered off topic.
  10. Humlum is at it again
    Thanks for the article, julienx2k2. As you state, a classic example of why what the 'skeptics' are doing is not science. It would interesting to see if a rebuttal argument, demonstrating why the BHS opinion piece was incorrect, was able to be published in the same newspaper, or whether editorial policy only provides 'balance' when it suits their agenda (as seems to be the case in many media outlets around the world). Re the 8 off-topic comments above: I, too, struggled to make any connection between the article and a discussion of OHC. Camburn's first comment strikes me as a typical denier misdirection away from the demonstrated flaws in the anti-AGW case ("Look over here at this super-strong floodgate, don't pay any attention to the torrent pouring out of that crack in the dam over there"). The SkS comments policy clearly states that off-topic comments are not permitted. Perhaps a slightly firmer moderation policy needs to be enforced, with such posts deleted? It might reduce the thread hijacking that goes on sometimes.
  11. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    "Nevertheless, discussion of ACSC and John's membership therein isn't relevant to this topic, so let's leave it at that." Well I only mentioned it because both he *and* Bob Carter are part of this Group, so I thought everyone should know...but you're right, Dana, I won't say anything more on the subject.
  12. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    Actually, if we look at Figure #2, there is a reasonable correlation between TSI & Climate between 600AD & 1600AD. From around 600AD to around 1300AD, we see TSI sitting around the 1365-1368 W/Square meter range. Then from around 1500AD to almost 1900AD, it bobs around the 1358-1364 W/Square meter range. So the higher TSI correlates well to the Medieval Warm Period, whilst the lower TSI's correlates well to the Little Ice Age. Now of course these are only *proxies*, so I don't expect to see *perfect* correlations. Also, we *know* other factors were involved in both these Climatic Events (principally volcanic activity). So I really don't see where Camburn is coming from. Also, though, the Shapiro reconstruction shows quite clearly that, though temperatures today are currently *warmer* than at the height of the Medieval Warm Period, TSI is currently *lower* than the average for that time period. Kind of goes a long way towards ruling out the Sun as the cause of current warming, wouldn't you say?
  13. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    ...oh, & Ian Plimer is in the ACSC as well. They do say that you can judge a man by the company he keeps....doesn't say much for John Nicol, I must say.
  14. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    Hey guys, should just warn you that John Nicol is a member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition-which also has such "august" individuals as William Kinnimonth, John McLean (of "hide the incline" fame) and, of course, Bob Carter himself (hence John's very spirited defense). This organization is a typical Denialist Organization, with strong ties to the Lavoisier Group, whose sole goal is to prevent any meaningful action on Climate Change via the use of pseudo-science-like the stuff this very article focuses on. As such, I think its fair to say that any future contributions by John will be equally irrelevant & equally unscientific.
    Response:

    [dana1981] Not just a member, but the chairman, assuming it's the same John Nicol.  Coincidentally, I just took the ACSC "climate quiz", and wow, talk about incredibly misleading.  Nevertheless, discussion of ACSC and John's membership therein isn't relevant to this topic, so let's leave it at that.

  15. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    You know, back when I was doing my Year 12 (c1990), we were taught about Anthropogenic Global Warming-in our Chemistry & Physics Class-in a very matter-of-fact way. No polarization, no controversy, it was just taught as a logical outgrowth of basic chemistry (CxHx + O2 = CO2 + H2O) & the physics of the C=O bond in relation to absorption of Infrared Radiation. The same goes with Genetics & Evolution. Judging from apirate's comments, though, the current crop of teachers seem to think its "cool" to cast doubt on the basic science by allowing debate of even the most crack-pot ideas, or to otherwise allow their personal bias to influence how the teach. That might be acceptable in subjects like Drama, English or Music-which are open to subjectivity & opinion, but not subjects like Maths, Physics, Biology or Chemistry.
  16. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    And is the "skeptical" opinion of the students based on published scientific research - or on what they have read on some pseudo-skeptic website? The problem here is that high-school students do not have skills, nor domain knowledge to sort out the lies on such sites, even with skepsci to help them because they cannot evaluate conflicting sources of information. It will come down to a "trust" issue and that will likely follow the beliefs of their "tribe".
  17. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    apiratelooksat50 Do you consider to be adequate to teach students about HIV being the cause of AIDS, including the ways to avoid infection, or would you prefer a "balanced" approach? A Dr. Gallo and a Dr. Duesberg say the HIV-hypothesis is a hoax, and AZT is in fact the cause of the disease. Should teachers go for this "balance"? Why?
  18. Stephen Baines at 09:13 AM on 23 May 2011
    Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    John I think dana's post is very focussed on the evidence actually. There is some frustration, but partly that results from watching a good scientist makes such obvious mistakes in public. Sticking to the evidence, which of dana's criticisms of Carter's statements do you specifically take issue with and why? BTW Best to take it a step at a time because people can't respond substantively to long lists of points - not to mention the moderators will get angry. Also, if you have extensive comments related to a preexisting section (likely in this case given that Carter is proposing ideas that have been dealt with in detail here) its best to post a short summary here that points to that appropriate section and post a proper summary there. That does no constitute exile; you will be found and it ensures that your point doesn't get lost.
  19. Michael Hauber at 09:07 AM on 23 May 2011
    Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
    Thinking some more about the possibility that we are following scenario C due to an aerosol boom, I note that land temperatures have continued to rise in the last 10 years, and the gap between land and ocean temps has also increased. This suggests that even over the last 5 or so years external forcing is still firmly in warming mode, and that ocean variability has led to the current short term pause. And it would appear that Co2 forcing is high enough to completely offset any aerosol cooling due to any impact by China, and the solar minimum.
  20. Humlum is at it again
    Dana, Camburn seems to wandering off topic again and arguing strawmen. OHC is not relevant/critical to this story as far as I can tell. But is he claims to be so interested might I suggest that he add von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011) to his list of reading. Now back to the topic at hand please?
    Response:

    [dana1981] Agreed, as I suggested in #2, further discussion of OHC should go in 'oceans are cooling'.

  21. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    apiratelooksat50 at 07:36 AM on 23 May, 2011 "....The various science departments at that school are heavily slanted towards support of the AGW theory. However, the faculty at the state university of about 30,000 students generally leans toward support of natural causes of GW. " Seems a little perverse to me. Does the state uni have science departments? Can you tell us which State you're referring to? I'd be interested in looking at the publications of the relevant science faculty. There's really little question that 20th century and contemporary global warming is dominated by anthropogenic contributions. It's not a subject that there is much doubt about. The last century has seen a truly massive amount of excess energy in the climate system, and there simply isn't any sensible evidence for natural causes (which "natural causes"?). The enhanced energy must be the result of an external forcing, and there simply isn't another possible source for this. So if an entire uni faculty have come to some contrary collective decision on this, there's something a little skew-whiff!
  22. actually thoughtful at 08:50 AM on 23 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Apiratelooksat50 - what appears to be missing from your comments is your self-knowledge that as a personal denier of global warming, you are deeply biased in your presentations to your students. Thus your first attempt is "controversy" - when there is none. Even "polarizing" is not particularly correct. There are those who go where the science leads them (even if it is uncomfortable) and those who continue to find controversy and polarization where none exists. The problem, of course, is that your students suffer. Teach reality, not your own personal anti-science prejudices (as you have previously shared here on skepticalscience).
  23. Humlum is at it again
    Dana1981: The Schuckmann paper threw out some ARGO data, and if memory serves me, used a combination of xbt and ARGO. The xbt data is so prone to error that for specifics it is not very reliable. I have not read Purkey and Johnson, but will have to do so. Thank you.
    Response:

    [dana1981] regardless of what you think of XBT data, it is data.  I accept your withdrawal of your previous comment.

  24. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    Camburn, Your comments do not appear to have anything to do with Dana's posts about reconstructions of TSI. If you want to talk about GCR's or clouds then please go to the appropriate threads.
  25. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    Dana @11, Good points. But, is this thread not about TSI. IIRC, there is no firm relationship between TSI and GCRs. But please correct me if I am wrong about that. Riccardo @10, INdeed. What is more, they found evidence of a possible weak relationship over the mid-latitudes, that does not speak to or explain recent from increasing GHG concentrations.
    Response:

    [dana1981] Well, TSI and GCRs are reasonably well correlated, but you're right that it's off topic here.  I think Camburn is trying to look for some other solar effect to blame recent warming on, but at least he's not trying to blame it on TSI.

  26. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    No, I am not suggesting the GCR are a huge driver of climate. I was trying to show that TSI is not the only item that the sun provides or shields that affects climate. As far as low clouds, there is question as to whether they are a driver or feedback. This has to do with OHT etc.
  27. Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
    I was only attempting to change the approach here to one of more genuine debate on the science which Bob Carter is proposing, as a very experienced (thirty five years) paleo-geologist whose work has centred on past climate for millions of years worth of records, I believe he understands much more about climate than you give him credit for. As a "marine" geologist, he spends his time on marine expeditions which are internationally funded, drilling for both deep and shallow cores - in the ocean floor - with which to study past climates and other geological history. Your article stated that it was intended to examine "In this first installment, we will examine Carter's claims that there is no evidence that the observed global warming is man-made.. ". I was simply responding, I thought, to that comment in the article. Your phrase "Carter seems to attempt to jam as many climate myths into as few words as possible, interspersed with a lot of empty political rhetoric and the usual misunderstanding of climate economics..." suggests that you are criticising the person, not his statements and seems to me to move at least to the edge if not outside your own guidelines. I would like to hear your comments on the newest "climate scientist" to enter the debate, Ross Garnaut. John Nicol
    Response:

    [dana1981] Where exactly do you see Carter proposing "a more geniune debate"?  If you read his article, it's hard to find any such proposal.  What Carter does is repeat a whole bunch of long-debunked myths which have no scientific basis.  That's an attack on the content of the article, not the man.

    I have no doubt that Carter has done some good research in the field of marine geology.  But that doesn't mean he gets a pass when he publishes error-riddled and politically-tinged (to put it lightly) climate-related articles like this one.

    As for Garnaut, we comment on science, not on individuals.  If you would like to ask a question about a particular statement Garnaut has made, we would be happy to answer it.

  28. Bob Lacatena at 08:36 AM on 23 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    apiratelooksat50, Can you find a "skeptical" 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? If you find one, let me know. If you can't... that sort of says something, doesn't it?
  29. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    I tell my students to be strongly selective for their sources, expecially on the internet.
  30. Stephen Baines at 08:18 AM on 23 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Apirat @60 I'm actually interested in what specific part or section of skeptical science you think is not scientifically founded? As Dana points out, taking a position on an issue is not, in and of itself, a sign of being slanted in a scientific sense. Is there a post or a section that you think seems to not reflect a proper summary or evaluation of the evidence?
  31. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    To be fair, I think Camburn is suggesting that low clouds are a huge driver of climate (which is untrue - they are a potentially significant feedback, but not a driver). I don't think he's suggesting that GCRs are a huge driver of climate. At least I hope not, since the scientific literature strongly indicates otherwise, and the paper he references likewise discusses "little ( 0.088 C/decade) systematic change in temperature at mid-latitudes has occurred over the last 50 years."
  32. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    apiratr #60 - with all due respect, again you seem to favor teaching the controversy to teaching the science. A "neutral" stance is not always a correct one. For example, if I were teaching a biology class, I would refer my students to websites which examine the science behind evolutionary theory, not websites with "neutral" stances which also present Creationist arguments. Same for flat Earthers, those who think the Earth is the center of the universe, or only 6,000 years old, etc. Some arguments are just wrong and have no place in a science class because they are not based on scientific evidence.
  33. apiratelooksat50 at 07:47 AM on 23 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    ProfMandia @ 55, With all due respect, how about links to sites that are relatively neutral on their stance where merely the science is shown? I would never tell my students to only get their information from either SkepSci, or WUWT. I teach 3 classes of a fairly technical level Environmental Science class, 2 of College Prep Biology and 1 of Honors Chemistry. As you know, there are certain things that students of different abilities can do. With my Honors Chemistry class (regardless of the subject) I make sure I supply them with various sites for their research, and they invariably find others which are added to our list. They at least have the opportunity to see all sources of information.
  34. apiratelooksat50 at 07:39 AM on 23 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Barnes @ 53 I can't tell you why there is a difference between my experiences and yours. I'm sure we are both being honest. I would like to see a formal poll on the matter. And, point taken on your last paragraph. We do exactly that.
  35. apiratelooksat50 at 07:36 AM on 23 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    JD @ 52 You are spot on on your observation about emotions beginning to rule the closer it gets to humans. I have had the same experience time and time again. The statement, "I didn't come from a monkey!" is what I often hear. I respond by saying, "I never said you came from a monkey. But, you do share a common ancestor with a monkey." Your observations on how people arrive at their opinions on the AGW issue is also very interesting. That could go to great lengths explaining the divide between liberalism and conservatism and their stances on this issue (and others). I teach at a very large public high school in the American south. Our school district has 3 high schools, and our county has at least 10 high schools with which we regularly interact with other faculty members. And, of course we see many more during the summer in our continuing education courses. Interestingly, of the two universities I work with the most in getting CEUs or placing students, one has 18,000 students and is just up the road. The various science departments at that school are heavily slanted towards support of the AGW theory. However, the faculty at the state university of about 30,000 students generally leans toward support of natural causes of GW. There exist somewhere a survey conducted at all the state colleges on this subject and I will see if I can find it. Neither school is religious based or labeled liberal or conservative. I have an idea on the difference, but I am interested in hearing your opinion first.
  36. Climate sensitivity is low
    RW1 it's typical of many to show up transmittance spectra and draw conclusions from them. I was just trying to show how one should look at this kind of spectra. It is essential for a proper understanding of radiation in the atmosphere. Never mind, those are pretty standard concepts. You will easily find them whenever you think it's appropiate.
  37. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    Camburn you didn't read the paper, did you? From the conclusions: "This work has demonstrated the presence of a small but statistically significant influence of GCRs on Earth’s atmosphere over mid-latitude regions." Where is the huge driver of climate?
  38. Humlum is at it again
    So come on Camburn, you've been asked to back your claim of having papers showing a cooling in OHC, yet you still haven't provided it. Until then, I don't think we can take any claims by you seriously.
  39. Climate sensitivity is low
    Riccardo (RE: 233), Obviously you haven't followed the discussion in this thread. The definition of transmittance, in the context of this discussion, is the amount of surface emitted LW that passes straight through to space as if the atmosphere wasn't even there. The claim is this reduces by 7.4 W/m^2 when CO2 is doubled, because the referenced 3.7 W/m^2 from 2xCO2 supposedly already includes the effects of half up/half down.
  40. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    And then there is this recent research, which demonstrates an effect on low clouds, which is a HUGE driver of climate. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf
  41. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    Dana1981: There is a lot more to the sun than TSI. We both know that....or at least I would hope that you know that. We have just ended the longest solar max in recent times. Since the ending of that solar max in approx 2003, the upper atmosphere has shrunk to the smallest size ever recorded. That is just one effect. http://www.space.com/8770-record-collapse-earth-upper-atmosphere-puzzles-scientists.html
  42. Climate sensitivity is low
    RW1 any textbook will explain you this point. As for the contention, I did not quote any number, just explaining the meaning of transmittance with which apparently you're not familiar.
  43. Humlum is at it again
    dana1981: You are correct that the upper 700 meters has leveled off and a linear trend, even with the leveling off of temp, is correct. As far as 2,000 meters, the results have been models, not measurements to date. There are current measurements being taken, but the reliability of said data is so short that nothing of consequence can be derived from that data. Sorry paul@4: I don't get Fox news, as I can see no value in cable so don't subscribe. I read literature instead, is much more reliable and interesting.
    Response:

    [dana1981] Incorrect - von Schuckmann (2009) is based on ARGO data, and Purkey and Johnson (2010) use data from ship-based Conductivity-Temperature-Depth (CTD) instruments, for example.  Please don't just make stuff up, Camburn.  I lose patience with people who make false unsubstantiated claims very quickly.

  44. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    John Donovan - Your class on "Weird Science" sounds fantastic - my compliments on presenting such a wonderful experience to your students.
  45. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    chris1204 Learning about how science progresses is really important, and I wish the history and philosophy of science I've studied was more available and known. That background can inform further thinking considerably, IMO. But - learning actual physics is not the place for the history of physics. And it's certainly not the place for presenting discredited or out of date hypotheses (like ether) on an equal footing with what we consider correct.
  46. Oceans are cooling
    One might also consider there there is a relationship between ocean heat content and atmospheric heat content. In a nutshell, the ocean leads the atmosphere around by the nose. It has a lot to do with the fact that there is as much mass in the first 10 meters of the ocean as there is in all the air above it. Plus, there are increases in specific humidity to account for. So, it would be interesting to see a refutation of rising OHC that would be compatible with the observed rise in atmospheric heat content.
  47. Humlum is at it again
    (Argh. The Faux-News-ification of knowledge)
  48. Humlum is at it again
    @Camburn: Agree to disagree? This is a matter of data, not agreement, or theory. With a little house cleaning to toss away "some parts of some oceans are cooling sometimes" nonsense, papers on opposite sides of "the oceans are warming" question can be resolved, as a matter of fact. If the ocean is warming, and a citation says it is not, then the citation is flawed. Citing a flawed study does not change fact.
  49. Humlum is at it again
    Papers can't change reality, Camburn. Although OHC in the upper 700 meters has leveled off over the past few years, the upward long-term trend is clear. Especially if you look at all the data, which the 'papers' to which you refer (probably Douglass and Knox) do not. Regardless, if you want to argue this subject, please take it to oceans are cooling.
  50. Humlum is at it again
    Let's agree to disagree about OHC. You can cite papers showing it is rising, I can cite papers showing it is cooling. When looking at a lot of literature, the error bars overlap enough that about all that can be concluded is that the OHC is flat with a negative bias.
    Response:

    [DB] OK, what published, peer-reviewed papers do you have?  Links to sources (not blogs) please, to be taken seriously.

Prev  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  1703  1704  1705  1706  1707  1708  1709  1710  1711  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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