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. Abraham reply to Monckton
    When Kane first posted here, their post hinted at concern troll-- and their link to the disinformer blog WUWT did not help. I did not jump in right away, as I wanted to see how things progressed. Sadly my suspicions have been confirmed.
  2. Abraham reply to Monckton
    Come off it, KaneWilliams - you may see nothing wrong with Monckton using that particular graph (and a reference to an IAU conference, alongside clearly denialist views about the sun's impact on our climate) and implying support from that graph (and conference), in order to try to bolster the scientific case for his nonsense. He's very good at implying and creating associations, without actually stating the facts : in fact, he makes up his own 'facts' and tries to use the work of others to fit in with his own agenda, thereby misleading the credulous and the naive, while denying having actually intentionally creating any such implicit associations. The only manipulation going on here is being carried out by Monckton and the way he tries to broadcast his propaganda. Don't be taken in by it - stick to the views of the scientists, not the propagandists.
  3. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    ProfMandia - very good. Not on only from the perspectives you describe - but your students are fortunate to be guided through what 'debate' looks like, sometimes, in the public sphere, compared with the world of science etc. e.g. apiratelooksat50 "Personally, evolution is not controversial. Professionally, it is." It may be like the dark ages where public opinion goes bad! So, ProfMandia, I'm very glad you're not confusing your students by bowing to this silly trend of agreeing that evolution, AGW etc. are scientifically controversial!
  4. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    apirate@15, You are going to have to do much better than that. Empty rhetoric does not advance argument, whatever that may be.
  5. apiratelooksat50 at 03:28 AM on 22 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Skywatcher @ 13 You're right, climate change theory is not controversial. Anthropogenic climate change theory is certainly controversial.
  6. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    The course outline clearly shows how the content is developed for the course. Natural climate forcing is carefully explained as well as human climate forcing. There is no controversy about evolution and there is no controversy about what is causing most of the modern day global warming. You do not need to take my word on that because there is overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus. Where there is a debate is which solutions and policy choices we need to make and that is clearly where students will make up their own minds after presented with choices. I chose this particular assignment to illustrate the various myths that are prevalent on the web and in books but do not appear much in the peer-reviewed literature. This site does a very good job of carefully explaining why these myths are not accurate and how the scientific method is used to show the holes in these arguments. This is one assignment and not a representative catch-all for the entire course. It is not wise to judge the entire course based on this blog post. :) Their weekly HW assignments were also illuminating. Each week they had to do a Google News search, find a climate change-related article, and explain the content while also relating that content to what was learned in class. Frequently they found very scientifically-weak articles and then proceeded to show why the "science" was wrong. Given that these students are freshman and non-science majors, I was quite impressed.
  7. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Seeing as the fundamentals of the theory of climate are not controversial, and validated many times over, it would be very hard to grade a student highly that considered one of the main skeptic arguments valid. One of the reasons would be that they would have to come to this conclusion without the support of the peer-reviewed literature, and therefore would not have done their research properly. 'Controversy' in climate theory is limited to such questions as 'will the warming be bad, very bad or horrific for modern civilisation as we know it'?, or 'will the Arctic be September sea ice-free in 2020, 2030, or as late as 2050'?, or 'Will doubled CO2 lead to a 2C, 3C or even a >4C rise in temperature?' The problem with these questions is that although there is room for 'controversy' (really just valid scientific debate), the underpinning basics of climate theory are entirely sound, and there is not room for people with the view that everything will be just fine if we continue BAU...
  8. apiratelooksat50 at 03:16 AM on 22 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    JMurphy@11 Personally, evolution is not controversial. Professionally, it is.
  9. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    apiratelooksat50, do you really think that evolution is "controversial" and that your students should be able to form their own opinions about it ?
  10. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    To look objectively at AGW, one must look at all the science. The little presented on this site is informative, but deffintely not the defintive source of knowledge. There is a lot more to climate than the level of co2 in the atmosphere. I don't know if we will ever be able to quantify all the variables, and their relationships. I would hope that Prof Mandia understands this when he is teaching. I would also hope that the use of this site encourages students to broaden their knowledge of understanding as to the uncertainty that we are at the present time.
  11. KaneWilliams at 02:53 AM on 22 May 2011
    Abraham reply to Monckton
    Thanks JMurphy I had seen those links, although not read through them in their entirety. I have heard Monckton say that Abraham's 83 page assignation of his talk does indeed make him sound bonkers and that he has misrepresented other's scientific studies, but that is only because Abraham has cleverly twisted and misquoted what he actually said. One example is states Abraham claimed he said in his presentation that David Hathaway concluded that Solar activity is the dominant cause for global warming, when in fact all he did was use a graph produced by David Hathaway and drew his own conclusion from the graph, never once stating that this is the conclusion reached by Hathaway. He did however site the conclusions made by Skaffeta and West regarding solar activity and climate change. This is just one example and it does seem like some manipulation of Monckton's words has taken place?
  12. Eric (skeptic) at 02:45 AM on 22 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Send them all to remedial English class.
  13. Harry Seaward at 01:24 AM on 22 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Prof. Mandia, Pirate's post begs a question: what if the student decided the skeptic argument was valid?
  14. apiratelooksat50 at 01:17 AM on 22 May 2011
    Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    As a teacher myself, I like the layout of the course description and the term paper grading rubric. As a matter of fact, I'm going to "borrow" both for my own classes. However, it bothers me greatly that the students' weren't presented data and allowed to form their own conclusions. Anytime I teach a controversial subject such as AGW or evolution, I start the unit by plainly stating that my personal views do not matter and I want them to form their own opinion. As long as they follow the scientific methond, think rationally, and adhere to the course guidelines - they can earn an A regardless of their conclusions. I do my best to not allow my viewpoints to influence theirs until after the unit is over when we usually have a roundtable discussion, or the students are divided and prepare materials to present their standings in a debate. This class would be much more effective in creating minds that can think rationally if the students were presented all available scientific information and allowed to formulate their own thoughts. Instead, it is more of a writing class where information was regurgitated in the assigned format.
  15. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    @Charlie A. #14 There are lots of guyots in the tropics. Go to the Seamount Catalog and have a look around the Marshall Islands and the Johnston Seamounts areas of the map.
  16. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Jimbo @ 4: You don't have to be a trained scientist to debunk the claims of the deniers. You at least need some passing familiarity with scientific method as well as some capacity to detect internal consistency and consistency with other data we know about the world at large. Herein lies the difference between science and religion which is held as an article of faith and which admits the possibility that some knowledge, eg, the true essence of God who is infinite and eternal, is utterly beyond our human comprehension. In science, by contrast, knowledge may be too extensive and complex to integrate into a coherent whole by any one individual but at least is notionally understandable given adequate effort and resources insofar as we are dealing with finite quanta of knowledge no matter how vast. All of which makes for fascinating debate. Moreover, we should distinguish between religious faith and humanistic ideologies which pretend to capture truth whilst enslaving it. If you wonder about the difference, consider only Mao Zedong's famous saying, "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a a hundred schools of thought contend," following which he was able to flush out dissidents by encouraging them to show themselves as critical of the regime, before wiping them out.
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed link.

  17. Oceans are cooling
    Charlie A #66 Your 9 points are a pretty reasonable summary Charlie A. What is very clear from the 0-700m OHC Charts 1993-2010 is the step jump in the 2001-04 period when the changeover from predominantly XBT to Argo occurred. If you plot a separate XBT trend up to 2001 and an Argo trend after 2004 the step is most apparent and can only be an artifact of the transition, because the deltas from satellites show no such step up in radiative imbalance at that time. Linearizing the spliced XBT to Argo with the step jump in place produces an inflated slope on the combined curve.
  18. Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
    Stephen Baines #124, #125 For those in/out heat fluxes to be balanced, an equilibrium temperature or temperature profile of sorts must have been established in the 0-700m layers. The surface exchange includes direct radiation, evaporation, rainfall, ice freeze and melt etc. The exchange between the 0-700 and 700+ depths would include conduction and what else? Is there any study which describes these heat flux transport rates and shows comparable fluxes at the top and bottom?
  19. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    Oh, & here is yet more proof that your whole "international air travel" argument is entirely bogus. A Boeing 747-400 consumes an average of 2.6L of fuel/100km/passenger (assuming at least a half-full plane). A mid-sized vehicle consumes about 10L of fuel/100km/passenger *if* the vehicle contains only the driver (as it frequently does). This can go up to 12L/100km in peak hour traffic, as cars can consume an additional 20% of their fuel simply idling. It is this kind of driving that makes cars such a massive contributor to GHG emissions, *not* the difference in the number of people using them.
    Moderator Response: (DB) Ok, this has gone far enough; future off-topic comments by all parties will be deleted.
  20. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
    Nik "... there is a very good chance that recent warming may be a peak that is about to plunge back down..." and "...there's about 40 years of downswing in the works that will also mask CO2 warming..." I know you refer to oscillations - but what would be the physics driving such phenomena? At least the physics of aerosol effects on climate are pretty straightforward conceptually (even if the measurements are as difficult as most others are). And if it wasn't the aerosols, how do you account for the physics of excluding them (or double counting them if there's a 'cycle', 40 years or otherwise, with the same characteristics).
  21. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    H Pierce. Why would Science Students have any interest in a Site which is clearly nothing but Denialist Cult propaganda? I took a look at the headline articles, & its nothing but the usual politically motivated & completely unscientific clap-trap that we've come to expect from the Usual Suspects in the Denial Movement (such as yourself....oh, & Cloa513 of course). If this is the "resource" you & your mate Cloa rely on, then its no wonder that your "contributions" here-if such pointless distractions can be given such an august label-are so vacuous & easily shot to pieces.
  22. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    This post tells me three things, at least. 1. SkS is a useful and easily accessible resource. 2. Professor Mandia is a creative teacher whose students are learning critical thinking. 3. You don't have to be a trained scientist to debunk the claims of the deniers.
  23. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    Well yes the difference by 2050 is only about 2cm/year-4cm/year but-as can be seen from where the lines end up, that *small* difference will make the difference in (a) how long we have to evacuate the more low lying atolls or build protective structures to hold the waters at bay, (b) probably protect some of the higher atolls for significantly longer & (c) decrease the amount of time it will take before sea levels actually begin to fall. Yet if we listen to people like you, we should just accept the BAU approach, & simply aim for the worst case scenario by 2100-even though the BAU approach will probably result in an even *worse* sea-level rise than what's currently predicted. Its exactly this kind of Denialist Cult thinking which has preventing action being taken earlier than now-all to protect the profits of your beloved fossil fuel industry.
  24. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
    Oh wow, if I now look at my correction of your final chart, now that the modern warming is about twice as much as Easterbrook's, it becomes suggestive that there is a very good chance that recent warming may be a peak that is about to plunge back down, masking greenhouse warming for up to a century or more. That the AMO correlates nearly perfectly with decadal variation in the global average T also suggests there's about 40 years of downswing in the works that will also mask CO2 warming. It looks like it might not have been aerosols after all which caused the last downswing but was due to regular ocean oscillations.
  25. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Hello Scott! Did you make available to your students "Global Warming Science" available at: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/ Probably not.
    Response:

    [DB] Your use of quote marks is very apt, given the disinformation nature of your linked site.

  26. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    "your argument only relies on the fact that air travels are restricted to a very small part of the world population, (the richest one most obviously), whereas cars are used by much more people. If you take the consumption PER CAPITA, considering only those who are actually using them, the use of airplanes is of course much more energy consuming than cars - just because as you notice yourself, the energy used per mile is comparable, but people traveling by air do much longer trips !" Your entire argument is completely & utterly *false*. I already pointed out that cars generate *more* CO2 per person-km than a plane flight, that long-haul flights generate fewer emissions per passenger-km than shorter domestic flights (as much of the fuel is used in take off & landing-not in actual flight) & that the number of km driven-by a single driver-per year is *greater* than the average distance traveled by an air traveler over the same time period. Your claim about air travel being restricted to a rich subset is equally ludicrous. The US alone records as many as 2 million people flying *per day*-& therefore probably around 370 million people flying per year....in America alone. Hardly sounds like a tiny subset of rich people. Again, though, as I said (but clearly you missed), no-one is telling people to simply *cease* driving-so that's just another straw man. They're simply being asked to make more sensible use of their cars-by car-pooling &/or using public transport for instance-or using cars powered with alternative fuels. So going without a car for day-to-day commuting is a much simpler-& probably more cost effective-prospect than asking those hundreds of millions of people, world wide, currently traveling by plane to find some other means of traveling overseas. The upshot being that, in spite of your original, ludicrous claims, attempts to reduce CO2 emissions will *not* necessarily result in a halt to international tourism-& certainly not the very small subset that visits the Pacific Islands. So your entire argument is a *straw-man*, & none of the logical fallacies you've provided in between have made it any less of a straw-man-which is pretty typical of the card-carrying members of the Denialist Cult.
  27. Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
    This very misleading graphical debunking of Easterbrook fails to switch to the required anomaly scale instead of an absolute scale to deal with the mismatch between his chosen recent temperature reconstruction and the long ice core. He plots two 1855 temperatures instead of one. If you actually match up the 1855 temperatures, as any sincere effort would require, you get exactly what skeptics claim history is like: a just as hot MWP and a hotter Roman period. Plot "It’s also clear that there is a mismatch between the temperature reconstructions and the ice core record. ... How that might be resolved is an interesting question, but not directly relevant to the point at issue." The way you resolve it is to use anomalies like the pros do. You have left the graphical impression that the present is hotter than ever. At best you've has corrected an error that the ice core ends in 1855 instead of 2000 (or 1950), even though this claim is not in any primary article I can find. I had been posting a GIF animation of the Greenland ice core far and wide and this "debunking" gave me pause as I prepared to yank it from my arsenal based on this post. I may have to edit it a bit now though to increase the instrumental "hockey stick" blade from the animation I have. Hereis another blogger combining two Greenland data sets into a single chart without matching them up properly.
  28. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    and I have no idea of which Gilles you're referring to , but it is totally irrelevant for the discussion of SLR time scale.
  29. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    Marcus, your argument only relies on the fact that air travels are restricted to a very small part of the world population, (the richest one most obviously), whereas cars are used by much more people. If you take the consumption PER CAPITA, considering only those who are actually using them, the use of airplanes is of course much more energy consuming than cars - just because as you notice yourself, the energy used per mile is comparable, but people traveling by air do much longer trips ! so what you're really saying is that you would ask modest people to accept the constraints of public transportation, car pooling, and so on, but let a very small subset of rich people spend freely their vacation in very distant islands ? extremely weird, and politically totally unacceptable. concerning the rate of SLR, just have a look on the peer-reviewed literature, such as : http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_science_2007.pdf and look at figure 4 : what is the difference between the "extremes" B1 (yellow) and A1FI (blue) scenario around 2050 ? what is the difference of the time needed to reach a given level ? some years, not more. That's what I said. The difference is in the uncertainty of the acceleration term, which is a totally natural factor - it is pretty insensitive to the scenario actually. What it really means is that if their is a very long term acceleration factor, we are already much above the equilibrium value needed to limit the SLR before 2050 , and it is much too late to avoid it.
  30. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    cola513, I'm not sure what you are getting at. From reading the post I thought the assignment was to review and understand the science, not do the science.
  31. Skeptical Science Educates My Students
    Do these students understand the scientific method? The scientific method applied to a problem is the science. A review of other studies only guides the new experiments needed- its not a replacement. Medical scientist understand this. Despite only the massive study of the human body and drugs in isolation, nothing substitutes for testing of drug on humans after testing on the nearest analog species. The human body is still too complicated to be substituted by models or individual studies. The Earth is equally too complex for part-wise studies to tell you the whole stories or even a major part. The IPCC did no science- summarising other papers is something a reviewer could have done.
  32. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    "my argument is that it would be very weird to prevent people from using their car for their all day life and allow them to travel over long distances - most people would probably prefer keeping the former and giving up the latter." Which is an incredibly *weak* argument, & will remain so no matter how many times you say it. *All* air travel-both domestic & international-makes up barely 3.5% of *all* CO2 emissions, whereas driving cars contributes about 15% of all CO2 emissions. So you see that giving up the latter will do almost *nothing*, whereas even *reducing* our car use will do so much more. Also, whereas there is no useful substitute for air travel, there are plenty of useful substitutes for individual car travel-car pooling, tele-commuting & public transport-just to name a few. So you see, contrary to your claims, I think that people *will* be more likely to give up their current usage of cars-which will have a much greater impact on climate change-than to give up international plane flights-which would have minimal impact on climate change anyway. Still, Jarch, thanks for reintroducing everyone here to a typical Denialist Argument-totally illogical & poorly constructed....and based on total fallacies. "the issue is that if the 1m SLR is real, it is impossible to slow it significantly before 2050." Well, given the weakness of your other argument, how can *anyone* put even the tiniest amount of trust in this claim. Any slowing of the trajectory of warming & sea-level rise *now* is better than just letting things not only continue at their present rate but, given your preferred scenario, proceed at an ever accelerating rate. Its true we might have to eventually evacuate those on the threatened atolls but, when they are evacuated, I hope they sue people like you who delayed action on climate change for the past 20 years with your incredibly dopey arguments. Still, given your obvious troll-like behaviour, I think its pretty obvious that you're just Gilles under a different name. I suspected it earlier, but now I feel its confirmed-& I'd be quite happy for Moderators to delete comments #15-#22, to prevent this topic being completely hijacked yet again.
  33. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    Marcus, my argument is that it would be very weird to prevent people from using their car for their all day life and allow them to travel over long distances - most people would probably prefer keeping the former and giving up the latter. "The issue right now is to slow the trajectory of warming" the issue is that if the 1m SLR is real, it is impossible to slow it significantly before 2050. You could only change the date by a couple of years, which is much smaller than the uncertainty on what will really happen, and without changing the final issue - so you would have to prepare the evacuation of the threatened atolls in any case.Do you know what a time scale is ?
  34. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    "I said that IF the 1m SLR is real, then mathematics also tell us that it is impossible to stop before 2050, whatever we do, because the phenomena you're describing need several centuries to change." This is, again, a very very weak argument for taking it slow or-worse still-doing nothing at all. The issue right now is to slow the trajectory of warming, & thus slow the rate of acceleration in current sea-level rises. This *will* have the impact of giving us more time before all of these Atolls are permanently drowned, as well as reduce the length of time we need to wait before the Atolls are above sea-level again. Of course it *would* have been better had we acted sooner-you know, when we first had the evidence, but people such as yourself made sure *that* never happened. Still, no doubt you & Gilles would get along well, given that you so clearly think alike.
  35. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    Again Jarch, a long haul aircraft generates approximately 230g of CO2 per passenger-km of travel. A single, mid-sized car generates approximately 280g of CO2 per passenger-km. Guess how many cars in the world there are Jarch? Guess how many kilometers they travel every year Jarch? Fact is that you could *quadruple* the number of people currently engaged in international flights & it would still not come close to the total CO2 contributions of car travel-let alone electricity consumption. Also, domestic flights have a *larger* Carbon Footprint than International Flights, which just makes your argument even *weaker*. Like I said, if you're going to try & defend the fossil fuel industry, then you're going to need a far stronger argument than "oh, we have to protect the economy of those poor Atoll dwellers", because your basis for that argument is completely flimsy & bogus.
  36. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    Jarch, to put it into some context for you. An average sized car generates slightly more CO2/passenger-Kilometers of travel than a Long Haul international flight (assuming the only travel done is at peak hour). Of course, in the space of a single year, most car commuters will travel more kilometers in their car than they will in either domestic or international travel. I think you need a better argument for inaction on fossil fuel consumption.
  37. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    Marcus, I doubt that keeping the long distance vacations would be a highest priority if there is a strong pressure to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and that bioalgae (or worse solar powered planes !!) would be able to power all airplane companies, not speaking of allowing a large majority of the world population to access them. Air travel are a minor component only because they are accessible only to a very tiny part of the population - and atoll economy is accordingly a very tiny amount of the world economy. Are you suggesting that the world should do everything to allow a very tiny part of the population to have vacations, to allow an even tinier part of the economy of very small countries to survive ? well if you extend this thought to all kind of activities, I don't see how we would reduce our overall consumption !! obviously you didn't catch the first argument : I didn't say Dickinson's predictions aren't "accurate" (also they publish two hypothesis differing by a factor two, so I don't know which of them is "accurate" ?) : I said that IF the 1m SLR is real, then mathematics also tell us that it is impossible to stop before 2050, whatever we do, because the phenomena you're describing need several centuries to change.
  38. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    "Stopping the use of fossil fuels , and hence probably suppressing overseas vacations, would probably impact the economy and the population much more cruelly than a SLR at 3mm/yr." Yes, this is a common Straw-man argument brought up by the Denialist Industry-one which fails on several key facts: 1) No-one is talking about the immediate & complete cessation of fossil fuel use, so why mention it at all? We're talking about a significant reduction in the fossil fuel component of domestic electricity & fuel. 2) Air travel is, currently, one of the *smallest* contributors to total GHG emissions, per capita, so will almost certainly be a lower priority than the GHG emissions from electricity generation & domestic travel. 3) Pilot studies have already shown at least one viable, carbon neutral substitute for aviation gasoline (algae derived bio-fuel). Also, with the first ever successful solar powered flight this year, solar powered planes (of one kind or another) will probably dominate our airways by sometime in the latter half of this century. 4) Another GFC will probably hurt the economy of the Pacific Islands much more heavily than an immediate cessation of all fossil fuel consumption-which merely highlights how we should be doing more to help these economies transition to a more stable source of income-rather than using that instability to justify inaction on climate change. The first part of your argument is equally weak, as you've clearly ignored the fact that (a) melting of fresh-water ice is *accelerating*-not remaining constant & (b) this is coupled with ever increasing thermal expansion of sea-water, which will accelerate the sea-level rise even further. So in fact the predictions by Dickinson are probably very accurate. Would you be prepared to bet your home, & life, on the prediction being wrong Jarch? Then don't be so quick to bet other people's lives & homes so quickly on such weak assumptions.
  39. Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
    " Dickinson 2009 has constructed a table of estimated crossover dates for Pacific atolls. These are dates, based on projected rates of sea level rise, where the solid reef foundations are over-topped. Generally these cross-over dates occur mid 21st century at the earliest." The report forgets to say that these dates are based on an extrapolation of the SLR to 1m in 2100. If it were only 50cm, the cross-over dates would only be after 2100 - it it keeps on rising of course. Also a rarely mentioned fact is that the 1 meter SLR predicted by Rahmstorf et al. implies a quadratic acceleration term, which is only possible with a long timescale response where dL/dt is proportional to T (instead of L prop to T). But this implies also that the current SLR is well below the equilibrium value and will continue whatever we do, for centuries. In other words : if the SLR exceed 50 cm, it means that the long timescale term is large, and there is no hope to stop it before 2050. If not , there is no need to do it . Another side remark is that the economy and the population of atolls have exponentially risen because of the tourism industry , which have cause a massive arrival of tourists and the associated employees. Stopping the use of fossil fuels , and hence probably suppressing overseas vacations, would probably impact the economy and the population much more cruelly than a SLR at 3mm/yr.
  40. Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
    Albatross@104, I totally agree with your quotations, especially John Adams regarding facts.

    Regarding your statement that I am trying to convince myself that "equilibrium sensitivity in not near +3°C." This is patently untrue. I stated @81 and @103 that Dana's Scenario D with a sensitivity of 2.7°C gives good results.

    I fully understand your "ad nauseum" reasoning that two errors may be cancelling each other out to give the correct answers in Scenario C. This is why I suggested Hansen's aerosol strategy to correct Scenario B. I am willing to wait for a few years (but not ad infinitum) to determine if real-world temperatures will start to follow real-world emissions again or if they will continue to bump along the commitment trajectory. The date of 2015 suggested by Hansen (2006) seems as good a time as any to determine which trajectory real-world emissions are following.

    You may wish to consider Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

  41. Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
    Sorry, missed the link.
  42. Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
    There may be many processes and oceanographic phenomena we don't yet understand. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110518130921.htm I noticed this point as relevant to some of the discussion. "... scientists were able to document similar fluctuations of the "Deep Jets," deep currents down to 3000 m with speeds of 10-20 cm/sec. They flow along the equator, crossing the entire Atlantic, with flow reversals every few hundred meters. "These jets are generated in the deep ocean, and their energy apparently propagates upwards through the water column. Once near the surface, this energy affects currents and temperatures ..." I have no idea how many other such tremendous forces may be moving gigantic volumes of water around in this and other regions, but I'm certain there are some.
    Response:

    [DB] Hot-linked URL.

  43. Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
    Rosco @17, you have plainly confused the graph from Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) with graphs of a tree ring based proxy by Keith Briffa which has never received the prominence of the MBH graph. In Briffa's tree ring data, some of the data sets show a decline in tree ring width and/or density after 1960, and hence are not a good proxy for temperature after 1960. There is good reason to think they remain good proxies for temperature prior to 1960, however (although some dispute that). In contrast, the data from MBH, comes not just from tree rings but from a variety of proxies. Further, the tree rings used in MBH 99 do not show any decline after 1960. In other words, there was no decline to hide in MBH 99. "Hide the decline" has nothing to do with MBH 99 except that MBH's results have been published alongside Briffa's results in some publications. Some denier's have, of course, deliberately fostered the confusion which you are exhibiting. So, very plainly your accusation that scientific data has been used to mislead is misplaced. The "misleading" here is purely a function of your own confusion on the issue, and the deliberate fostering of that confusion by leading deniers - something the main stream media give them a free pass on.
  44. Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
    The larger world problem of the melting of the Greenland ice-sheet is simply that it relieves the pressure on the volcanoes underneath ... as in the past when it melted the ash with block out the sun when all those volcanoes erupt at once ... global warming will thus lead to a scenario like nuclear winter with crop failure and mass starvation worldwide alongside devastation of nature ... ( -Off-topic snipped- ) ( -Off-topic snipped- ).
    Response:

    [DB] 2 part answer, my friend:

    1. The science as we yet understand it does not lend itself to increased volcanism brought about by isostatic rebound due to removal of the overburden of ice.  Crops may well be devastated by flood or drought, yes.
    2. This is a science-based website.  No matter my personal convictions, we must remain true to our host.  You are welcome to comment on the science-based topics of any thread herein, but take care to remain on-topic.  As for the rest of your comment, the hour is not known, so fear not.
  45. Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
    I remember seeing this used as "proof" of global warming. The Media grabbed it with glee and it became a sensation world wide - the fact that it was "cobbled" together from proxy results and real data received no cover and why would it given today's media is sensation driven. Whether the sensational reception it received was intended by either the author or the IPCC is a point only they can answer. My view is that it suited the message the IPCC wanted to portray at the time. It was exploited for their propaganda purposes whilst it had usefulness. As such it is irrelevant whether it has any scientific validity - the fact is it was portrayed to be "proof" of a relationship that the IPCC has been trying to validate for decades in a deceptive manner - not by hiding the issue of the decline but by the cynical reasoning that the public wouldn't care about an argument over the worth of the graph when a simple viewing "proves" we are on a path to thermal hell and any idiot can clearly see that. This cynical use of this graph explains the huge backlash after the so-called climategate affair. If the public held onto the idea of global warming and respected the graph and the "proof" it implies then no wonder the feeling of betrayal and loss of confidence when the "heart" of the belief is held up to public scrutiny in a negative way and people realise this graph may have been "concocted". Combined with the dropping of the term global warming in favour of climate change and you have sown the seeds of doubt inexoribly into the public consciousness. The sceptics have no problem in this - their point of view is seen as consistent - they always doubted and now they have been shown to have been not as stupid as portrayed. Again, I don't know if the reality of this graph was adequately disclosed at the time - I never checked myself - I trusted and believed - and this was clearly the intent of the IPCC. The mere fact that there was a data problem and the was overcome by adding a different data set to achieve a desired outcome is a difficult perception hurdel to overcome when all the pro side can say about sceptics is they are either stupid or corrupt. Nothing is more corrupt to the public than using scientific data to mislead and this is clearly what happened - no matter what the arguments about disclosure - the public see one thing as presented - few dig any further.
  46. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    I believe they're based on two different Berrylium-10 proxy data sets, Alex.
  47. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    Hey Dana, good post. Quick question: in the Shapiro TSI graphs, what do the blue and red trends respectively signify?
  48. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    Alexandre - yes, in calculating the expected temperature change, I incorporate the climate sensitivity, which is based on feedbacks. So feedbacks are accounted for in these calculations.
  49. Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
    Hi Dana, Thanks for your post. It's instructive to cross check findings with the bulk of the available data. When you say, for example, 0.75 W/m2 more TSI would lead to a hypothetical calculated 0.15ºC warming, are feedbacks already counted in? Wouldn't those first 0.75 W/m2 of solar forcing lead to other feedbacks, which would in turn result into a larger total radiative forcing? Please help me understand this.
  50. Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
    Angus @103, "Therefore, Scenario C temperature projections should be below observed temperatures but this is obviously not the case. " For crying out loud Angus, the reason for this has been explained to you ad nauseum. One really has to wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse on this point, or repeatedly repeating a falsehood in the hopes that is becomes true. Scenario C is relatively close to observations (for now at least) because of because of two errors: too low emissions run used as input into a climate model with too high a sensitivity (~4.2 C for doubling CO2). Instead of accepting the fact that Lindzen's hypothesis is woefully wrong and cannot explain the observed warming (the point of the post), you seem to be doing everything you can to convince yourself that equilibrium sensitivity is not near +3 C for doubling CO2. Two quotes for you to think about: "Beware those who deride predictive science in its entirety, for they are also making a prediction: that we have nothing to worry about. And above all, do not shoot the messenger, for this is the coward’s way out of openly and honestly confronting the problem" [Dr. Kerry Emmanuel] "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." [John Adams]

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