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  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  Next

Comments 88951 to 89000:

  1. There is no consensus
    Bruce@345 "So far I have seen no scientific evidence of any kind here being presented here by anyone." Then you should be doing more reading and less typing. This site is chock full of links to scientific studies and data that support the the premise that the earth is warming and that human activity is driving the change in temperature. Not many people here are practicing climate scientists so not much original work is generated, thus the links to others work. If you have a published paper of your own or links to studies that you think are relevant to the discussion then please post them in the appropriate thread. As for this thread, you have not provided anything constructive to the discussion (not debate! not argument!) of the original post. Your first comment @311 was an accusation that Climate Science is driven by politics rather than data with no supporting evidence. That is not how this site works. If you are going to take a position you need to support it somehow.
  2. There is no consensus
    Hummm two more looong post by Mr. Frykman and still no evidence to back up his earlier claims. Clearly not here to present nor discuss facts.
  3. Rob Honeycutt at 08:25 AM on 14 April 2011
    It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam... "I have explained why Greenland and Arctic temperature variations are not man made." No, you have explained why you believe there is an inconsistency between the warming period in the early 20th century and the warming in the latter 20th century, making the wrong assumption that both had to be directly correlated with the increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2.
  4. Dikran Marsupial at 08:24 AM on 14 April 2011
    Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Rovinpiper@1 Practically all modern models include ocean effects and are known as coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs). Practically all modern models incorporate aerosols as well (you can't adequately model 20th century climate without them c.f. "ice age predicted in 70s" canard).
  5. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    Sphaerica : "express exactly where he stands on the topic of this post (i.e. how a statement by an important and respected climate scientist was clearly and manipulatively taken out of context by people who simply don't like what the facts and science have to say). " Frankly ? i don't care much about what people think of what other people say. You may be right , but it's not a question of physics - may be of psychology, politics, sociology. Billions of people think stupid things anyway, so I can't waste my time in looking at them all. So I posted here to correct what I thought being incorrect : no we don't have a precise measurement of fluxes, yes the Earth doesn't seem to have gained energy these last years - whatever the reason is. Read the thread again - I didn't try to "manipulate" anybody - I just explained why some sentences appeared erroneous to me. Alec Cowan : I don't really get what you're trying to argue - yes multiplying 1 W/m2 by the surface of the Earth and the number of seconds in one year gives something like 10^20 J/year - and so? what does it change ?
  6. Solar Hockey Stick
    Shawn @58, "Just throwing an offhand comment that I am committing seppukku is not helpful. " Re credibility seppuku-- that is not a comment or opinion, it is an empirical observation based on your posts here. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not expect to overturn credible science or make compelling arguments by talking through your hat. Re "That may be true, but again, one does not need to invoke GCRs or some other hitherto unknown mechanism to explain the observed warming. Surely you agree with that much?" OK, I think that we finally agree on something--I am referring to the observed warming since the early sixties, when TSI and global SATs traces diverged.
  7. Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    Daniel, Be a true skeptic please--do not believe everything you read and see at WUWT, or take it at face value. There is much fiction touted as fact on that pseudo science blog. Are you now too denying that global sea levels have risen?
  8. Daniel Bailey at 08:13 AM on 14 April 2011
    Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    @ daniel maris Citing disinformation blogs does little for your credibility and explains much.
  9. Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    Wheels, apparently not. I've now concluded that I should read DenialDepot not just for fun. We all should see it as a sign of what we might expect to see in certain publications. If graph-tilting or axis-fudging is not already out there, it will be one day.
  10. Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    It seems that Prof Morner isn't safe from ad hominem attacks. I suggest people take a look at this site: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/ You'll see some very interesting photos there which suggest that the alleged sea level rise in the Maldives is really pure fiction. There is also some very relevant criticism of tide guage measurement. Interesting to see the rickety structures - there's only one way they are going and that is down!
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Just for clarification, there has been precisely one ad-hominem against Morner posted on this thread, and it has been deleted by a moderator (not me as I am actively involved in the discussion) because it contained an ad-hominem. So it would seem Prof. Morner is quite safe from ad-hominem attacks here, provided you give the moderators time to do their jobs.
  11. Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    adrian, when you read the IPCC carefully you will notice that they _explicitly_ exclude any contribution from melting ice sheets. Not because they think it's a bad idea, or it's not happening, or it can't be measured. It's excluded because of the IPCC's role. To report on the science as published up to a point in time. At the time of collecting and evaluating available papers, there was too little explicit calculation and attribution of the amount or the rate of rise attributable to melt - let alone projections of expected rise due to melt. That situation won't apply for the next round. Don't say you weren't warned if there are big differences between the next and the previous IPCC reports.
  12. Bruce Frykman at 07:58 AM on 14 April 2011
    There is no consensus
    RE: # Bruce@343 "Is this really a debate forum?" "No. It is a forum for the presentation and discussion of scientific evidence." OK, which of your have presented "your" scientific evidence here; not other's - "yours". So far I have seen no scientific evidence of any kind here being presented here by anyone. If you are merely linking to stuff you like, then all you are doing is cheer-leading your cause. If you are simply denigrating others by linking to science you don't like then your are engaging in something but it is clearly not science. ( -Snip- ) RE: "- Ad Hominem accusations of distortion against the majority of climate scientists with no evidence for same." # Where is the ad hominem? Have I called anyone's comments "deplorable?", "rants?" Clearly you have! How have I distorted "the majority" of climate scientists? Who or what represents this "majority?" Do any of you have any data of figures that substantiate what and who represents this majority? I belong to several groups but I would never be mindless enough to suggest that "group think" constitutes is my think. It all sounds rather militaristic. In discussing all of this science do any of you ever favor one individual scientist's ideas over another's? If you did, would not this be casting an ad hominem towards the group's endorsed thought processes by your own standards? Re: "Posting ideology rather than facts" What is my "ideology?" RE: Major, major tendencies to run off-topic. Guilty, I have devoted major major tendencies to discuss why you have deleted my comments.
    Moderator Response: [DB] "So far I have seen no scientific evidence of any kind here being presented here by anyone." Try actually reading the posts and the linked source studies. Staying on-topic on a science-discussion (not debate) website is a must, not a want. Adherence to the Comments Policy is also not optional. Complaining about having to comply with it is a surefire ticket to forcing the moderators to act. Maybe you might want to perhaps consider other venues with less restrictive policies?
  13. Solar Hockey Stick
    Honestly, I have no clue what you were talking about in your previous comment so it is pretty much impossible for me to give more detail until I understand what you are talking about. Just throwing an offhand comment that I am committing seppukku is not helpful. Am I precluded from making any statements at all including of my own opinion that are not referenced in peer review literature? No one else on this thread is handcuffed to this extent.
  14. Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    I have to second a previous question: did this report come out on April 1st?
  15. Daniel Bailey at 07:47 AM on 14 April 2011
    It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    @ KR Not an expert an the Arctic, but my read on Chylek2009 is this: The Arctic temps are heavily influenced by the AMO, which makes sense. The problem is, and perhaps Robert Way could provide some insight on this, that (as currently defined), the AMO is not properly detrended for the post-1975 warming. The detrending performed is linear, but the warming itself since 1975 is non-linear. Tamino made that observation here, that (under the linearly detrended AMO definition, the post-1975 increase reflected in the AMO is because of global warming. It is the residue of global warming. That being said, Chylek 2009 only says the rates of Arctic Amplification were greater in the earlier time frame than the later. It does not say that the earlier was warmer. Tamino also removes the cyclical exogenous factors from the temperature records to show this: My two cents. HTH. The Yooper
  16. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    33, Adam, I love that graph, and that paper!!!! I love them!!! The caption for the graph, in particular referencing the lower graph where things match so very nicely between cosmic rays and tropospheric temperatures, says this:
    The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Niño, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and also a linear trend (0.14 ± 0.4 K/Decade).
    This is great. Remove El Niño. Check! Remove North Atlantic Oscillation. Check! Remove volcanic aerosols. Check! Remove global warming. Check! Wait! Remove global warming? Yes. If you take global warming out of the picture, the match is perfect. They have basically proven for us that cosmic rays have nothing whatsoever to do with current warming. Does it have an influence on natural short term variations? Apparently (although I'm not so sure that these are people I trust, but since I could care less about short term variations, it doesn't matter much). But does it have any influence on global climate? Is there any attribution whatsoever for the current warming trend due to cosmic rays? They have proven that this answer is "no." [I also despise anyone who puts out a PDF of a paper and tries to make it look like a peer reviewed journal article, which this clearly is not. For shame.]
  17. Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    "It boggles the mind that Monckton and the "S"PPI think they can convince people that sea level has dropped since 1950" - it, and similar approaches have worked well for over ten years now.
  18. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam - Thanks for repeating the Chlylek link. Looking at their paper, it's quite evident that Arctic (and for that matter Greenland) temperatures follow the global temperature trends. Their statement that Arctic amplification is insufficient to explain the magnitude of such trends is a bit more iffy, however, bordering on odd. I would be interested in the Arctic expert's opinions on this. The AMO data is also quite interesting; given that the AMO appears to also track the temperature anomaly record, however, I would consider this a possible correlation to temperature (and changing wind patterns) as a first cause - otherwise you have to argue that the AMO is affecting global temperatures, including the Southern Hemisphere, which I quite frankly would have to see some strong evidence (and a plausible mechanism) for before accepting. Have you at least dropped the strawman argument about CO2 being the only driver of climate?
  19. There is no consensus
    Bruce Frykman - The major problems that I see with your posts are: - Ad Hominem accusations of distortion against the majority of climate scientists with no evidence for same. - Posting ideology rather than facts. - Major, major tendencies to run off-topic. Do you have any science to present? Evidence? This site is set up to discuss science, after all, not politics. If you don't, then it's your opinions versus assembled facts. Quite frankly, in my view, your opinions aren't holding up very well...
  20. Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
    adrian #24 - try in the ballpark of 1 meter sea level rise by 2100. Just because the IPCC AR4 didn't include melting land ice doesn't mean it won't melt - in fact it already is.
  21. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    @Albatross #84 Don't worry. I understand what you say. I see this kind of characters like they being magicians that are meaning they really vanished the coin because they have powers and idiotic masses prone to believe them. But the answer is not speaking about the impossibility of violating the laws of Thermodynamics, but explaining the public what blind spot the magicians exploited, and most of all, where are the hidden coins.
  22. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Anyway, this is getting pretty tiring. I'm leaving now. I'm going out tomorrow, so I probably won't be able to comment again until tomorrow evening. So long.
  23. There is no consensus
    Bruce@343 "Is this really a debate forum?" No. It is a forum for the presentation and discussion of scientific evidence.
  24. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam#22: "the 2003 and 2010 spikes were just one year events, which quickly went back to normal straight after. Could you please explain how it could have been anthropogenic co2, which caused those two spikes," No one said those one year events were caused by CO2. "The temperature in Greenland for 1920-1940 didn't have many outlier temp anomalies, it stayed at roughly the same trend over those few decades. " That's just not true. There is in fact a 1.2 degree jump in 1919 (I just plotted the Polyakov data). If that's in error, your rapid 1930s warming is a thing of the past. Wouldn't a real skeptic question an entire conclusion that rests on the validity of a single data point?
  25. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    KR read this paper http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf " the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale." "The Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation multi-decadal variability is suggested as a major cause of Arctic temperature variation." The Arctic multidecadal oscilation can indeed explain the temperature changes observed in the Arctic. "Your arguments are unsupported, incorrect, and generally empty of data, theory, or (in my opinion) content. " KR I don't think you have actually read my comments. I clearly explained it in detail and provided peer reviewed studies.
  26. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam "So, once again, could you please explain to me why there is no correlation between CO2 and Greenland temperature variations. You do agree that there is no correlation with CO2, right?" and "I have explained why Greenland and Arctic temperature variations are not man made." I do not believe you have adequately established or supported this position. No. If you are going to take a position contrary to the majority opinion then you have to provide a lot more evidence than you have.
  27. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    "Please explain why Soon's TSI data after 1960 contradict the reputable (and official TSI ) data. His paper falls to pieces right there." Albatross, first of all from 1960 to 1980 the correlation did indeed increase. I think it is fair to say that the correlation between the sun and the climate (supposedly) ends at around 1981, which is the time of the solar maximum. However, when you use tropspheric temperature data instead of solar data you can see that the correlation does indeed continue. As shown by the graph below, for the past 20 years there is a perfect correlation between cosmic rays and tropospheric temperature. Albatross, the link between the sun and climate did not end. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf
  28. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam - "...oceanic oscilations play a major role in Arctic climate. They most likely brought in warmer waters, which caused the previous Greenland warming and are most likely what caused the most recent Greenland warming." To which I will reply: Evidence? Do you have any evidence of such changes in Arctic circulation showing correlation to temperatures? There's certainly plenty of evidence for the various known forcings driving global temperatures, along with the Arctic amplification - you're asking for an unproven hypothesis with no evidence to supplant a well supported hypothesis that matches the data. I believe the term is "wishful thinking". If that's all you have, then you're not even hand-waving. As has been said here before - You're entitled to your own opinion - but not your own facts. -- "You do agree that there is no correlation with CO2, right?" Sigh - There's excellent correlation with known forcing factors, including CO2; your strawman argument against CO2 as the only factor is both repetitive and deeply incorrect. Your arguments are unsupported, incorrect, and generally empty of data, theory, or (in my opinion) content. Please read some of the references you have been pointed to.
  29. Solar Hockey Stick
    Is it not common knowledge at least that GCR changes with Earth's motion relative to the spiral arms of the galaxy?
    Moderator Response: [DB] Shawn, this is not a debate or rhetoric forum (in which you'd also be doing poorly), this is an online community for the discussion of science. Unless you can provide contextual understanding of your points supported by linked peer-reviewed published science, no one here will take you seriously. Obviously, neither of us wish for that to happen. In your above comment, you provide no additional commentary for anyone reading it to understand why you write what you wrote or even that you understand it yourself, let alone how it is germane to the topic of this thread.
  30. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    #Gilles #82 and #83 You may use the search capabilities of this site, or use instead Google buy placing into the searchbox, for instance, [Trenberth travesty and deep ocean heat site:skepticalscience.com]. You'll find the story of the 0.9, 0.77 and all the values that have been used. You'll even find some peer reviewed literature accounting for more that 60% of Trenberth's travesty in deep ocean Southern waters -next home :)- (Trenberth's travesty had a value in the time of the famous email, and it isn't 0.9 at all -a hint, it included a 1020-. You should know this before discussing the subject). This site is full of material for you to replace your saying with a founded opinion.
  31. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    "So, you are left with no theory, no explanation, nothing other than your desire for AGW to be wrong. " Rob Honeycutt, I have explained why Greenland and Arctic temperature variations are not man made. I do not think that anyone here, has properly answered my points. Yes, Greenland is not the whole world, but polar regions are especially important for detecting any effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Therefore, seeing that there is no correlation between Greenland temperature and co2, is not 'cherry picking' and is indeed valid as evidence against AGW.
  32. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam#20: "the previous Greenland warming" In Soon's temperature graph shown by Adam#9, the temperature jumps by more than 1 degree in 1920. In the data available from Polyakov et al, this jump does not occur until the mid 1930s. Does this suggest that the surface temperature data for the early 20th century Arctic isn't all that reliable?
  33. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam, Re blog posts, I concur, but to a point. Please explain why Soon's TSI data after 1960 contradict the reputable (and official TSI ) data. His paper falls to pieces right there.
  34. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    "The appropriate scientific response would be to question why there is an inconsistency or even if your perception of the inconsistency is even accurate. " So, once again, could you please explain to me why there is no correlation between CO2 and Greenland temperature variations. You do agree that there is no correlation with CO2, right? So therefore could you please explain to me how it is possible that CO2 is the driver of Greenland's climate despite the fact there is no correlation.
  35. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Albatross@19 I do not think that Adam is "misrepresenting Dr. Box." He is using Dr Box's research to come to a different conclusion than the Dr himself. Adam@20 "KR natural factors are indeed still present and can explain observed climate changes." Natural factors are still at work, no one would deny this. There seems to be great disagreement with your second assertion though. One paper by Soon is a good start to supporting your argument, but why is his dissenting opinion more credible than all the others he disagrees with?
  36. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    "I'm sorry, but several people now have very patiently explained the errs of your ways to you, yet you are not listening." No, I have not been answered. You just keep repeating the same arguments over and over again (e.g. that Greenland is not the whole world) and are not giving the issue appropriate thought.
  37. Rob Honeycutt at 06:54 AM on 14 April 2011
    It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Looking at Soon's paper he relies on Hoyt and Schatten [1993] (and update from D. Hoyt, 2005) for his TSI data. I find this data heavily referenced on all the standard denier websites.
  38. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Rob et al., There is something horribly wrong with those TSI data in Soon's figure, especially after 1960, where he has increasing TSI and all the reputable data that I am familiar with shows a slow decrease in TSI since the sixties. Note too that in the Soon paper, the TSI the are inferred/estimated....... I really have no idea how the reviewers' missed that glaring problem.
  39. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Albatross, blog posts are not published and do not warrant a reply. Of course many pro-AGW websites are going to attack him and say that he is wrong. Only published criticism counts.
  40. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    "You've suggested filtering out 2003 and 2010 as anomalous: Why haven't those 1920's anomalies caught your attention? Or is it more convenient to be skeptical of things you want to disagree with than things that appear to support your position? " Muoncounter, the 2003 and 2010 spikes were just one year events, which quickly went back to normal straight after. Could you please explain how it could have been anthropogenic co2, which caused those two spikes, and why it went straight back down. The temperature in Greenland for 1920-1940 didn't have many outlier temp anomalies, it stayed at roughly the same trend over those few decades.
  41. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    @Gilles #82 (last part) You completely misunderstand what I teach our students: How to spot the people who are manipulating them, and when they need to use physics to do it, they do. For instance -the field is extremely wide and the exercises varied- they have to spot in a discussion like this people who lack education and knowledge in the subject but even though that fact they manufacture a short argument from blogs they like and a grueling 10-minute Google search and keep repeating and recycling what they found -but they slowly move as the discussion's "centre of gravity" displaces-. The fact is that this kind of people can control what they say in a day by day basis, but they are not coherent at all week after week, and students can gather mass evidence of they being just cheaters. Some of them avoid being spotted by changing usernames, but most of them really think that they are right and fair, and valiently keep using the same ego-nick site after site, be it "Tinkerbell" or "Goofy241". Enough by now as this is pretty an off-topic in this thread (though it shouldn't be in this site).
  42. Rob Honeycutt at 06:44 AM on 14 April 2011
    It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam... "Rob it is not unreasonable to look at an area's (and not the world's) climate change and see if it fits with CO2 forcing." It is not unreasonable to look at an area to see if it is consistent with CO2 forced warming. But it is not reasonable to locate what you believe to be an inconsistency and dismiss all other information because of it. The appropriate scientific response would be to question why there is an inconsistency or even if your perception of the inconsistency is even accurate. That's how scientists get research money. "I found an area of science where we currently lack an understanding of the data or response being measured. Please give me money so we can better understand why this is the case." You have gone the other direction and decided because you think there is no correlation that the entire theory of AGW is wrong in spite of the overwhelming other evidence to the contrary. So, you are left with no theory, no explanation, nothing other than your desire for AGW to be wrong.
  43. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    KR oceanic oscilations play a major role in Arctic climate. They most likely brought in warmer waters, which caused the previous Greenland warming and are most likely what caused the most recent Greenland warming. KR natural factors are indeed still present and can explain observed climate changes.
  44. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam, Citing the much discredited Soon (that is but one of many examples) is not helping your case-- also, correlation is not causation. It seems that you have been gleaning papers from the "Prudent path" document which support your beliefs without being skeptical of their validity or credibility. As KE has noted, "Recent warming could not have happened without AGW; other forcings don't add up. " And you continue to misrepresent Dr. Box. I'm sorry, but several people now have very patiently explained the errs of your ways to you, yet you are not listening. You may not realize it, but by choosing to go down this road, you are essentially trolling, and not convincing anyone who has an understanding of these matters.
  45. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Rob#13: "they definitely don't agree with other data I'm locating..." Kelly O'Day shows another TSI/temp comparison that is vastly different from Soon's. Adam#14: "it is not unreasonable to look at an area's (and not the world's) climate change and see if it fits with CO2 forcing." Some would consider that a cherry-picking approach. "Greenland should be reacting to CO2, yet the fact that there is no correlation" You keep repeating that despite the correlation shown by Rob#4. Skeptics are known for their criticism of temperature records. If you look at the light blue line in the graph in #4, there are two years in the mid 1920's with extremely large upwards jumps. You've suggested filtering out 2003 and 2010 as anomalous: Why haven't those 1920's anomalies caught your attention? Or is it more convenient to be skeptical of things you want to disagree with than things that appear to support your position?
  46. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    KR, "Soon is not known for his quality of science, and appears to have neglected the last 30 years of data in his graph. " If you had actually looked at the graph presented in Soon's paper you would see that he clearly includes the last 20 years. His data goes all the way up to 2005. I am not pushing a strawman argument. If there is no correlation, that shows that there is no significant causation. But the strong correlation between Arctic temps and the sun shows that the sun is most likely the Arctic's dominant driver and not CO2. And Rob Honeycutt just so you know Willie Soon has written a much more detailed paper on the link between the sun and the climate, which carries on from his 2005 paper. 'Solar Arctic-Mediated Climate Variation on Multidecadal to Centennial Timescales: Empirical Evidence, Mechanistic Explanation, and Testable Consequences' by Willie Soon published in 'Physical Geography' (2009)
  47. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
    Is there a model that incorporates aerosol and oceanic effects? This is a very common expert skeptic argument. John Christy just used it in testimony to the US House of Representatives earlier this year. No one seemed to have any answer to it. It seems like incorporating these effects into the GCMs would be a normal step.
  48. Rob Honeycutt at 06:36 AM on 14 April 2011
    It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Definitely something fishy with Soon's chart on TSI. I'm finding numerous sources for TSI and none of them agree with Soon's representation.
  49. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    I like to think that the 'travesty' (in Trenberth's mind) isn't the absence of data, but that this knowledge could help (marginally, of course) in changing public opinion and policy formation. Every bit counts.
  50. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
    Adam - I'll repeat it again, look at the CO2 is not the only driver of climate thread for other forcings. The early century warming appears to have been due to high TSI and a decided lack of volcanic activity. The 1950-1970 cooling ties into sulfur aerosols, which decreased rapidly after the Clean Air act and other (international) attention to that pollution problem. Currently the insolation is dropping, we have a fair number of active volcanoes, and we're warming anyway - due to greenhouse gases, much higher CO2. The natural forcings that caused the early century warming are not currently active. Which is fortunate; if they were we would be warming at twice the current rate.

Prev  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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