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

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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.

It's not happening

It's not us

Take your pick. There's plenty of other specific blog posts not listed in the above Taxonomy listing.

Thanks!

Dikran Marsupial at 04:33 AM on 14 April 2011

Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Right, on to the claim about the IPCC fudging the satelite sea level data. Well, the first paper Morner appears to have published on this is this one: Mörner, N.-A., "Estimating future sea level changes from past records", Global and Planetary Change, Volume 40, Issue 1-2, January 2004, Pages 49-54 (www) Figure 2 of that paper gives the "raw" TOPEX/POSEIDON data for 1992-2000 "before any filtering or sliding mean average". Sadly he gives no source for the data giving in this figure in the paper. This was one of the things pointed out by a comment on Morner's paper published by Nerem et al. (Cazenave is one of the "et al."). Nerem, R.S. et al., "Comment on 'Estimating future sea level change from past records' by Nils-Axel Mörner", Global and Planetary Change Volume 55, Issue 4, February 2007, Pages 358-360 (www) Nerem et al say that Morners paper "completely misrepresents the record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satelite altimetry mission" and explain why that is the case. The first major criticism of Morner's paper is that it doesn't include a single reference to any altimetry study, all of which apparently refute his claim that there is no change in global mean sea level. I checked this, and it is indeed true, there are no references to any paper on TOPEX/Poseidon. Of the 33 references there are, there are however no less than 17 references to his own work. This would have rung warning bells for me had I been a reviewer! Back to Figure 2. Nerem et al. note that Morner gave no source for the data in his figure, but the speculate that it is the original raw release of data, with no corrections made for known problems with the instrument on the satelite. Note this is not about "filtering" or "sliding mean averaging" it is about calibration for known problems. These adjustments are well documented in the journals and Nerem et al give the references. So Morner has used raw data, which are known not to give an accurate indication of actual sea level changes due to calibration issues. Surely if he had researched the issue properly, he would at least have referenced the papers describiing these adjustments, and explained why they were incorrect. But that was obviously not the case. Nerem et al also briefly describe the nature of the adjustments for those who are interested. The story doesn't end there, because Morner wrote a comment on the comment. Mörner, N.-A., "Comment on comment by Nerem et al. (2007) on 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' by Nils-Axel Mörner (2004)", Global and Planetary Change, Volume 62, Issue 3-4, June 2008, Pages 219-220 (www) He starts of by criticising Nerem et al for not publishing their comment in a timely manner, which is ridiculous there is no "statute of limitations" that means you can get away with being wrong provided nobody notices for a year or two! He also complains that the first he knew of it was when it appeared in print. Surely for consistency, he should have sent his original paper to the TOPEX/Poseidon group for comment before publication - it is a pity that he didn't. Morner does however say where he got the data from, it was from a MEDIAS newsletter, and he obtained his curve was a "redrawing of this graph". This newsletter article is available on-line here, and this is the graph from that article:

The caption is as follows "Mean rise in the sea level observed by TOPEX/POSEIDON between October 1992 and April 2000 (about 1 mm/year)" So Morner has redrawn the plot from the newsletter, claiming that it shows no trend, when the caption of the figure in the article clearly states that there is a trend of 1 mm/year and a trendline is clearly depicted on the plot! Does Morner mention that? No, in fact in his comment on the comment, he reiterates that there is no trend in the data. Morner then says the figure reappears later with a greater tilt, and asks why that is. He then answers his own question by saying that the data in his figure include the adjustments described in a paper by Mitchum, but not later adjustments described in several other papers describing later adjustments to the data. He rejects these as being "subjective interpretations", which is about the weakest rebuttal of a criticism I have seen in a journal! So in otherwords, Morner redrew data from a newsletter (rather than actually getting the data and replotting it), ignored the fact that the original caption and diagram explicitly showed a non-zero trend, ignored even the existence of a set of adjustments made to the data due to known issues with the instruments, rejected them as "subjective interpretation" when this was pointed out. Says the "calibrations" (quotes his) are "very strongly debated" without giving a reference to a paper questioning the calibration. Does any of this inspire confidence? I'd say "no". Monckton outght to have checked out his source on this one a bit more carefully.

Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Links to newsletter updated to used Web Archive as original seems to be no longer available.

Adam at 04:32 AM on 14 April 2011

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
muoncounter, could you please actually provide the articles, which actually answer the points I brought up? ~~Before my comments were deleted, everyone just kept ignoring what I was saying, or just making weak claims like 'Greenland does not represent the whole world', so therefore it doesn't matter.~~ Muoncounter, as I explained in my comments, there is no correlation between co2 and Greenland temperature. If Co2 was driving Greenland warming, there should have been a correlation, but there wasn't. The current Greenland heat wave is exactly parallel to the previous heat wave, and shows no anthropogenic signal. Could you please provide peer reviewed papers answering those points. Nobody here has provided them yet.

Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic portions struck out. See my response to Albatross below for a plenitude of posts where your positions have been addressed, many times before. Veteran contributors here follow the Recent Comments listings, so any activity you place on any thread that interests them will show up. If, after reading the posts, you still have questions on them, place your questions there. Someone will answer you. But do it on the most appropriate thread, which this one is not.

e at 04:30 AM on 14 April 2011

There is no consensus
Bruce, Don't worry I have seen your deleted comments. My request was simple, let's forget the whole "is their consensus"/"isn't there consensus" argument and focus on the actual evidence. Do you agree with this approach? If so, the next steps are simple: organize your own thoughts on the evidence (do not just summarize what Bob Carter has to say), then find where the subject is covered in this site's List of Skeptic Arguments. If the content of the post does not address your concerns, then feel free to post your thoughts within that thread. Your posts will be clearly visible to anyone checking the recent comments link from the top menu. No need to clutter this thread with off-topic discussion. Is this not a reasonable request?

skywatcher at 04:28 AM on 14 April 2011

There is no consensus
#336 Bruce - It's hard to trust what you say when you wander into tired old arguments by your second sentence. The world is not cooling in recent times, as evidenced by 2010 being the warmest or 2nd warmest year on record (depending on your dataset) and the 2000's being the warmest decade. It is interesting to plot the global temperature data with a regression line from 1975-2000, then extrapolate that line through the last 10 years of temperature data. Most residuals lie above the line, indicating that this decade was even warmer than would have been forecast in 2000. Tamino's excellent post Riddle Me This illustrates this beautifully. And yes, there's a scientific consensus about that...

Bob Lacatena at 04:19 AM on 14 April 2011

How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
188, Harry Seaward,

Yes, your quote below is absolutely correct, but...

Yes, except that the quote wasn't directed at you, and had to do with a thread that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.

Adam at 04:12 AM on 14 April 2011

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Once again you seem to have deleted my comment, but I'll post it again anyway: Daniel Bailey “various components of Adam's misunderstanding” “I despair for your chances to reach him with the mindset he has displayed.” Once again, could you please actually provide evidence for your claims. It's no good simple making claims of faith. Why don't you actually show where I am wrong. I've looked back and seen that numerous comments I have written, in which I explained why Greenland climate is not dominated by co2, have been deleted. Why is that Daniel? Every time I confronted you or others on it, you just failed to answer me. All the science suggest that Greenland temperature variations are natural, which I explained in my comments, which you have now deleted. Daniel, if you can't answer my points, just admit it, instead of just deleting my comments.

Moderator Response: [muoncounter] You've been referred to Box's paper and a number of prior SkS threads on the topic of Greenland ice melt (there are at least 6, probably more). In addition, there are threads dealing with each objection to GHG-driven warming. Each of those threads have their own references to pertinent literature.

Your position seems to be a variant of 'no, it's not' because you found a couple of papers that make it seem that way. Those papers are also discussed in depth on other threads. Do not expect others to do the comprehensive research that you should be doing if you are serious about this question.

Bruce Frykman at 04:08 AM on 14 April 2011

There is no consensus
Good point he did say what you said he did. I'm not sure what we are calling recent warming, are we talking about the early 20th (warming) , mid 20th (cooling) later 20th (warning) recent (cooling). I believe Bob was saying that although CO2 will might well contribute to slight warming, any recent perturbations of the climate might well be in response to many other factors not at all related to man's use of fossil fuels. Do you have some proof that this statement is scientifically unsupportable (please no appeals to authority - just give us your own assessment) I don't know the basis of your interest in my claims since I can never be clear of what you have seen of them before they are deleted. Perhaps if you were to cut and save them before they are deleted you could very circuitously and circumspectly refer to them in some kind of code or something like that within your own comments. As to which of my claims are "scientific," would it be helpful to provide links to partisans of the issue as most here do in order to bolster defense of "the science" You must understand that I am operating under severe restraints here. Any criticism of the processes of this science will quickly be deleted after being characterized as unscientific. I was never aware that criticism of the processes of science would be characterized as unscientific. There is data that has been purported to represent the global mean surface temperature of the earth over decades to a high degree of accuracy. This data is not raw collected data but highly modified data collected under ever changing conditions as to how where and when it is collected. I am not in possession of the means which this data has been modified to corroborate the idea that the abstraction called can be accurately constructed and measured. I could of course instrument my own back yard but no one can or has instrumented the earth to collect global mean temperature. I could of course refer you to endless argumentation over the process of collecting and modifying the data that purports to measure this abstraction but that would simply be argumentation by appeal to authority which I am sure that your are aware represents fallacious argumentation.

Moderator Response: [muoncounter] The way to bolster your claims is to provide links to actual science, rather than partisans. Here are some hints to help avoid deletion of your comments:

Criticism of scientific processes is not quickly deleted; criticism of the scientists is. Criticism of the science based on hearsay, accusation or other unsubstantiated rumor-mongering is deleted. Arguments over the reliability of data collection and analysis methods have their own threads. However, those arguments must not be cherry-picked; they must also be tempered by the fact that multiple means of measurement often report the same thing, ie, it is not sufficient to claim 'the thermometers are all wrong' if, for example, satellites confirm those temperature readings.

If you find these basic parameters to be 'severe restraints,' perhaps there are better forums for your style of commentary.

Dikran Marsupial at 04:04 AM on 14 April 2011

Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
@John Bruno You really know when you are a denialist when you have used a technique/argument that has been parodied at DenialDepot. Along with SkS (naturally!), real climate and Tamino's blog, DenialDepot ought to be on everybodies Blogroll, it is total genius! BTW, I didn't realise it was a parody when I first saw it as well, which says a lot about some of the genuine skeptic blogs!

John Bruno at 03:54 AM on 14 April 2011

Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
@Dikran Marsupial No I hadn't; I just did. Amazing. I'm am still just beginning to grasp what we are up against. The "blog science" expert beat me to my own joke (although I don't think he was kidding) "Remember to apply your blog science skills and question everything. Question, for example, the conventional "wisdom" that says y-axes must go vertically and x-axes horizonally.Why should time go horizontally and extent go vertically? Remember that actual ice extent is a measure of the horizontal spread of sea ice, so in many respects by making the Y-axis more horizontal I have displayed the data in a more correct manner than so-called "phd scientists" do." and you have got to love this: "QUESTION: does the blue line show that median(?) ice extent has declined by 2 million sq km since 1978? ANSWER: Of course not, and it's quite easy to see if you follow the debate on this matter that only those with a socialist agenda to cap and tax carbon emissions say that it does. For an alternative view, check out Anthony Watts, a non-agenda-driven TV weatherman whose paycheck depends only on the free market. He has written extensively on Arctic ice extent and how the ice extent is increasing year over year and has not changed much at all anyway. Also, George Will of the Washington Post wrote an op-ed earlier this year noting that Arctic ice was not in decline, and if the defensive and shrill attacks he got from the warmist community are any indication, they don't have much to stand on here."

Bob Lacatena at 03:45 AM on 14 April 2011

The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
88, Gilles, As always, you just dodged my question. To repeat: Once again, just so that all casual readers can be clear, I'd like to challenge Gilles to (in a single, brief post, without digressing into all of his supporting evidence and irrelevant tangents) 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).

Adam at 03:41 AM on 14 April 2011

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Albatross, your statement is a bit hypocritical, since you obviously didn't read the paper I provided. From Mckay et al (2008) - “Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000 years. Superimposed on these long-term trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salin- ity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500–3000 years. The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century. ” “The millennial-scale variability in the eastern Chukchi Sea is characterized by quasi-cyclic periods of high SSS, high SST, and reduced sea-ice cover, which most probably reflects variations in the stratification of the upper water column. Such changes maybe related to tidal forcing and (or) large-scale mechanisms, such as AO/NAO- like oscillations. It is important to note that the amplitude of these millennial-scale changes in sea-surface conditions far exceed those observed at the end of the 20th century. ” Albatross, your own paper confirmed that Arctic sea ice has been melting since the 19th century, which I think you'll agree is long before we could have had any effect. Albatross, the reason the sea ice loss seemed to accelerate over the past three decades, is because that is only when satellites became available to monitor the ice. Before that we just had to use proxy data, which is not always accurate. Therefore whether the sea ice loss accelerated over the past 30 years is not certain.

dana1981 at 03:41 AM on 14 April 2011

Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Dikran - good point, this "S"PPI report could have come straight out of Denial Depot!

Bob Lacatena at 03:40 AM on 14 April 2011

The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
89, Gilles,

is that he doesn't think this means there is no warming

Except that you're equating what he "thinks" to what a movie critic "thinks" about a movie, or what you "think" about a flavor of ice cream. This is not the case. We have many disparate observational lines of evidence that show us, year after year, the globe continues to warm. Far more importantly we have a logical, consistent and verifiable understanding of climate and greenhouse gas theory that tells us the planet will continue to warm given current conditions, and it would be very, very surprising if it did not. The fact that the warming cannot be detected in short spurts of time is no different from the fact that one cannot tell that a heart is beating by listening for it in a time frame shorter than one beat. Your attempt to discredit Trenberths' position by equating it with opinion is equivalent to that of those who more directly misrepresent his words.

Philippe Chantreau at 03:35 AM on 14 April 2011

Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Oh this is precious! I thought that Beck held the record with his graph that had a break in the x-axis so he could show a cycle where there was none. Compared to this, he could be called timid. Talk about a trick to hide the incline. Where are ths skeptics? Why are they not commenting about this?

Philippe Chantreau at 03:20 AM on 14 April 2011

There is no consensus
Bruce Frykman, you're confused about what scientific consensus is. The subject has by now been extensively reasearched. The results of the research all point in the direction of one coherent whole, which can be called the consensus model of Earh climate. It is established enough that it has been elevated to the level of a scientific theory. Please do not start ranting about "theories are not fact"; if you know anything about what a scientific theory is, you know how stupid that argument is. That is what the consensus is. It is a consensus of research results, built over many years. It is not some sort of vote in which people get to say what they believe. It is constrained by the results of a a very large body of scientific work. Science has not been done by consensus, it's the other way around. As for Bob Carter, all you are demonstrating is how biased you are. You believe him because you like what he says. Can you be sure that he is not corrupt? No, just like you can't be sure that all the other scientists you half accuse have done anything wrong. But in his case, he says what you want to hear, so you trust him. This is the exact opposite of a skeptical attitude. I'l add that Carter's record of publications in climate is less than impressive. In the El-Nino paper, he tried to push a conclusion that was not supported by the data. Talk from "skeptics" about scientists under pressure always makes me smile. James Hansen has been under pressure, from his governement, with an official order; isn't that exactly the kind of thing you object? Did you object in that case? If not, why not? Cuccinelli engaged on a whitch hunt/fishing expedition against a scientist he didn't like and did so purely for political reasons, abusing the legal and political power given to him. Did you object to that? These are real, observable, documented occurrences of what you complain about. But they don't mandate your protest because they are perpetrated against those who say stuff you dislike. On the other hand the accusations you are trying to relay here have not yet been substantiated. No real evidence has been brought, zilch. The so-called climategate has only revealed how solid the science actually is. And yes, it is possible that Bob Carter is lying. Or that he's twisting the truth, or misrepresenting it, or taking it out of context. If you think all these other people are lying without a shred of evidence that they are, why would that not also be a possibility?

Dikran Marsupial at 03:11 AM on 14 April 2011

Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
@John Bruno You've been over at Denial Depot haven't you? _{If you haven't, you should! ;o)}

e at 03:10 AM on 14 April 2011

There is no consensus
Bruce>He made no such claim. I believe you have inadvertently created a straw-man. Check out your first video at 1:10, quote: "... no evidence at all that any these changes have anything to do with human activity or influence" Anyways, I'm not interested in Bob Carter's claims, I'm curious about your claims. Please take a look here, and post your specific scientific points in the appropriate thread. Don't worry we'll be able to see your posts wherever you put it, note the comments link at the top that displays all recent comments across all threads. I think we are all in agreement that evidence is better than consensus. So please, indulge us and bring forward your comments on the evidence (in the appropriate thread and in your own words, not Bob Carter's).

John Bruno at 03:07 AM on 14 April 2011

Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
You have admit that tilting a graph on its axis to alter the trend line is inventive and gusty, in a bizzaro kind of way. Seriously, where does it say the x-axis has to be horizontal?! :)

Albatross at 03:05 AM on 14 April 2011

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam, Well how interesting. I made a typographical error, the Polyak paper is (of course) for the last "few thousand years. Adam, you clearly did not even bother to read the link that I provided..... That is the problem with 'skeptics' they do not listen, they do not consult and interpret the science and scientists properly--that is not true skepticism, it is ideology. Anyhow, enough of this I'll do as Daniel has asked. Sorry for the OT Daniel.

Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks! Feel free to engage Adam appropriately; I despair for your chances to reach him with the mindset he has displayed.

Dikran Marsupial at 03:05 AM on 14 April 2011

Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
@CompFedUp I don't think we should be too hard on Morner, I gather he did make some real contributions early in his career, for instance this paper has 141 citations according to Google Scholar, which suggests it is a pretty good paper. His publication record suggests he was a researcher of international standing in the field a couple of decades ago. His more recent behaviour seems to me an indication of increasing frustration at a subject that has passed him by and he is now out of his depth, in his case probably due to the advent of high performance computing. Us academics should be understanding, it'll happen to us one day as well, and there but for the grace of God go we all! Hopefully when the time comes for me, I'll still have the sense (and self-skepticism) to opt for a quiet retirement. ;o)

clonmac at 03:04 AM on 14 April 2011

Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Did they seriously rotate the graph to make it look flat? That's just absolutely absurd and how could anyone even remotely think that's OK to do, lol. That's like rotating a company's sales trend graph to make it look like sales are going up, when instead they're going down. haha, wow. All you can do is just laugh.

Bruce Frykman at 03:00 AM on 14 April 2011

There is no consensus
RE: Bob Carter's claim is that no evidence exists for an anthropogenic source for recent warming. He made no such claim. I believe you have inadvertently created a straw-man. Bob Carter clearly has stated that carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas and that we are releasing more carbon into the fluid surface of the earth. Of course he also points out the fact that agriculture (wheat fields etc) represents another facet of anthropogenic climate change. It's the fact that growing crops and burning fossil fuels appears to redound to well understood benefits for mankind that recommends these activities to us. Computer modeling of various input scenarios might be interesting, but none of these models are predictive in nature and have established no such understanding towards making some reasoned fact based decision that curtailing either is in fact beneficial. These are thrusts of his claims.

Dikran Marsupial at 02:56 AM on 14 April 2011

Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
@pohjois Yes, I expect many of the others on the list are also sea level specialists, but I stopped looking when I found one that wasn't excluded by Morners apparent objection to modelling rather than observation. Doesn't say much for Christopher Booker as a journalist; the main fault is his for publishing Morner's accusations without checking.

Gilles at 02:48 AM on 14 April 2011

The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
concerning this post, I have changed a little bit my mind after reading carefully what Trenberth said . Let's listen to him : "This paper tracks the effects of the changing Sun, how much heat went into the land, ocean, melting Arctic sea ice, melting Greenland and Antarctica, and changes in clouds, along with changes in greenhouse gases. We can track this well for 1993 to 2003, but not for 2004 to 2008. It does NOT mean that global warming is not happening, on the contrary, it suggests that we simply can't fully explain why 2008 was as cool as it was, but with an implication that warming will come back, as it has." So : Trenberth actually said there wasn't any measurable , or much too few compared with theory, warming after 2004. So the "lack of warming" actually means what it means : no measurable warming. What he stresses is that he doesn't think this means there is no warming - he thinks that warming will "come back" - but this must be taken as the opinion of a respected scientist, not a fact, nor a truth of course.

Moderator Response: [muoncounter] The Trenberth diagram has been pored over in great depth on a number of prior threads. This usually results in the following suggestion: If you disagree with Dr. Trenberth, why not take your objections to his published work directly to him? We'd love to hear the results of that conversation.

Gilles at 02:41 AM on 14 April 2011

The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Albatross : then why are you posting unclear statements that require further explanation? I can't see what was wrong with #83 after your remarks ? 88 Sphaerica ; it is unclear because your statements are too vague : what warming? do you speak of temperatures? energy? on which timescale ? 100 years? 10 years ? answers are not the same ! FF are bad : I can't see why a class of hydrocarboned molecules would be bad or good. If you mean that burning FF brings more problems than they solve - I don't share this point of view, at least up to now. There may be a point where it starts being true, but I don't know where it is, nobody has clearly told me , and I'm not sure we will reach this point anyway. Anything else unclear ?

Berényi Péter at 02:32 AM on 14 April 2011

More wind, bigger waves, changing marine ecosystems
Interesting. It can explain recent Arctic warming. As you know, the thermohaline circulation is not a heat engine. It does not generate mechanical energy, it is a net consumer. Also, it does not warm the deep ocean, it cools it, because dense saline water in the North Atlantic can only sink to the bottom if it gets as cold as possible without freezing. And it can do that only if some cold dense water is removed from the abyss by another process operating elsewhere, otherwise it would get saturated. This other process is turbulent vertical mixing. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics Vol. 36: 281-314 (Volume publication date January 2004) DOI: 10.1146/annurev.fluid.36.050802.122121 VERTICAL MIXING, ENERGY, AND THE GENERAL CIRCULATION OF THE OCEANS Carl Wunsch and Raffaele Ferrari Now, turbulent vertical mixing is driven by breaking internal waves at ocean boundaries or at prominent bottom features like mid ocean ridges. There are two equally important energy sources for feeding these internal waves, tidal excitation and winds. Most of internal wave generation by wind (80%) occurs in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. If winds (and surface waves) were getting more intense there during the 23 years at the end of the last century indeed, that means more mechanical energy was fed into the conveyor belt which brought in more relatively warm surface water to the North Atlantic. However, winds are driven by pressure differences in the atmosphere which in turn are generated by temperature differences. On the other hand according to GCM calculations GHGs are supposed to make atmospheric heat distribution more even. Of course that's not what has happed above the Southern Ocean where the continent in the middle (Antarctica) is cooling while its surroundings (including the Peninsula) are warming slightly.

Rob Honeycutt at 02:32 AM on 14 April 2011

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam said... "Once again, that is evidence of warming, not human-caused warming." And once again, you are missing the forest for the trees. Warming, whatever the mechanism, must have a source. It doesn't just get warmer for no reason. Climate scientists have been looking at this intensively for decades now. We know current warming is not the sun. We know it's not part of the orbital pattern. We are clear that it's very unlikely to be cosmic rays. We know it's more than just internal variability (PDO, AMO, etc.). We know the radiative properties of CO2, the rising concentration rate in the atmosphere, and the role of GHG's in regulating the climate system. Literally, there is only one very unequivocal answer.

Moderator Response: [DB] Everyone, please take the various components of Adam's misunderstandings to more appropriate threads. He has been advised that this post is indeed about the uniform response of Greenland's varied glacier types to the warming of the Arctic. Please confine your discussions on this thread to that topic. Your enthusiasm, admirable as it is, needs to be focused and measured. Please set a good example for our current (and future) guests and participants here. Thanks!

Adam at 02:27 AM on 14 April 2011

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Albatross, “People, including me, have explained to you why those statements are wrong...and you simply ignore them or dismiss them.” “Wrong, and please do not patronize me. Your dismissive attitude and ignorance on the science are offensive to me as a scientist.” Why don't you actually provide examples of what you are saying, instead of just repeating 'faith claims'. I am skeptical of AGW, which should have been clear from my posts. Mspelto, once again, like I said,I agree with what you are saying in your article. I don't deny that there have been dramatic melting of glaciers. I just disagree, with the causes of it. ( -Snip-).

Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic digression into causation snipped.

Rob Honeycutt at 02:14 AM on 14 April 2011

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam... (Sorry moderator if this is going OT.) Just as a simple example of climate please watch this video. This is just a video of water vapor circulation on the planet. What it illustrates, though, is how varied and dynamic the climate system is. You are approaching the climate system as if it were some kind of homogenous unit where a given forcing is going to raise all ships in the harbor equally. This is just not the case. You have to look at what is happening in a very wide variety of locations over a longer span of time in order to see what effect a forcing is having on the broader climate system. Quite literally, what you are doing is looking at one segment of one data series for one location on the planet and trying to extrapolate what it "should" be doing in response to a global forcing mechanism. What we are doing here at SkS, and with Daniel's article, is looking at Greenland as one data point that is broadly consistent with the collective global data on temperature and physical responses (e.g., ice loss). You need to step back from the data a bit, Adam. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Moderator Response: [DB] "Mauri & Daniel's article"

Adam at 02:11 AM on 14 April 2011

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
"For example, Polyak et al. (2010) conclude that the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice in unprecedented in the past 200 years and cannot be explained by known natural variability." Albatross, 200 years ago the planet was in the midst of the little ice age, therefore you would expect the ice to higher then. A 200 year period is two short a time span, when comparing changes in Arctic sea ice. You have to look back several thousand years and see what it was like. Read Mckay et al (2008)

Moderator Response: [DB] The LIA is off-topic here.

Bob Lacatena at 02:09 AM on 14 April 2011

The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Gilles has 23 of the 88 posts on this thread, and yet I'm still not clear on where he stands. Last thread he seemed to admit that there was global warming and that FF were bad, but insisted that they could never, ever be eliminated, so we shouldn't even try. Here he seems to be insisting that the globe hasn't warmed and isn't warming. Once again, just so that all casual readers can be clear, I'd like to challenge Gilles to (in a single, brief post, without digressing into all of his supporting evidence and irrelevant tangents) 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).

Albatross at 02:08 AM on 14 April 2011

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
"Albatross, I have not insulted you or anyone else on this blog, so I can't see why you are insulting me." Wrong, and please do not patronize me. Your dismissive attitude and ignorance on the science are offensive to me as a scientist. Let us start with basics. Do you accept the theory of AGW?

mspelto at 02:06 AM on 14 April 2011

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Adam we do not really care what you believe. Dan and I did not state what we believe in the post. It is what has been observed, there is not a singular glacier type that responds in the same way to climate. And yet the climate signal unlike anything we have seen before in Greenland is yielding a synchronous response in basically all Greenland glaciers. These large glaciers are generally slow to respond to climate fluctuations. However, the current climate deviation is large enough to have generated the widespread and ubiquitous response of glaciers.

Moderator Response: [DB] Thank you, Mauri.

Albatross at 02:06 AM on 14 April 2011

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
People, including me, have explained to you why those statements are wrong...and you simply ignore them or dismiss them.

dana1981 at 02:04 AM on 14 April 2011

Solar Hockey Stick
I actually just wrote this post because I found the Vieira study interesting and wanted to see how their TSI reconstruction would influence global temps in the present and past. I didn't have any pre-conceived notions, and in fact I was surprised how small the TSI contribution to previous climate changes was. I think a key result here is that the blade of the solar hockey stick corresponds to a TSI radiative forcing 10 times smaller than the blade of the CO2 hockey stick. Invoke all the indirect effects you want, you're pretty darn unlikely to overcome that factor of 10.

Adam at 02:02 AM on 14 April 2011

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Albatross, "This statement is just plain wrong: "The simple facts about Greenland's temperature variaitons, simply contradict AGW" And so is this one, "mspelto, there is no anthropogenic signal in Greenland's climate. " Could you please explain how those statements are wrong. "Surely you reallize the folly of suing a point location to disprove a theory which dictates that the planet's mean temperature will increase as GHG concentrations increase? " Albatross, polar regions are especially sensitive, much more than the rest of the world. I think you'll agree that patterns in the Arctic and Greenland are very important for the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming. ( -Snip- ) "Any thoughts on that and the fact that glacier mass around the world is in decline? And please don't trot out something from Monckton et al., or some select examples of glaciers that are not losing mass. The point is that global glacier and ice sheet ice volume is decreasing as the planet warms. " ( -Snip- ) "Folks here are infinitely better informed than those at disinformer blogs like WUWT. Why, because we actually follow the science without distorting and cheery-picking and misrepresenting it :) " Albatross, I have not insulted you or anyone else on this blog, so I can't see why you are insulting me.

Moderator Response: [DB] Digressions into warming causation snipped.

e at 02:02 AM on 14 April 2011

There is no consensus
Bruce, The specific topic of this thread is "is there a scientific consensus". Displaying the opinion of a single scientist does not refute this claim. Nobody is arguing that dissenting opinion does not exist, only that it is a small minority when considering those with the most expertise on the subject. Bob Carter's claim is that no evidence exists for an anthropogenic source for recent warming. That claim is addressed here and here. Please review those posts and place any relevant arguments within the appropriate thread. Thus far you have not provided any specifics about why you doubt AGW (and this thread would not be the appropriate place to do so).

Albatross at 02:01 AM on 14 April 2011

The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Gilles, sorry, but I'm trying very hard not to feed the troll-- they have insatiable appetites :)

dana1981 at 01:59 AM on 14 April 2011

Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
I think we can combine Dikran #1 and pohjois #5 with CompFedUp #4 - apparently Morner thinks he's the only real sea level expert in the world. As I said, even "experts" need data to support their claims. Morner has none.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments

It's not happening

It's not us