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  1885  1886  1887  1888  1889  1890  1891  1892  1893  1894  1895  1896  1897  1898  1899  1900  Next

Comments 94601 to 94650:

  1. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re 344 KR You very kindly provided an excel sheet for doing calculations showing energy tranferred by radiation without any indication of the relative temperatures between the heat source and the heat sink. Now it is a fundamental of physics that, without knowing these temperatures, you cannot make any energy transfer calculations or predict any temperature changes. You claim that I do not understand your arguments, do you understand my need to know what the various temperatures are involved in you 'warming' model? PS Your EXCEL explanation will not load in my MS EXCEL, Would you be so kind as to provide a clearer version; perhaps just the cell identities and the cell entries? Thanking you in advance.
  2. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    protestant - I'm not saying I'm certain the divergence is due to the lack of proxy data. I'm saying your certainty that the divergence illustrates a problem with the proxies is misplaced and unwise. Moreover, once again you are scoring an own goal. If you are correct, and the proxies underestimate large temperature swings, then the prior temperature changes were larger than we think, which means climate sensitivity is higher than we think. But if you examine the figure I provided, you can see that the instrumental record and Ljungqvist proxy data match up quite well until about 1980, which constitutes about 85% of the instrumental record, only diverging at the end when there is little proxy coverage. The logical conclusion is that the divergence is due to a lack of proxy data.
  3. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel Here's another Excel exercise. "Row 1: "Emissivity" "0.6" Right click the 0.6 and "Name a range" to "Emissivity" Row 3: "Sun" "Earth" "Emitted" "Difference" Row 4: "240" "=A4" "=B4*Emissivity" "=A4-C4" Row 5: "=A4" "=B4+D4" "=B4*Emissivity" "=A5-C5" Copy Row 5 and paste it into the next 20-30 rows. As the Earth emissivity goes down relative to a theoretic black-body, due to the widening/deepening GHG bands in the spectra of the total planetary emission, surface radiation must go up due to the difference (energy conservation) between incoming and outgoing radiation. I find an emissivity of 0.606 and input of 240 gives a surface radiation of 396, emission to space of (again) 240 on convergence. Interestingly enough, this is just about what the planetary emissivity has been calculated to be...
  4. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    "Models do not reproduce the behavior in temperature series (1940's)." No, they sure don't: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figure 9-5 See Models are unreliable. Or just chuck all climate models and basic physics out and go with the 'unforced free oscillations' idea -- call it UFOs!
  5. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    protestant, You seem to be arguing in circles and using excuses to try and discredit whichever information is inconvenient to you. You have questioned the validity of the temperature data from the instrument record, then questioning the splicing, then introducing the red herring of transient oscillations, now you seem to be arguing that the paleo reconstructions are questionable (including Ljungqvist it seems). Well, Idso et al. sure are placing a lot of emphasis and weight on Ljungqvist (2010) and excluded the spliced temperature data from the instrumented record that ljungqvist (2010) included in his paper. All data have issues, that does not render them useless. You have been shown to be wrong about a few things on this thread, yet you insist on trying to obfuscate and detract from the own goal scored by Idso et al. PS: If you wish to challenge Tamino's work, then please do so at Tamino's site.
  6. Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
    # 80 Thanks KR, I found the ACRIM vs PMOD link after I posted #79. Actually, the paper I wanted to cite for PMOD TSI reconstuction is Frohlich, the observed trend since 1978 is not significantly different from zero. Shouldn't Figure 1 here be replaced by Fig. 1 in the Frohlich paper? Thanks for the lively debate on climate trends. I'm reading about the Steig vs O'Donnell controversy with the 2009 Antarctic temperature reconstruction. Apparently, PCA can be tricky with sparce data fields. I searched but couldn't find a thread on this topic. I'm sorry to read that the matter became overly personal.
  7. Prudent Path Week
    Over the past several days I have participated in discussions over several threads as many of us have. I have seen many very well thought out and well presented arguments with the best intentions of helping all to understand the many aspects of climate science. Conversely, I have observed many posts that seem to ignore the most basic principles of physics as well as the many requests to look at data and citations presented to them. Many contrarian arguments have been thoroughly debunked by addressing specific questions and providing scientifically supporting evidence only to have the originator of the argument to return and say their question was not addressed. I know many posters here as well as I have become somewhat frustrated with the experience. For the past 24 hours I have only observed posts from the "Recent Comments" page and begin to look at this from a whole new prospective. No doubt it was difficult for me not to respond to some of the posts, but I begin to realize something very important. Anyone coming to this site seeking information and understanding with an open mind can easily see what is happening in the climate debate. One side presents only science with supporting evidence and references from the scientific community. The other side continously ignores the information being presented and even refuses to read any of the many articles presented on this site already addressing their questions. Any open minded person visiting this site whether they post or not can easily see this and separate the wheat from the chaff. In my opinion, I think the contrarians are their own worst enemy, if by nothing else, the tone presented in their own posts. As someone said in the "Meet The Denominator" thread, "you are the gift that keeps on giving". Understand my above comments apply only to those posters who have no intention of engaging in meaningful debate and not the true skeptics who wish to discuss and exchange ideas. Thank you John, Moderators and everyone connected with SkS for following the "proper path", rather than the "prudent path", with such a high quality site for us all to learn and enjoy.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] On behalf of John and the other moderators and the large community of regular posters & commentators (not to mention the lay readership at large) here: Thank you. You are a breath of fresh air & have succinctly summed up the nature and flavor of the debate going on here.
  8. Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
    citizenschallenge, I think the problem may be that ACE blends wind speed and storm duration, as seen here in Bell et al 2000: ... accumulating Vmax^2 for all 6-hourly periods in which the system is either a tropical storm or hurricane, thereby also accounting for the number and duration of storms while at a tropical storm status. This modified HDP index is referred to as accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) index, and is both a physically and statistically reasonable measure of overall activity during a given hurricane season. This was a modification of 'hurricane destructive potential (HDP),' which was originated by William Gray in 1987. As a wind speed-duration index, ACE neglects rainfall. As we associate increasing sea surface temperature with more intense precipitation events, it is not unreasonable that ACE appears to have little or no trend. For example, Fran (1996, cat 3) has a higher ACE (26) than Katrina (2005, cat 5, ACE 20). Though lower in windspeed, Fran became a TS while well out in the Atlantic and thus had a much longer track. (wikipedia has detailed storm season histories; ACE data are tabulated here). Without including rainfall, ACE has the potential to misstate the energy redistribution taking place during a hurricane by a large amount: The rate of energy release for each mm/hour of rainfall is three times as great as the solar energy (~350 Watts/m2) that falls on the same surface area. Thus the precipitation process concentrates heat that was used to evaporate moisture from large expanses of the tropics by factors of ten to a hundred into those regions where rain occurs. While solar heating of the atmosphere takes place mainly at the surface, the heat released by condensation occurs at high altitudes where it has a greater impact on the atmosphere's large scale circulation. Averaged over the entire Earth the heating released by precipitation is about five times greater than that produced by variations in surface heating.
  9. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    And how do you confirm its due to lack of proxies? It is just an interpretation. Though it might be partly an explanation, but what is also clear from the earlier reconstructions is that the proxies do not follow measured temperatures so closely no matter how you train them. Therefore they are not as accurate as thermometers, no matter how you bake it. And there is a reason why Ljungqvist suggested extreme caution with thermometer interpretations, isn't there? Can you disagree with this?
  10. Smoking, cancer and global warming
    Chemist1, it's no use posting results of searches which will lead to biased work subsidised and backed by big government and the Pharma industry - haven't you learnt the ways of those who are underpinning the AGW 'scam' ? I want 100% evidence giving physical facts that prove that a smoker will die of lung cancer.
  11. Smoking, cancer and global warming
    rhjames, don't tell me you believe all those elitist scientists and their dodgy/fraudulent/wrong/biased/etc data ? And you believe that it is a consensus ? Well, you know how wrong any consensus can be, don't you ? Anyway, here are more 'facts' from a 'proper' scientist working tirelessly to expose the truth like a modern-day Galileo : It's Official - Smoking Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer... As to your belief about climate sensitivity, perhaps you had better read this thread (How sensitive is our climate? - there are also Basic and Intermediate versions available) and post there to show which "known science" leads you to trust a figure of "a 1 degC increase".
  12. Smoking, cancer and global warming
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Smoking+cigarettes+kills&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp=on Here. Now I know arguments from statistical uncertainty and probability may be invoked but the sample sizes, the replicability in actual individuals and groups of people,e the random assignment, the years of robust research and qualitative analysis provide the actual proof and not just 'evidence.' Newer published data: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Smoking+cigarettes+kills&as_sdt=0%2C33&as_ylo=2010&as_vis=0
  13. Smoking, cancer and global warming
    11 rhjames absolutely correct. Just to add a little: Many of the chemicals in cigarette smoke individually have support from numerous studies providing a some causal links between repeated exposure and cancer incidence and prevalence as well. In addition, global warming itself is not falsifiable, while other empirical studies are. 1 degree means nothing.
  14. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    protestant, I think this is the fourth time I'm saying this now. Ljungqvist only has 10 proxies extending to 1999. Assuming that the divergence toward the end of the 20th century between actual temps vs. proxy temps is due to a problem with the proxies rather than a lack of proxies is unwise.
  15. Smoking, cancer and global warming
    JMurphy - this is a foolish comment you quoted. There is statistical conclusion at extremely high probability level that smoking kills people. The factors of stress, diet etc have all been accounted for in the studies. If someone smokes, we don't know they will die of lung cancer, but they have a significantly increased possibility of death by lung cancer. Take, 10,000 smokers, and some will die of lung cancer. To compare this with the likelihood of doubling CO2 will cause a 3 degC temperature increase is not valid. There is no data to back this up - only computer models and theory which are still based on very limited understanding of many contributing factors. If someone says that doubling CO@ might result in a 1 degC increase, then I'll accept that as consistent with known science. Anything beyond that is just guess work at this stage.
  16. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Sigh,it seems I am not getting out of here. Robert, what has Steig vs O'donnell have to do with this? I am completely not interested in any rant written by DC nor Romm (nor Climateaudit). But what concernes is that Steig was Reviewer A and which is a disgrace. Don't you agree one shouldnt be a reviewer when your own work is critisized? I havent looked on the math by either side so I do not know which paper is right, but I tend to believe O'donnell is. But I am not willing to dig this any further since other details are more interesting, and besides, I have a day job. And if DC has anything against M&W then I wish him best luck in publishing it. As I said before I am not at the moment interested on discussing about the paper as a whole, but about the statement I cited. But I definitely need to point you out, that if you are reading blogs on a highly polarized issue, you *must* be reading and considering the points on both sides. I am sure you are doing it, but many people commenting these blogs are certainly not, thus biasing their opinions towards the 'side' they picked in the start. And btw, thanks for the decadal data you have calculated. The differences on our calculations seems to be because I have whole NH data, where you have just extratropical. I trust you and am not willing to spend any time checking the results. But I still dont see how that should be compared on data, which is necessarily smoother and doesn't respond to temperatures as good as thermometers. You must take into account, that if the proxies do not respond to temperatures as good *now*, why would they do it 500, 1000, 1500 nor 2000 years ago?
  17. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Okay Protestant, actual data here Decade LJ2010 Hadcrut 30-90N 1880–1889 -0.337 -0.242 1890–1899 -0.25 -0.223 1900–1909 -0.293 -0.313 1910–1919 -0.296 -0.31 1920–1929 -0.171 -0.087 1930–1939 0.004 0.132 1940–1949 0.019 0.11 1950–1959 0.037 0.063 1960–1969 0.015 0.023 1970–1979 -0.074 -0.028 1980–1989 0.082 0.149 1990–1999 0.056 0.459 2000-2009 0.789 There were no "predictive techniques" used. [edit made by Dikran Marsupial] Regarding MW10, You do realize that they had multiple comments and responses to their paper showing flaws throughout correct? I'm just curious whether you took the time to realize that they implemented things wrong quite a bit. Including using local proxies to try and correlate with hemispheric temperatures rather than correlating to local temps and averaging to make a hemispheric average. Many more examples of errors are found here: http://deepclimate.org/2010/08/19/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/ [edit made by Dikran Marsupial]
    Moderator Response: As requested I have made edits to this post rather than deleting it; however this is an unnecessary imposition on the moderators, further transgressions will be deteled.
  18. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    #80. All I can say that you didn't understand what I am talking about. For example, Taimno's excersice on the recent 30 year trend *is* a period where also AMO is increasing (DelSole), and contributing this circa 0.08K/decade. Therefore he should have removed it. Tamino didn't demonstrate that AMO would alias effect global warming. Nope, njet, nada. If you had read Bob Tisdale's post (I see again the man was attacked by the commentators, not his arguments), Kaplan SST has a smaller trend in North Atlantic than Oi.v2 Reynolds or HadISST. Therefore he biased his result choosing Kaplan and removing GISS (with land data included, how dubious is that). His demonstration was highly erroneus. I never made such a claim that AMO would explain all of the observed warming, but there might be some indication that there is cycles like AMO on even centennial time scales (the variability on the late holocene, no forcing can explain it!) Ok, now I will disappear, for real.
  19. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    protestant, The fact remains that this comment made in the "Prudent path" misinformation document is not supported by the data and is demonstrably false: "it was just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently during both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods" That statement of course does not suggest anything about how much more warming we will very likely experience in the coming decades-- it is thus also a red herring. Also, the fact remains that the overwhelming evidence points to a climate sensitivity near +3 K for doubling CO2 and taking into account feedbacks.
  20. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    #83. I will still anwer short: Models do not reproduce the behavior in temperature series (1940's). Only an explanation which includes those oscillations would. My clear point is, they do not (necessarily) generate heat (unless they are linked in changes to cloud cover, like ENSO is), but move heat around. This is enough to cause a short term (<65years) fluctuations in surface temperature. My point also ISNT that PDO (nor AMO) would explain *long term* trend. But the surely will when the trend is less than a full cycle. But I guess I had enough here, I will read any responses that might appear and then disappear. BB.
  21. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Also, There was some commenter who insinuated that the use of GISS was because they supposedly "inflate" the warming. As I have shown before there is WIDE agreement amongst satellite and instrumental records, as well as including reanalysis datasets. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=14 In fact, Hadley is the one whose station combination method has been shown to be dubious (by Roman M, a "skeptic") and therefore undersamples the actual warming. Furthermore, the european center for medium and long range forecasting who produce the most accurate of the reanalysis datasets (ERA) has also confirmed that Hadleys station combination method results in less sampling of the regions that are warming the most. I can even show you a direct example of this if you like? It is a huge annoyance that people continually make these claims. NASA data is used because it is the best representation of the trends, NASA assumes that the stations around the high arctic warm at the same rate as the high arctic whereas hadley just assumes they have the same trend as the global average. If you know anything about polar amplification you know which assumption is more accurate. Finally as I showed before in my post on temperature trends and Monckton, the Reanalysis datasets which include the most data agree much better with NASA than Hadley. So enough of the insinuations about selective method choice. There are in fact "better" methods and Hadleys is not better.
  22. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Robert, I will not answer to Joe Romm's rant claiming Judy 'discredited'. You will definitely find blogs and writings where each of us and each and single one of the blogs in the internet are being 'discredited'. Have you read the two referenced I cited few messages back, about AMO? And please tell me, how do you get an almost one degree incline from mid 1900's if you calculated only decadal averages? As my calculations show above, the incline is less than 0,45degC, and I didnt use any predictive techniques. 2010 data is being used (downloaded from CRU) so that the graph ends where it should end, 2005.
  23. Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
    thepoodlebites - Solar activity change hasn't been large enough to be significant since the late 70's; some measures (as you correctly point out) rising, some dropping, neither movement significant enough to change the climate based on our understanding of climate sensitivity. And statistically, random walk components including ENSO and PDO don't hold up (not numerically supportable) as drivers of the climate over oscillatory periods >11-15 years. For longer time scales the various forcings including CO2 emissions are the statistically relevant issues.
  24. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    I don't suppose RW1 or Co2isNotEvil can help in explaining things to damorbel? Would be nice to see the skeptics helping each other out rather than leaving all the hard work to KR :)
  25. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Protestant, Apparently you do not understand the meaning of 'oscillation'? Consider finding the area under a sine curve over a full period; you always obtain 0. "Why do both, AMO and PDO STRONLGY correlate with temperatures?" Wow, then that must mean that correlation = causation? Thanks, we can use that basic principle to demonstrate CO2 -> increased temperature. For the lack of any long term effects due to the PDO, see the appropriate thread. Short answer: Ocean circulation moves heat around; it doesn't add heat. It is a response to a pre-existing non-uniform heat distribution. You really shouldn't need to see a link for that. This is not an oscillation thread; further oscillation discussion should go to the appropriate thread.
  26. Dikran Marsupial at 06:23 AM on 24 February 2011
    Hockey Stick Own Goal
    NB
    Moderator Response: Please, no more accusations of dishonesty, there have been enough warnings on this thread already.
  27. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Dikran Marsupial: So now that I brought up McShane & Wyner, I hear some commenters starting to discuss about the paper overall. I am not interested in sucha discussion now. But here is the spesific statement I was referring to, and to which I fully agree: "It is not necessary to know very much about the underlying methods to see that graphs such as Figure 1 are problematic as descriptive devices. First, the superposition of the instrumental record (red) creates a strong but entirely misleading contrast. The blue historical reconstruction is necessarily smoother with less overall variation than the red instrumental record since the reconstruction is, in a broad sense, a weighted average of all global temperature histories conditional on the observed proxy record. Second, the blue curve closely matches the red curve from 1850 AD to 1998 AD because it has been calibrated to the instrumental period which has served as training data. This sets up the erroneous visual expectation that the reconstructions are more accurate than they really are." So far, I havent seen any evidence that would be in contradiction to this point. Even if you disagree with some points made in the paper, I dont think there should be any disagreement on this one. And this is my point. Using temperature data on top of proxydata should be done with extreme caution, and at least not with "predictive" smoothing excersises. What I also didn't get an answer to, is that what kind of smoothing Dana and Robert used. Was it Minimum Roughness, or something else with 'predictions'? Since rolling averages (or decadal if you wish, as Ljungqvist used) do not give even closely such a staggering result, it is a clear hint towards that something like this was being used.
    Moderator Response: Sorry, my responsibilities as moderator mean that I have had to withdraw from active discussion on this thread.
  28. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Protestant, I am not going to get drawn into a mud fight with you about various blogs on the internet. I would, however, urge you to be more skeptical about the true motives of some people claiming to be interested in "reconciliation". Tamino demonstrated that removing "the estimated impact of el Nino, volcanic eruptions, solar variation, and the residual annual cycle" the observed global warming signal is clearly evident. He also demonstrated that "Correlations with the AMO index do alias effects of global warming". Regarding DeSole et al., I will leave readers with these excerpts form their abstract: "This component, called the Internal Multidecadal Pattern (IMP), is stochastic and hence does not contribute to trends on long time scales, but can contribute signifi- cantly to short-term trends" and "While the IMP can contribute significantly to trends for periods of 30 years or less, it cannot account for the 0.8 C warming trend that has been observed in the twentieth century spatially averaged SST." Seems that you are seeing what you want to see protestant. And you still keep avoiding answering my question about climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 (with feedbacks). Why?
  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel I've thought about the difficulty of getting this particular point through to you, and have a small Excel exercise for you. First row (1): "Sun" "Earth" "Atmosphere" "Space" Second row (2): "240" "=A2+0.5*C2" "0" "=B2-0.5*C2" Third row (3): "=A2" "=A2+0.5*C2" "=0.2*B2" "=B2-0.5*C2" Copy the third row and paste it in the 4th-20th rows. The "0" in the second line is to avoid a circular reference, but the actual guts take place in the third row. This represents solar input energy (240), surface radiated energy, energy intercepted/spherically radiated by the atmosphere, and energy radiating out to space. Constants (such as the 0.2 of IR intercepted by the atmosphere) are illustrative, but not tied directly to real values. The 0.5 radiated up and down from the atmosphere goes directly to space or the surface, so this is essentially a single-layer radiative atmospheric model without convection. What you will see is that the atmosphere, due to redirecting half of the energy back to the surface, warms it so that it radiates ~267 rather than 240. Meanwhile, the output to space is still 240, regardless. A cool object (atmosphere) has warmed a warmer object (the surface). Try constants other than 0.2 for IR absorption, and see how it goes; a 0.3 absorption brings the surface radiation to 282. Energy comes in from the sun, goes out to space - and reflecting insulation keeps the surface warmer than it would be otherwise, while maintaining the conservation of energy. Think about it.
  30. citizenschallenge at 06:14 AM on 24 February 2011
    Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
    MC, OK I've gone through it again with more care and I've look at some of the links below but am as confused as ever about the various claims. In particular, when someone waves that The FSU graph at #18: "Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy" graph in one's face. Why no trend? Because Maue lumped all cyclones together and would have come up with something very different if he looked at just category 4, 5 storms? (is such a chart available?) And if one does that, what about being charged with cherry picking?
  31. Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
    # 76 I’m not disputing the surface warming since 1980, about +0.4 C in the UAH satellite record. I’m disputing the amount of the human component, specifically, CO2 induced global warming. There are alternative hypotheses that should be considered for both surface warming and droughts, including solar and SST variability, specifically ENSO and PDO. If the PDO shifts to more negative this decade with more La Nina’s than El Nino’s, then the global drought patterns will change and the Dai et al results will be more about drought patterns associated with persistent El Nino’s than any CO2-induced AGW signal. # 77 I have repeatedly pointed out that solar irradiance has not been dropping since 1960, according to LISIRD, TSI. The accuracy of PMOD reconstruction is in dispute, specifically, that the PMOD TSI trend is incorrect. But solar cycle 24 is weaker than 21-23 and it will be interesting to see how the global temperature record responds.
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    KR you write:- ""Net" == summed, total, the amount actually moving after all elements are considered, etc." Follow your own logic, KR. The Earth's surface is a 'net' loser of energy; the upper atmosphere a net gainer. My conclusion is that 1/the surface is a net loser because it is warmer than the upper atmosphere so it (tends) to cool down, being a net loser of energy to the upper atmosphere. And 2/ the upper atmosphere is a 'net' gainer, therefore it tends to warm up with the (net +ve) heat gain from the surface since the upper atmosphere is cooler than the surface. No need for SoD's explanation or a visit to the good Dr. Spencer to understand this, is there?
  33. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel - Rereading this thread, I have decided that it's not worth my while to rehash issues that have been discussed ad infinitum with you. You've been pointed at the appropriate information; I would suggest reading the thread over and working on understanding it. You've been given the data, you've been given multiple explanations - but your last post indicates you are repeating the same errors you've displayed from the very beginning. >300 comments later, and you're still holding to those physically incorrect views. Rehashing this topic with you yet again is a repetitive rhetorical exercise, unless you show some propensity towards learning. I'm not going to waste my time. Sorry about the rather harsh attitude; I'm just getting tired of people who simply refuse to learn.
  34. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Harry Seaward - the first graph contains all the data from the studies in question. So it can't really be extended any further back in time, unless we attach data from different studies.
  35. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Tamino didn't show anything about AMO. He just claimed it as a result of global warming and didnt substract it. His claims about AMO are also based on false calculations and interpretations, like substracting GISS from Kaplan to prove it where GISS does not use Kaplan SST, see here: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2011/02/comments-on-taminos-amo-post_03.html). If you substract global SST anomalies (*the* nonlinear GW signal) from NA anomalies you get AMO, as you do by detrending NA. Same result. Just for the sake of this discussion, read the two references I just gave you (DelSole et al and Otterå) Also you are referring on dishonesty about ClimateAudit and claimed Climate etc. is a politically motivated site. Isn't that against your moderation policy? FYI Curry is a climate scientist and isnt keeping her blog for 'politics', but for truth seeking. I hope the rules are same for everyone here.
    Moderator Response: Indeed they are. Please leave the moderation to the moderators, and avoid inciting further discussion of topics that would contravene the comments policy.
  36. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel - "Net" == summed, total, the amount actually moving after all elements are considered, etc. I suggest you read Roy Spencers excellent discussion, Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still. If you've already read it and disagree, read it again. Repeat until understood.
  37. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Protestant, "So RealClimateScientists know better than statisticians?" Sigh, actually follow the links and read the submissions before commenting. There were 13 or so articles submitted that discuss M&M10, from both paleo climate scientists and statisticians. I happened to give you the RC link for convenience. And I don't trust those affiliated with ClimateAudit-- their modus operandi and objectives were exposed a long time ago. Talking of which, thanks, but I do not go to politically-motivated sites like Climate etc which seem more interested in slandering climate scientists and web traffic than science. Anyhow, that is off topic and irrelevant. Also, as shown by a statistician (Tamino), the PDO, ENSO and AMO do not explain the observed long-term increase in global temperatures. So internal climate modes, while they may have had a role at times during the MWP, cannot explain the duration of the warming. I note that you have not provided a single paper to back up your assertions. Actually ENSO is well understood, and the "delayed oscillator" mechanism explains the formation of El Ninos. To me, the LIA is of more interest as far as inferring climate sensitivity goes, because the cooling was more widespread than during the MWP. We also have a very good idea what caused the LIA, and it was not internal climate variability but mostly by the Maunder minimum and aerosol loading from volcanism. Those factors producing such marked cooling over a prolonged period point to higher climate sensitivity, not lower climate sensitivity. You did not answer my question about climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 (with feedbacks).
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I know protestant was pushing the boundaries of the comments policy, but please do not follow likewise. Accusations of dishonesty go against the comments policy, and will result in posts being deleted.
  38. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Can the first graph be extended further back in time and keep the same format?
  39. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    #74. They might know the data, but they do not know the methods.
  40. Dikran Marsupial at 05:14 AM on 24 February 2011
    Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Protestant@69 wrote "So RealClimateScientists know better than statisticians?" Yes, actually they do know the data better than the statisticians; the specialist statisticians know the statistics better. Either working alone is unlikely to do as good a job as both in collaboration. A statistician applying relatively advanced statistical techniques without a good grasp of the nature of the data generating process is more than likely to shoot themselves in the foot. I know this to be true as I am a statistician, and I regularly collaborate with scientists and their input is absolutely vital.
  41. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re 339 KR this is what your link to SoD's explanation of the 2nd Law actually says:- "In the case of the real “greenhouse” effect and the real 2nd law of thermodynamics, net energy is flowing from the earth to the atmosphere. But this doesn’t mean no energy can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground." "It simply means more energy flows from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere than in the reverse direction." I repeat the relevant GHE blind spot; "But this doesn’t mean no energy can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground". How is it possible to say this and claim 'net flow' in the other direction? Net flow causes temperature change. It is a temperature increase in the cold upper atmosphere that takes place due to net (warm) radiation from the surface, not the surface being warmed by a (net) heat loss from the surface to the upper atmosphere as 'explained' by GHE 'theory'. Without the 'net flow' from the surface the GHGs will lose heat through radiation and cool down catastrophically, GHGs radiate IR as well as absorb it, that is what Tyndall discovered.
  42. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    Dikran Marsupial, okay, understood.
  43. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    #70. "Oscillations average to 0." Source? That claim is unfounded and bizarre. Why do both, AMO and PDO STRONLGY correlate with temperatures? And why do models not reproduce the strong warming from 1910-1940 and the cooling since 1940-1970 (aerosols do not explain the blip as we can see from the model outputs)? Show me the evidence, that a change in ocean circulations cant result in a temporal change in surface temperatures? Read: http://hsu.as.ntu.edu.tw/pdf/18.pdf You should propably look what a Norvegian ocean modeler thinks about AMO: http://www.bccr.no/acdc/filer/242.i3yGAl.pdf Also read the blog entry I linked above to Curry's.
  44. Smoking, cancer and global warming
    Chemist1, could you provide the proof that smoking actually kills ? While you are gathering that information, perhaps you should read what others (shall we call them 'smoking kills' deniers) have to say : "...the world data contradicting the notion that smoking kills, and that smokers statistically belong to the lower classes, thus are at higher risk of disease and early death by the myriad of factors in their life - stress, poor diet, poor healthcare etc, plus the fact that smokers are less likely to take as much interest in their health as non-smokers - after all, if they smoke believing it will kill them, why would they be otherwise healthy?" Plenty more 'proof' here. (I really hope those 'rel="nofollow"' values actually work !) Just how do you begin to attempt to convince those who refuse to accept reality ?
  45. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    dana @ 68 thank you, sometimes I find the message is lost in the argument
  46. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    #65. Read my last comment. Only a change in the THC or gulf-stream can have a drastic impact on the temperatures of NH. #67. No I am not. Besides, no computer model can replicate MWP, nor speaking about RWP or the Holocene climate optimum. They are completely dependant on the "Hockey stick". Unless you prove me no chance will occur without a change in external forcings (then again, you would need to explain the EXTERNAL forcing behind AMO, PDO and ENSO, which you cant since they are largely being interpretated as 'internal variability').
  47. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    protestant: "where is it proven, that climate changes ONLY due to external forcings?" Perhaps you have some other model in mind? Internal forcings? Volcanoes? Little green men? Or do you propose that climate changes entirely by itself? "temperatures can oscillate not in only 30 year periods but also in multicentennial periods" Oscillations average to 0.
  48. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    #63: So RealClimateScientists know better than statisticians? If they do not agree, then I think they should publish their comments in the appropriate journal. But for the record, I dont trust RC:s honesty partly because of the moderation policy (ciritsism they cant answer they delete). I dont have anything against the observations of the last few decades. The cause for them is another topic. And as I said before, warmer MWP does NOT mean higher sensitivity. It would, if the basic tenet that surface temperature doesn't change without external forcings to be proven, and also you would need to prove that it was the GHG's or the sun which were the cause (neither wasn't I bet ya). Yet we have phenomenoms like ENSO, PDO, NPGO, and AMO which remain unexplained (I would call them internal variability = weather). Tell me what's the forcing behind those things and what is the maximum timescale where events like that could occur? I could bet 1000 dollars you (or anyone here) doesn't have an answer. I would suggest it is just chaotic variability in the heat transfer between air and the ocean. As I understand, the THC (Thermohaline Circulation) and the Gulf-stream is poorly understood (and as we can see MWP was pronounced in Greenland, which is near Atlantic...). You should be also reading this article carefully and with thought (and the following discussion): http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/ You should also know that heat is different than temperature. Heat can be transferred from oceans to the atmosphere and vice versa. Therefore surface temperatures may vary a lot without a big difference in total heat in the system.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial]Accusations of dishonesty are a contravention of the comments policy here and your opening statement is sailing mightly close to the wind. I haven't deleted it in this case, as it might be taken as an indication that you had made a point that coulnd't be countered. Any repetition of that sort of comment will result in your post being deleted.
  49. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    invicta:
    Is this thread basically saying if the MWP was warmer than today this is not a good sign for our future and if today we are warmer than the MWP this is not a good sign for our future?
    No. The article says that if the MWP was warmer than today - which it was not - it's a (relatively) good sign for our future because it means climate sensitivity is (relatively) low.
  50. Hockey Stick Own Goal
    protestant #62:
    Looks like nothing like yours.
    Um yeah actually looks almost identical to mine (actually Robert Way created it). The only difference is that we extended the HadCRUT data through the current decade, which Ljungqvist did not (his stops at 1990-1999). Ours is virtually identical, but up-to-date (and lacking error bars). Albatross has already addressed the other points I was going to cover. The divergence between instrumental temperatures and proxies over the past decade or two is likely due to the lack of proxy coverage, as I have already said twice. And you are still scoring an own goal by arguing that the MWP was hot, and thus that climate sensitivity is high.

Prev  1885  1886  1887  1888  1889  1890  1891  1892  1893  1894  1895  1896  1897  1898  1899  1900  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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