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  1890  1891  1892  1893  1894  1895  1896  1897  1898  1899  1900  1901  1902  1903  1904  1905  Next

Comments 94851 to 94900:

  1. Climate sensitivity is low
    It was and remains a simple question unanswered. If it's so obviously wrong as being claimed here, it should be easy to point to the documentation that the "halving" is already applied to the 3.7 W/m^2 forcing. I have search around too. I couldn't find anything.
  2. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    rhjames, It’s not quite right to judge clouds’ cooling effects by how you feel as a cloud passes over your head. Clouds aren’t outside the climate system. The SW energy that did not reach your skin was partially absorbed by the cloud top and partially reflected to somewhere else, some of it outside the climate system. The warmer cloud warms the surrounding atmosphere. At the same time, some of the LW energy emitted by the Earth around you is intercepted by the water vapor held by that same cloud and again used to warm the surrounding atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere won’t let the Earth’s surface radiate as effectively so the surface will warm, though not as much as it cooled in the shady spot where you are standing. Some complicated measurements and accounting are needed to assess the overall effect and we aren’t there yet.
  3. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    @ KR. Yep, as I recall the CERES satellites showed that, even if warming were to result in fewer tropical clouds, that the amount of energy getting *in* through those clouds would be greater than the amount of energy getting out. At least, that's how I understood it.
  4. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    I seem to remember reading somewhere that Lindzen even gets annoyed if people ask him about the iris effect.
  5. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    Chemist1 - The "iris effect" turned out not to fit the facts, and Lindzen dropped that years ago. I believe others are adequately answering your points - most of your comments belong on either the Hansen was wrong or Models are unreliable threads, where they have been more than debunked.
  6. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    "but the Iris effect is well established". Sorry? My reading is that extensive search failed to find it so the hypothesis has vanished. Got some papers which "establish" this hypothesis?
  7. Climate sensitivity is low
    Yes, precisely what I mean.
  8. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    Chemist -
    "Having 3 scenarios of 3 different magnitudes and picking the closest value to published reports does not equate accuracy."
    And that's not what was done, either. I suggest you actually read the link I provided.
    "I get it, there is a statistical clustering at around.3 degrees. In reality there is no empirical or physical reason to believe so."
    No, again, I suggest you actually read the link I provided. You keep making these factually incorrect statements and then ignoring the references provided which refute your errors. Please, take the time to understand what research has been done rather than simply making erroneous misinformed statements about it.
  9. A broader view of sea level rise
    "Could cutting down forests for agriculture have anything to do with it? " Depends what you mean. Land use change is another (on balance negative) forcing considered in climate theory but as to the CO2 in atmosphere, the isotopic composition shows the increase in CO2 is from fossil sources not biosphere.
    Moderator Response: [DB] As it turns out, pekka's last post here at SkS was also on 15 October 2009. Kudo's for being thorough, Phil. Hopefully pekka's still around to read your response. :)
  10. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    Chemist1... "Having 3 scenarios of 3 different magnitudes and picking the closest value to published reports does not equate accuracy." That would be interesting if it were the case. Problem is, what you're saying is wrong. The accuracy of Hansen's early work is said to be off due only to his estimate of climate sensitivity at 4.2C It's when you adjust the sensitivity figures in his work to 3C you get an almost uncanny match to reality. And, to back that up even further, that happens to be the number that's coming out of many other studies into climate sensitivity. About 3C. In this we have multiple lines of evidence and research zeroing in on exactly the same figure. I don't understand why you would throw your eggs into the Lindzen basket when his work is clearly an outlier. You would be as justified in suggesting that the extreme high sensitivity figures of 10C-12C are correct, which several studies do show. If I were here claiming 10C for climate sensitivity what would you think of my argument? You'd think I was fruitcake! But here you guys repeatedly do exactly the same thing on the low side of climate sensitivity.
    Moderator Response: Also, scenario B was not picked as the most representative of the temperatures, but as the most representative of CO2 emissions, volcanoes, and so on--the conditions that were used to make the predictions.
  11. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    I bet the "skeptic" crowd agrees with both Lindzen and the NIPCC.
  12. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    Chemist1, "Hansen has made numerous projection errors ... Even Real Climate states so" Or not. Since you mentioned RC, here's their latest update of models vs. world: There are other threads which validate Hansen's various 'projections.' See the one dana points to for starters. Once again, these declarative statements hold little weight here.
  13. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    Having 3 scenarios of 3 different magnitudes and picking the closest value to published reports does not equate accuracy. It barely indicates precision. Lindzen is not infallible, but the Iris effect is well established. The projected high probability of a 3 degree at doubling is too high I get it, there is a statistical clustering at around.3 degrees. In reality there is no empirical or physical reason to believe so.
  14. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    rhjames, please see the 'climate sensitivity is low' rebuttal. Chemist, please see the Lindzen Case Study post and Hansen 1988 was wrong rebuttal.
  15. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    Michael, Hansen has made numerous projection errors. He relies on partial data and GCM, high end estimates Even Real Climate states so when praising his scenarios Cloud formation is still highly uncertain. Knowing that,my calculated estimate will most likely need worlk
  16. Link to skeptic rebuttals with short URLs
    - "It's not a bug, it's a feature" (at least that's the gist of the initial response), but "Meanwhile you can select text [e.g., that short URL] in the card list off the edit menu."
  17. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    Well if aerosols partially warm but in fact provide a net cooling it will be reduced by black carbon IFR absorption and indirect warming of the Artic by aerosols in the absence of plentiful aerosols. The net warming effect is reduced by IFR scattered to space, partially through horizontal transfer to cloud formation, latent heat processes, forming thunderstorms from cirrus clouds and variable ice sizes. Roughly, estimated, taking UHI, thermometer siting issues, and calculating a median sensitivity with more parameters than Charny, I get a current 0.435 degree C warming, now maximum from all green house gases and only 0.375 maximum with all sulfates input. For a doubling of CO2 the Iris effect effect seems to increase in relative terms in accordance with the known physics, and the total warming is between .85 and 1.06 degrees C which is not significant. This assumes the GCM's are somewhat correct as well as available data
  18. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    I think rhjames should actually read the post he was ostensibly responding to.
  19. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    Rhjames, You need to read some of James Hansens' papers. He also does not like to rely on models and theory so he used data from the past to estimate how the climate will change in the future. There is a lot of data on paleoclimate that shows future climate will be hard to handle. If you were more informed on the facts of Climate Science you might feel less uncertainty.
  20. Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
    The IPCC has admitted that cloud formation and influence is poorly understood. The CERN CLOUD experiment will hopefully contribute some useful data. Just standing outside on a sunny day, and feeling the difference when a cloud blocks the sun, indicates that cloud area and density must have a significance influence on climate. It seems that the effects of aerosols is also very much still based on theory and models. While it's fair to claim that a lot is understood about climate science, it seems to me that there are still far to many variables which aren't understood. Will positive or negative feedback dominate? Other than models, and can't find any data to conclusively show a direction. I consider that any predictions for future climate must be treated with a high degree of uncertainty.
  21. Climate sensitivity is low
    saddenp @91, you mean that if the models where wrong, you would not get results like this: Note: the spectral lines have been deliberately offset so they can be seen clearly. Without the offset, it looks like this:
  22. We're heading into cooling
    The origin of the myth rebutted by this article may be: Dutch Professor Cees de Jager, a prominent astronomer and solar expert, forcefully asserts that we the world is indeed entering for a long period of very low solar activity. The professor and his colleagues are certain Earth is heading for a "long Grand Minimum" - defined as either a Solar Wolf-Gleissberg or a Maunder Minimum - "not shorter than a century." His 2010 paper, "The forthcoming Grand Minimum of solar activity," outlined the extended period of time that the diminished solar radiation would affect the Earth. The above paragraph is from the article, "Scientists: Sun's approaching 'Grand Cooling" assures new Ice Age" which is spreading like wildfire throughout Climate Denial land. It was posted Feb 18, 2011 on: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/224557-Scientists-Sun-s-Approaching-Grand-Cooling-Assures-New-Ice-Age
    Moderator Response: See also "What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?"
  23. Meet The Denominator
    I know I shouldn't but I came across this very funny analysis (thanks Tamino)of an E&E paper which gives some insight into the quality of E&E's editorial work, as well as the "peer-review". I know PT is completely indifferent to such considerations but just so anyone else doesnt confuse E&E with a science journal.
  24. Prudent Path Week
    Regarding aerosols, that is
  25. Prudent Path Week
    Moderator, it is well established in physical geography and climate/meteological textbooks and is easily searchable on google books and scholar. I was responding to a post in this thread .
  26. Prudent Path Week
    I will continue my discussion on models in the appropriate thread. I will say this though: the journal in question is not so small and there is support of the work in science and climate science. More on that in the models are unreliable thread.
  27. Prudent Path Week
    Aerosols warm and cool.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See It's aerosols It's helpful if you avoid declaratory statements like this one; please provide some substantiation or citation when commenting on the correct thread.
  28. Climate sensitivity is low
    And also, in scientific arguments, nature is the arbiter. The codes can used to calculate what experiments should observe. If George was right, then the experiments should be giving results half what they in fact do so.
  29. The Dai After Tomorrow
    #35 Daniel It's definitely going to be interesting. I think we'll really start to see things going haywire in the next 10-15 years. Should make '29 look like sanity. Yes go to bed and if your like most of us you'll dream that you wake to find it was all just a bad dream in the first place. I sit back and laugh at the irony though. I mean -- what else can one do in this situation. I've got enough grey as it is and I'll be darned if I'm going to ruin my health over the world's problems. Like they say talk is cheap and all I ever hear is talk. How much longer must I or anyone wait for affirmative action? People need to wake up and realize that they are in the biggest war of their lives, a war for their future survival and that of their children.
  30. Models are unreliable
    293 muoncounter, I noticed also out of the 26 references cited in the paper that the authors cited themselves 10 times and NASA was only mentioned once in the entire paper. I also find it rather less than scholarly to have a blog cited as one of the references, albeit Gavin Schmidt at realclimate.org., of which you have already described.
  31. Link to skeptic rebuttals with short URLs
    ...but there's a bug there, you can't copy-paste the URLs. I'll point this out to the proprietors.
  32. Link to skeptic rebuttals with short URLs
    I've updated the flashcards (link) to use the short URLs - or rather, I created a new set, since new myths&rebuttals have been added since I put up the original set. The new improved set is at: Skeptical Science climate flashcards - short URLs http://www.flashcardexchange.com/flashcards/view/1669772
  33. Prudent Path Week
    Chemist1, I read your reference. The authors do not like global climate models. It is published in a relatively small journal and has not received much support from other scientists. Gavin Schmidt(who is published in high visibility journals) here comments on their methodology from their previous paper. The results you cited are certainly not the consensus of the field. I find it difficult to determine what your objections are. If you specify what your objections are perhaps we can address those issues. Do you claim that all models are unreliable? Comparing for example Dr Hansens 1989 projections to what has been observed the projections are close to reality see models are unreliable.
  34. Dikran Marsupial at 03:55 AM on 22 February 2011
    Models are unreliable
    I thought it was well-known that GCMs only give reliable projections on global or regional scales, which is why regional climate models or statistical downscaling are used to get projections of local climate. I don't recall ever hearing a modeller claim that the models were accurate at station level resolution.
  35. Models are unreliable
    Continuing from comment here: "What is an issue is the projected warming at NASA." and here: "comparing results of global climate models to records for individual stations is missing the point, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what those models tells us." The paper in question compares GCM output to data at selected stations using point-by-point, year-by-year observation to computed model output. The authors note the following regarding their prior work: criticism appeared in science blogs (e.g. Schmidt, 2008). Similar criticism has been received by two reviewers of the first draft of this paper, hereinafter referred to as critics. In both cases, it was only our methodology that was challenged and not our results. It would seem that if the methodology is challenged, the results are implicitly challenged. The comparison of yearly data to model output is clearly one of apples and oranges: It is little more than comparison of weather to climate. In addition, there's a deeper flaw in the methods used to process individual station data: In order to produce an areal time series we used the method of Thiessen polygons (also known as Voronoi cells), which assigns weights to each point measurement that are proportional to the area of influence This was an issue in the early days of computer-aided mapping. Rather than spatially average a local cluster of stations first, this process allows any error or anomaly at a single station to propagate into the database. Why not filter for a noisy (or bad) datapoint before gridding? So it's not at all clear the original criticisms were answered by the newer paper.
  36. Prudent Path Week
    bart - true, aerosol emissions may be cleaned up before GHG emissions are reduced, which would lead to even further warming. A valid point. Gianfranco - yes, I essentially mean compared to what's to come. The consequences thus far have been bad, but they haven't had particularly horrific consequences yet.
  37. Prudent Path Week
    By "the consequences of anthropogenic climate change so far have been manageable" I presume you mean relatively in comparison to what will happen. Alpine glaciers have melted dramatically for over a century now. Sea water's acidity increased and several species alredy experience difficulties forming their shells and skeletons, and these species happen to be right at the beginning of the marine food chain.
  38. Prudent Path Week
    Bern, the station picks are not an issue. What is an issue is the projected warming at NASA. Try reading the paper first please.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] This is a discussion better taken to Models are unreliable.
  39. Prudent Path Week
    Chemist1, See e.g. here for some graphs of current sea level rise (around 3 mm/yr) in historical context. The post thereafter gives two graphs of sea level versus mean global temperature for different periods in earth' history. They may provide some useful perspective. Dana, In terms of how much warmign is still to come, there's the "unrealized" warming that still has to make its way out of the ocean as the planet equilibrates, but there's also the cooling effect of aerosols: They will most likely be cleaned up before we get rid of CO2 emissions. As aerosol pollution will be cleaned up, more and more of the "masked" warming will become apparent.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Bart: thanks for that link; I like your long-term outlook. Further sea-level rise discussion is on the thread A broader view of sea level rise, although Visual depictions of sea level rise (a prior thread) is excellent.
  40. Dikran Marsupial at 01:37 AM on 22 February 2011
    Prudent Path Week
    I have seen the "anomaly" issue raised many times by skeptics. I think it is partially that it suggests to the layperson that the use of the word "anomaly" implies that the records in someway demonstrate that recent temperatures are anomalous in some way, which of course it doesn't, it is just that the word "anomaly" has a specific technical meaning in climatology. The genuinely skeptical, once it has been explained that "anomaly" is not intended to (and does not) imply "anomalous", generally stop worrying about it. It only needs basic numeracy skills to see that subtracting an offset has no impact on the argument either way - just as the warming would be the same whether we gave the temperature in degrees centigrade or degrees Kelvin.
  41. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    So anthropogenic = causative... I think I am understanding now. Is it really right to gloss over factors just because they are non-anthopogenic? I sense a pattern here.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with the comments policy here. This post is sailing very close to the wind, I suggest you take a different tack. If you have no scientific point to make, another site may be better suited to your input.
  42. Prudent Path Week
    "climatologists are generally interested in trends and changes," Actually, those trends are 'the numbers' that should be the focus. Figure 1 in Monckton Myths#12 presents an excellent example: the number +6.3 degrees per century should be enough to sway even the most cold-hearted skeptic. Or Table 1 in the same post, where 8 of the 10 warmest years in the Arctic temperature record occurred this decade. How do the so-called skeptics usually respond to that? With stories of uncomfortable seals from 1922 or a ship frozen in the ice from 1850. I suppose its easier to laugh about how much those anecdotes 'prove' than actually think about the consequences of our actions.
  43. Dikran Marsupial at 00:31 AM on 22 February 2011
    Prudent Path Week
    RSVP@29 There are several good reasons for doing so. Firstly if you want to compare surface temperatures (e.g. GISTEMP/HadCRUt) against satelite data (e.g. UAH/RSS), then the anomalies won't have a relative offset of (IIRC) about ten degrees (becuase the satelite measurements are the temperature of a fairly thick slice of the trophosphere and temperatures decrease with altitude, so the lowere trophosphere temperatures are much colder than the surface). To a lesser extent, you will also get offsets between different surface records, becuase of e.g. handling of the poles, which would also be misleading. Secondly, climatologists are generally interested in trends and changes, in which case the baseline offset is irrelevant, looking at an anomaly just helps focus on what is important without being distracted by irrelevant detail. If you want to have "the number", just add on the baseline offset for the particular record you are interested in, and you will have it. However, if you think measuring the Earths temperature is a straightforward matter, you are greatly mistaken, see e.g. Trewin (2010) for a very readable review of the need for homogenization etc.
  44. Prudent Path Week
    sgmuller @28: I suspect Marcus is referring to this UTS study [pdf], which estimates total fossil fuel subsidies in Australia to be around $8.9 billion per year, most of which goes to oil (see table on p.33). The subsidies on electricity to aluminium smelters are estimated to be worth $195-232 million per year (table p.17, discussion p.18), but the current figure may be $100m higher due to subsidies to the new(ish) Aldoga smelter near Gladstone.
  45. Prudent Path Week
    RSVP: "skeptics could be more easily swayed if instead of presenting temperature "anomaly"" This objection to a temperature anomaly seems to pop up every once in a while. I don't understand why it's an issue. The anomaly concept is simple enough: It's 'usually' some average M, now its +1 more than M; the anomaly is that difference. But you touch on a more basic issue: Can skeptics be swayed? I suppose the answer depends on what the skeptic means when he or she self-identifies as a 'skeptic'. Those who are ideologically driven, have closed their minds to new ideas and/or are living in fear that 'they are all out to get us' do not sway. This seems to describe the majority of those who show up here calling themselves 'skeptics;' a few comments in and they show their true colors. Every once in a while, you run into a 'true skeptic' - one who has an open mind; it's a very refreshing change. Wikipedia has it right (and I am usually very skeptical of Wikipedia): Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude, or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted. Usually meaning those who follow the evidence, versus those who are skeptical of the evidence (see: Denier)
  46. Prudent Path Week
    DM #27 Is there a particular reason why the data has to be tinkered with? Why not just publish a number? Whatever the number, it should be increasing slowly. Assuming the number is valid, it should just be a matter of dividing it by the number of samples, and the difference of this result every year should be some small number that jives with the anomaly curve in Figure 1.
  47. Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
    Charlie A Quite right Charlie A. 0.16 (top 700m) + 0.1 (deep ocean) = 0.26W/sq.m. Dr Trenberth et al say TOA imbalance is 0.9W/sq.m. We are finding less than one third of the warming imbalance in all the oceans. Possible conclusions: A) The 0.9W/sq.m is right and we are not measuring the oceans correctly (the its there but we can't measure it story) B) The 0.26W/sq.m are right and the TOA imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m constructed from models is wrong. C) Or both are wrong and the correct answer lies somewhere in between. FFS (fat finger syndrome)on above post - went early.
  48. Evaporating the water vapor argument
    electroken: "Texas had more surface water area than Minnesota about 10 years ago?" I knew the drought was bad, but your comment really puts it in perspective. As do these maps, from the folks who measure such things: "I only ask that ALL things which can contribute to any warming be considered and not simply dismissed" Yeah, that's kind of why there is so much to learn. Because that's exactly what goes on - it's a big field of study, one that can't be summed up in an internet minute.
  49. Prudent Path Week
    Marcus, Where can I find more detail and evidence about this claimed $10 billion subsidy to fossil fuel industries? BTW, did you take into account the indirect subsidy that goes via the low electric prices for the aluminum smelting industry? regards, Stephen
  50. Climate sensitivity is low
    RW1, where is George White's documentation that it was not applied? Currently your "critical thinking" will not accept the results of several scientific papers, the two most seminal of which have been cited to you, it will not accept the IPCC report, it will not even accept the results of the public domain version of a radiation model designed by the USAF, and it will not accept the reports of a large number of people knowlegeable on the subject. But it will accept the say so of a single electrical engineer based on zero documentation to the contrary. This extreme contrast in willingness to believe shows it is not critical thinking at all. So, before we go any further, how about you show us the peer reviewed paper, or technical description of a line by line radiation model, or the code of such a model in which the effect is not applied already. Current evidence is that you will accept any belief contrary to AGW on zero evidence, but will not accept any belief supportive of AGW on even a mountain of evidence. Given that I am not going to waste my time presenting evidence to your that you will not consider anyway. (Afterall, I already have given that evidence to you in at least two different forms; both from very creditable academic sources.) So, either show me that you apply the same evidentiary standards you apply to Gearge White's ravings; or give principled reasons why you will not accept a straightforward truth that can be verified in any first year text on atmospheric physics, or on climate modelling?

Prev  1890  1891  1892  1893  1894  1895  1896  1897  1898  1899  1900  1901  1902  1903  1904  1905  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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