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  1940  1941  1942  1943  1944  1945  1946  1947  1948  1949  1950  1951  1952  1953  1954  1955  Next

Comments 97351 to 97400:

  1. The science isn't settled
    Skywatcher @35 (on other thread), Re Landy's comment: "Now they firmly believe they are correct in this assessment, but the fact is it is only a theory." Thanks for your eloquent explanation of "hypothesis" vs. "theory". I would add that climate science, despite the way "skeptics" and contrarians insist on trying and frame it, is not a belief system. The theory of AGW has been borne out by a multitude of independent lines of evidence assembled by thousands of scientists since 1824. What is very much "opinion" or "belief" or "hypothesis" is that we can radically change the composition of our atmosphere is a very short time with little or no negative consequence. The data (present, satellite record, instrument record and paleo) simply do not support that assertion. Landy also seems confused about consensus-- citing the predictable example of Galileo. That is, IMHO, no longer a valid argument. Today we have thousands of climate scientists working on this, and incredibly diverse and sophisticated instruments to monitor the planet. According to Dawkins, there is probably sufficient evidence now to refer to evolution as fact. And I would venture to say the same about AGW.
    Moderator Response: LandyJim, see "There is no consensus."
  2. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    Rocco @10, Fascinating paper-- just read the abstract. I know that I am not the only one, but I too have often wondered whether the nuclear bombs and tests might have in part been responsible for the slight cooling in global SATs during the mid 20th century.
  3. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    #13 MartinS: thanks for the reminder, my response at 7 might be wrong! I stupidly forgot about the transient response: the typical response time τ = C / Y where C is the heat capacity and Y the feedback factor. So response time increases linearly with total warming! An example is an instantaneous forcing at t=0. Assume a typical response time of 10 yr and feedbacks giving 3 C at equilibrium. The approximate response after 10 years is 1.9 C. Assuming that the actual sensitivity is 3.6 C then after 10 years you actually expect 2.0 C. i.e. a 20% boost to equilibrium sensitivity has manifested as a 7% boost after 10 years. So it isn't linear in that sense! This is a simplistic explanation assuming dY/dt = 0 amongst other things, but the IPCC GCMs include these assumptions and it helps explain why we might not be able to detect a higher-than-expected sensitivity in the short term.
  4. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    #11 Ken: my calculations are the effect at equilibrium, they are the result of the integral over time. Your simplistic model is not complete: a more complete model is ΔQ = ΔF - YΔT Where Q is the net flux (which you originally labelled F), F is the radiative forcing and Y is the feedback parameter. For transient calculations, you should use this equation - your original calculation assumed forcing increased at exactly the rate as feedbacks (including heat dumped by the warming Earth's surface). My calculation was for equilibrium, i.e. where ΔQ = 0 and the equation becomes ΔF / Y = ΔT, which is what I put in this post! The time varying nature is included because you take an average Y from the path integral of the feedbacks through temperature space. Also, you don't have to integrate F(t) wrt t because the total energy in the system in the past doesn't necessarily correspond to the temperature today. Analogy: take 2 kettles, boil one and leave the other one cold. Wait a day, then measure their temperatures. Both are the same temperature, even though the integrated energy history of the one that was boiled is higher! Equilibrium is achieved when power in equals power out.
  5. thepoodlebites at 01:41 AM on 26 January 2011
    It's the sun
    #790 For starters, Mr. Cook should update Figure 1, replace the PMOD data with the new LASP data. The TIM instrument has measured a lower and more accurate TSI (1360.8) for solar min than PMOD. And the LASP historical TSI reconstructions show no decrease in TSI over the last three solar cycles (21-23).
  6. A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    The final, final report...or do the so-called skeptics still want more until they have one that says what they want it to say ? Oh, I forgot : they got the one from Montford but that was ignored by all and sundry. Shame. The Science and Technology Committee today publishes its follow-up report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science. Much rests on the accuracy and integrity of climate science. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. It is, however, important to bear in mind the considered view of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, that "the general issues on overall global temperature, on sea level and so on, are all pretty unequivocal". While we do have some reservations about the way in which UEA operated, the SAP review and the ICCER set out clear and sensible recommendations. In our view it is time to make the changes and improvements recommended and with greater openness and transparency move on.
  7. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    @ rocco and MarkR: The difference between a climate sensitivity of 3°C or 3.5°C is too low to have such an effect. In other words: Even if you run a model with a sensitivity of 2°C and one with 6°C you reproduce the temperature of the last century quite well with both models! See for example Knutti & Hegerl (2008): "The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes", Nature Geoscience Figure 4: "The observed global warming provides only a weak constraint on climate sensitivity. A climate model of intermediate complexity3, forced with anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, is used to simulate global temperature with a low climate sensitivity and a high total forcing over the twentieth century (2 °C, 2.5 W m−2 in the year 2000; blue line) and with a high climate sensitivity and low total forcing (6 °C, 1.4 W m−2; red line). Both cases (selected for illustration from a large ensemble) agree similarly well with the observed warming (HadCRUT 3v; black line) over the instrumental period (inset), but show very different long-term warming for SRES scenario A2 (ref. 101)." Thus we have to wait a few years ;-)
  8. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    Ken Lambert The energy flux is energy over unit surface and over unit time. The energy flux is then not equal to power and its units are J/(m2*s) or W/m2. In your derivation in #8 you omitted the outgoing flux; this is why you get and ever increasing temperature even for a constant forcing, which is unphysical.
  9. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    Jim Landy 'I agree there is a clear lack of understanding in the public domain of the difference between weather forecasting and climate predictions. Governments are actually to blame for this, but so is the science community because of statements that are made.' There is a fundamental problem here Jim Climate Science, in fact most science, isn't geared around reporting to the public. Science either reports to other science - the in-house process of peer review, scientific papers, conferences etc by which the experts develop their understanding. Or it reports to government, leaders, funders etc. the IPCC after all is the INTERGOVERNMENTAL panel ... Science isn't geared around reporting to the public. That is left to the media - God Help Us! When you report to fellow scientists, they understand the basics of it all, you don't have to spell it all out and explain it. When you report to government, 'policymakers' etc, the presumption is that they will accept your word and simply ask - 'what should we do' - that why they funded it. But if you have to report to the public, well: They don't know the internal details because they aren't pro's in this game. They don't just accept what you say because your ideas attack their sense of meaning and security in life. And you don't speak their language. So what you have to say may be absolutely valid, but it will be rejected by 'the public' because you are coming out of left field. How much of the 'debate about AGW' is no more than a communications failure? Not all certainly, but what proportion?
  10. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Further to Glenn Tamblyn above, I think we all saw that most vividly in the way Phil Jones's 'no significant warming' was misinterpreted - deliberately, in the case of those with an agenda who knew exactly what he meant but presented it in such a way that it could be looked on as meaning 'no significance' in a general rather than statistical way.
  11. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Jim Further to skywatchers comment, there is a disjunction here between how the term Theory is used by scientists and the lay public. In Science, by the time something is given the label 'theory', it is actually pretty solidly established. Never 100%, but pretty good. Lesser levels of certainty or speculation are called Hypothesis. Simple distinction. Hypothesis says 'We think this might be so'. Theory says 'We think this might be so, and that is supported by a body of analysis, evidence and reasoning so we a pretty sure it is so'. This contrasts with man-in-the-street English that doesn't draw that distinction - 'its all just theory!' So Scientists have a profound problem. The English Language they are using isn't the same English Language everyone else is using. Words have different meanings. Unfortunately, Scientists are cr@p at translating their English in to MITS English. And the MITS (or your average journalist) doesn't know that the scientists English isn't their English and thus needs to be translated . Classic failure to communicate.
    Moderator Response: May we please take this conversation to "The Science Isn't Settled"?
  12. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    MarkR #9 Energy flux = Power (Forcing) which is the rate of change of energy. Unit is a Watt (Joule/sec) OR a Watt/sq.m. to relate it to a surface aea. Power flux - presumably you mean the rate of change of Power. This would be incremental F/t or differential dF/dt. That must be a Watt/sec or a Joule/sec^2 - right?? "If F was a variable forcing then F x Delta t would be replaced by the integral of function F wrt t." This explains the variable F. You integrate F(t) wrt time 't'. This effectively gives you the area under the F curve - whatever the F function is and this represents the total enegry gained by the mass between times t1 and t2. I can't see these relationships devoid of the time variable 't' which your dF/dT seems to do.
  13. Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    Newsflash! Global sea ice area is reaching for an all-time low: So much for hiding the decline... The "Lord" Yooper
  14. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    LandyJim - you say "it is their opinion", yet who else would you go to for an opinion on climate? And of course the 'group' you refer to is very large indeed, involving many many thousands of people in a host of related disciplines. They didn't exactly work this out round a coffee table... I'd be interested to know what you mean by 'only a theory'? It sounds like you want to say 'only an hypothesis', but I think you are confusing the very distinct definition of the two? The theory of Earth's climate is now very well established and supported by an awful lot of observational and palaeoclimatic data, some of which is deetailed on this excellent website. There is an hypothesis that humans have been altering the climate for 8,000 years (Ruddiman), and another more recent hypothesis that melting ice in the Barents-Kara Sea is affecting European winters, but neither have yet been elevated to the position of 'theory'. Yet as Flanner shows (in my desperate attempt to remain on topic), Arctic changes are happening rather more rapidly than previously thought, and so consequent weather pattern changes are plausible. Your second paragraph, LJ, is in danger of confusing a scientific consensus, based on very extensive and detailed scientific study, with that of a religious dogma, which was based on the writing contained in a single Book. The two are very different, and it is much harder to provide scientific evidence to overturn one than the other.
    Moderator Response: May we please take this conversation to "The Science Isn't Settled"?
  15. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Jim Landy @various Jim. SkS is a good place to look for answers and ask questions and throw out criticisms. Unfortunately the anonymity of the Internet makes it hard to distinguish motivations where these aren't spelled out clearly. Occasionally you may need to excuse peoples itchy trigger fingers at times - we could teach the billy goats gruff a few things about trolls - and people get a short fuse. If you want to start dialogs with people here you might find them quite productive. That said, some general observation. AGW isn't a theory in the sense that GR or E are theories. General Relativity is a fairly straightforward theory (if you are mathematically literate enough, unlike moi) about the fundamental nature of the Universe. AGW is not a theory. It is a composite of many scientific theories from many different disciplines - Thermodynamics, Radiation Physics & Quantum Theory, Fluid Mechanics, Oceanography, Ocean Chemistry etc. Each of these disciplines add something to the mix, whether of a fundamental nature or relating to the degree or rate of change expected. For example, thermodynamics may give us a general direction, but the thermal inertia of the oceans is a factor. Simple thermodynamics can't answer these inertia questions on its own since this depends on the real world nature of ocean currents, overturning rates etc. The realm of oceanography. You said earlier that you are collecting data on hurricanes and river flows. The question I would ask you is: 'is that the data that is going to give you insights into the primary drivers of this?' Are you looking for evidence of the primary causative factors? Or are you looking at data for derivative and consequential phenomena? To use an example. I have a pool in my back yard and the water level is low so I throw a garden hose in and turn on the tap. But my family are still using the pool, causing waves. If I want to determine whether the hose is filling the pool, what evidence do I look at. The local height at one point in the pool from moment to moment as my family make waves? Or do I investigate the flow rate in the hose and the longer term average water level in the pool? Open question to you. Is looking at Hurricane data or River flows into the Atlantic looking at the average in the pool, or how high a wave is at one instant?
  16. The science isn't settled
    #41 LandyJim, I agree with you, it was an excellent program, and I look forward to seeing more of Nurse. And kudos to you for not wishing to try and stick up for Delingpole - the phrase "I am an interpreter of interpreters" will live for a long time with great amusement, especially as he admitted he hadn't even read any of the original science. But I must disagree with you over Phil Jones - he came across very well in my opinion, and gave a decent description of the splicing related to the hitherto utterly unremarkable WMO graph. Any accusations about scientific wrongdoing were perfectly well dealt with by the multiple independent reviews, and any complaints about the palaeoclimatic significance of the divergence problem have been dealt with in the literature. The more programmes we have like this showing the intellectual vacuity of the various AGW deniers, when they are confronted with rational evidence, and the weight of that evidence, the better!
  17. Oceans are cooling
    HR #54 And what does the colour (top) chart show? I for one do not have any idea what the net effect is. Oceans near the equator (low latitudes) have much greater surface areas than at high latitudes. In fact the area of the Earth's surface above 60 degrees is only about 7%. So a big patch of cold or warm water near the equator on the above chart mulitplied by the depth represents a much greater volume of water than at high latitudes. What is needed to make sense of this chart is a volume x temperature integral over the whole surface of the oceans down to the average depth of 3700m. Anyone for that challenge?
  18. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    johnd : can you reveal the names of those forecasters you reckon are better than BOM, the Met Office, etc ?
  19. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    MarkR: Speaking of underestimated forcings, have you seen this? Could this really be true? Did we have a nuclear mini-winter without anyone noticing?
  20. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    "But I have probably risked having my first post here censored." At least I made an accurate prediction. Except that it is still there in post #12 (But I suppose not for long)
  21. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    NickD #29 "...if you don't like the weather just wait 15 minutes" In Queensland they used to say, "Beautiful one day, perfect the next". Then the floods came.
  22. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    The Ville at 11:07 AM on 25 January, 2011, when considering a further observation made in your earlier post referred to, namely "But the ultimate outcomes may be less predictable", then I don't think I missed the point. The expectations that you referred to as people developing, are based on what they are lead to believe, by experts, will be the ultimate outcome, since humans generally do not possess a highly acute inbuilt natural instinct to sense coming changes in the weather ahead of time, as some animals are able to do so. Predicting ultimate outcomes is a separate matter to that of identifying the physical behavior of the weather itself. Predicting ultimate outcomes is all about producing forecasts, and forecasts are, just like your washing machine, a manufactured product. They have an engineered design, and require the input of raw materials, in the case of forecasts, raw data rather than raw minerals, however, in both cases, all have varying degrees of quality, which just as in the case of your washing machine, determines the ultimate reliability of the end product, the further in time that each product moves beyond the date on which it was produced. So to get back to the subject of this thread, just as washing machines have varying degrees of reliability, so too do forecasts. Where our differences may lie quite possibly, is not over which washing machine is the more reliable, but rather which forecasts are. Any expectations I may have are not too high, but rather based on that an engineered forecast with a proven track record will continue to yield reliable results, and more than that, the expectation that those who engineer such forecasts will most likely continue to be years ahead of others by continuing to correctly identify any new raw materials, indicators, and then incorporating them into the engineered design.
  23. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    TC I can live with Potty Lord. My approach is: 1. Respect is Earned. Politeness is a right. 2. Unless of course you aren't polite then the rules change. As for the rules of etiquette, well they are simply an archaic mix of politeness and feudalism. Keep the politeness, ditch the feudalism. And the Title. Titles conveying rank or responsibility have merit. Like Constable, Doctor, Pilot. Anyway, we have wandered far enough OT
  24. The science isn't settled
    LandyJim, I think you saw what you wanted to see in that programme because Phil Jones came out of it very well - as a scientist trying to do his job, while trying to fend off spurious FOI requests. He explained very well what the splicing was all about and it was made clear in the programme that what he and his team at CRU had done, had been cleared by four enquiries. There was, of course, mention made of clearer explanations and the work and data being made more available, but the programme certainly didn't make a big deal of it except in a more general way which also involved scientists and data in all fields. There was certainly no "unprofessional behaviour" admitted or, indeed, any such accusations made in the programme. And there was definitely no hints of "dishonesty", "lieing" or any implications on him or his work - that is your opinion, which you no doubt held before the programme. The two interviewees who came off the worst were, as you mentioned, the journalist Delingpole but also Bob Carter - the latter looking seriously out of touch. Generally, the programme (to me) was a good example of the science and the scientists fighting back by presenting the evidence (as accepted by the vast majority of scientists), showing what the alternatives were (not a lot), and trying to win back the public from the idealogues and political interferers, especially from the media and various blogs - all mentioned, and shown, as untrustworthy and biased to their own agendas. Let's hope it is the start of scientists getting out there and showing the facts, to persuade the mass of the public who are presently confused by what they read from those who have little idea of the science in the first place.
  25. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    I don't use equation (2)! If this doesn't work I can write up something with clearer equations. I start by assuming temperature is some function of the heat arriving at the surface in terms of power flux. I work entirely in flux-space, and if you know each element contributing to flux (radiative forcing + feedbacks) then you would have some function to explain it. From the properties of calculus, I get dT = (dT/dF)dF. I used change in flux arriving at the surface and you have used net radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere - which are very different! When you assume a constant forcing just after (1), you're saying the difference between heat in and heat out is constant all the time. In a world with no feedbacks the world would warm up under a constant forcing and your value of F would actually be an F(t). You made some function of F=F(in)+F(out), which sounds sensible but can actually get very confusing. Whereas I am using some function of F(in). (which =F(out) because I'm considering equilibrium)
  26. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    I am aware that there are changes in our planet's climate in the last 150 years, some of this is clearly natural, but there does appear to be some that may not be. In the interests of the debate could expand on which parts of climate change over the past 150 year that you think are natural and why you think that? You might be quite correct or completely misled but let's hear what you think. I am hoping your beliefs are based on published science.
  27. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Philippe, AGW is a theory born out of scientific research. It is the consensus amongst climate scientists that the warming that is being observed is the result of human activities because in thier opinion this bet fits the data they have as a group. Now they firmly believe they are correct in this assessment, but the fact is it is only a theory. For ~2000 years the consensus of scientists believed that Earth was the centre of the Universe and everything revolved around it, to imply otherwise was not only scientific suicide, but deemed heresy in some Christian circles. The consensus was wrong as we all know. Just because the majority of people believe something does not make it so. I am not saying that AGW is wrong, I am simply saying that I am not convinced and as a result I am doing my own research. I am aware that there are changes in our planet's climate in the last 150 years, some of this is clearly natural, but there does appear to be some that may not be, I need to be sure before committing myself and so I am not a denier in the sense that many of you think, I am an unconvinced who is seeking clarification. You are right, GR and E are just theories. There are problems with GR and aspects of it have been modified(tweaked) as new data is input, Evolution, I think that is almost past the stage of theory because short of invoking God, there is not 1 alternative theory for what Evolution describes.
    Moderator Response: Please take this to "The Science Isn't Settled."
  28. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    @Muoncounter..response to your post is here
  29. The science isn't settled
    MuonCounter, your cherry picking from a few minutes of a 57 minute long program. Hardly scientific. Lets be honest here, some of the worst attacks on scientists have been those who have raised genuine and scientifically researched objections to AGW precepts. They are automatically labelled "deniers" and there have been instances of jobs threatened, papers refused to be published, careers damaged and even threats against the person. This has happened in several areas of science, and I understand some advocates of AGW have also undergone similar attacks, this is and always must be wholly unacceptable. If you watch the entire episode, it should be on BBC iPlayer soon if not already, you will see that Paul Nurse presents a very balanced and unbiased view, bearing in mind he is a staunch advocate of AGW. The person who comes out looking bad is actually Phil Jones. Not only does he admit unprofessional behaviour by stitching together different data sets, he admits to ignoring FOI's and even requests from other researchers for his data models and sets. I do not believe he intended to mislead, he presented data in what he thought was an acceptable form for the audience it was intended. However he was wrong, but he should not be harried for that, he should be harried for lieing about it, then refusing FOI requests on information paid for by the British Tax Payers. He should be sacked from his position for this and this alone in my honest opinion. It was unprofessional, unacceptable and implies a degree of dishonesty. He has still not honoured those requests and has still failed to provide a lot of evidence that has been requested of him. However, this is drifting off topic. Paul Nurse presented a reasonably balanced argument in what was a limited time slot, he demolished a two faced dog (Journalist) with simple logical argument...which was a pleasure to see..and overall I think the program got across the message it was attempting to send..Science needs to be even more open and transparent than it has been because the world has changed and continues to change and scientists are not great "joe public" speakers or at dealing with the media in general.
    Moderator Response: See "A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives."
  30. Philippe Chantreau at 17:59 PM on 25 January 2011
    A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    LandyJim, The consensus on the general model of Earth' climate is a consensus of research results, not of opinion. AGW is not a theory in itself, it is a normal consequence of changing some variables according to the consensus model of Earth climate. Saying that a scientific theory is "just that" doesn't mean much. Quantum theory is a scientific theory. So is general relativity or evolution. You can say they are "just that" but what is the point of such a statement?
  31. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Glenn Tamblyn @14, Christopher Monckton is the third viscount of brenchley. As such, the polite form of adress to him according to English rules of ettiquette is My Lord, or, Your Lordship, or Lord Brenchley. Thus he is a Lord. He is not, however, a member of the House of Lords, despite his false claims to the contrary to amongst others, the US Senate. So, "potty lord" certainly. Proof that hereditary peerage serves primarilly to thrust fools into prominence. Definitely. But not "Not Lord".
  32. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Albatross @10, thankyou for that. The refference to satellites makes it clear that Monckton is reffering to the NCIDC data, which commences in November of 1978, thus missing the Rutgers University data. Therefore his error may be an honest, if very careless mistake. The next question is has anyone drawn his attention to the Rutgers data.
  33. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    I recently heard that NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record. I can't believe there hasn't been more said about this in the media, particularly with so many climate change deniers citing cold snaps in some parts of the world as being evidence of global cooling.
  34. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Billy Joe #5 Carefull man. The Not Lord is quite litigious you know. At least he claims to be. Perhaps instead of 'spade' you could use: Personal Ingenious Search Selection Tool Applied to Kleptomaniac us of Evidence
  35. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    @notcynical @ #41: I'd say, no, not really noteworthy. The relatively large day-to-day variations in weather are well known, and normal. If, on the other hand, a cold day in January for London, Canada, was 8F (-13.3C) now, then 7ºC worth of global warming would mean that a cold day in January was about -6C (21F). Similarly for the upper end - a warm January day that is 29F now (-1.7C) would then be around 42F (+5.3C). I don't know about you, but to me there's a big difference between -1.7C and +5.3C. Just ask the folks in Iqaluit, Canada. They traditionally have a snowmobile race on New Year's Day on the sea ice. They had to cancel it this year, because there was no ice... And think what that sort of temperature difference would mean over Greenland. Many areas of the ice sheet already get summer temperatures above freezing. What are the implications of that for sea level rise? Even well away from the freezing point, I know I'd rather deal with summer days around 30ºC (our forecast max for today), than 37ºC. And given that really hot summer days here hit 43ºC, I sincerely hope we don't get 7ºC of increase on that! (But we're much closer to the tropics, here in Brisbane, so any increase we see is likely to be much lower than for folks closer to the poles).
  36. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    #28: "Paul Nurse hit the nail on the head tonight ... " To avoid sliding further off topic, reply comment is here.
  37. The science isn't settled
    Continuing with reply to comment #28 here. "... Climate Changes Scientists, and by implication all scientists, have failed to be truly open with the general public and recent controversies in science have harmed a lot of scientific arguments." All I saw was the YouTube clip of Nurse's program, but I got a distinctly different impression. The clip focused on the NAS letter regarding political attacks on science (climate science in particular), reprinted here: We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. ... When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. ... Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. So your notion that greater 'scientific openness' will restore public confidence is idealistic and unrealistic. Until the denier side steps up to the scientific bar and stands a round, it's a one-sided contest.
  38. A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
    Ouch! My bad -- I just assumed that each GHCN station had a unique WMO id (5-digit id number sufficient to give all stations unique id's). That's what I get when I don't RTFM very carefully! So it looks like I may have implemented -- quite by accident -- a very crude geospatial weighting routine (or at least a routine that "fills in" temperature station data gaps with data from nearby stations)! Will follow up with updates/corrections when I have some spare time.
  39. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    UNEP has a site entitled "Global Outlook for Ice and Snow" here. It gives a bit broader perspective.
  40. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    MarkR #Original Post Please correct me if I am making a basic error here; but temperature change of a body of mass M and specific heat Sm is proportional to the energy E applied. If we assume that the mass M to be heated is the atmosphere/land/oceans and it has some average specific heat Sa (Joules/kG-degK) and both are roughly constants for this exercise; then M x Sa = K Excuse my lack of maths symbols, but the Temperature change between times 1 and 2 equation looks like this: T2-T1 x K = E2-E1 or Delta T = Delta E / K .......Eqan (1) Delta E = F x delta t; where delta t is the time increment t2-t1 and F is a constant forcing. Therefore; Delta T = F x Delta t / K .......Eqan (2) If F was a variable forcing then F x Delta t would be replaced by the integral of function F wrt t. Perhaps MarkR could take me from Eqan (2) to his end result dT/dF.
  41. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    @5 Bily Joe: "Also I think "myths" should be "lies" because, when you keep repeating stories over and over again without ever addressing the valid objections that have been raised, then I think we should call a spade a spade. But I have probably risked having my first post here censored." John C is nicer than that Billy. I believe that "lies" will be too strong but only if you're including it in an article for SkS. "Falsehoods" would be my choice but then, I'm thought of as being a little too emotive. How about "repeated gross errors"?
    Response: Nope, Billy Joe called it correct, I moderated his comment which violates the ad hominem comments policy. Here at SkS, we attack the methods not the motives.
  42. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Glen...Yes he is thanks, just a urinary infection..(and lots of vocalisation to let us know:) ) Regarding your posts@ 26. Thanks for that, a very sensible and intelligent reply. I understand your observations, and I suppose I am in a similar place that you found yourself in several years ago. I need to be sure in my own mind which way to go with this. I think Paul Nurse hit the nail on the head tonight in Horizon when he said that Climate Changes Scientists, and by implication all scientists, have failed to be truly open with the general public and recent controversies in science have harmed a lot of scientific arguments. I have argued this for years, all none commercial research data should simply be published on the web, including notes and all related materials, then there will be true openness and perhaps arguments like we see now can be avoided in future. @MarkR, thanks for your comments..I'll admit to perhaps reading the papers and links quickly earlier, I have had an opportunity to look back over them and agree that there is clear evidence to support the general thesis in the paper by Flanner, however I also note that this is not the whole picture and more work on this particular aspect of the issue needs to be looked at, but I am confident this will happen. @22 and 23..Oh do grow up. It is when people who have already accepted the idea of AGW simply dismiss any concerns other have out of hand or try to belittle others that you bring the whole argument into disrepute, just as the real sceptic line bring the whole argument into disrepute when they talk nonsense or try to advocate stupid and nonsensical theories that hold no more water than the Titanic. Because you support the idea of AGW your clearly in the Pro camp, which is fine, but how else would I describe it...the unproven theory of AGW camp? Please remember that all theories are that, even when the consensus of opinion is in support of them, they are still only theories.
  43. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    #28 Well I looked at the forecasts for London, Canada and I see your point. The forecasts are for the max temp to go from 29F to 16F from Saturday to Sunday and 8 to 21 from Tuesday to Wednesday. That's 2 jumps of 13 degrees within 5 days. Not quite 35.64F, but still noteworthy... or not? :)
  44. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    I see JohnD@33 has completely missed the point of my comment and instead used it as an excuse for engineering advertising for commercial weather forecasting. Dear John, I couldn't really care how a forecast is paid for! The point was that when a physical product such as a washing machine is designed, the reliability of the product is also designed, this is achieved by manipulating the CAUSES that might increase/reduce reliability. The causes of the weather can not be engineered and any reliability of forecasting is governed by that fact. That is, there are definite limits that are controlled by the underlying science. So commercial and public weather forecasters will be limited as to how accurate they can ever become. I also pointed out that people have expectations that are to high, I think you have proven what I stated. eg. you have ridiculously high expectations of your own beliefs.
  45. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    Notcynical:
    Maybe you don't have it all right either. See "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg
    Maybe we understand that Bjorn Lomborg knows as little about climate science as he does about population ecology and several other areas of science he has claimed to "debunk" over years. Working climate scientists who've vetted Inconvenient Truth have said that Gore got it mostly right. Perhaps an A rather than A+ but scientists reviewing Lomborg's "debunkings" of science have universally given him a failing grade.
  46. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    6 rocco: yes, I think that sounds sensible! Since temperatures roughly follow models, you've pointed out 2 potential consequences: #1 - other feedbacks have been overestimated. I hope so... but other observational studies (Dessler 08/10, Lauer 10, Chung 09) make this seem unlikely; although these are only really preliminary. #2 - the best estimates for forcings are off. If aerosol cooling is stronger than the best estimate (and this is well within the uncertainty) then the original RF is lower and the Y values remain as we have measured them - i.e. higher than models. But there are 2 other potential contributors I can think of: #3 - enhanced heat transport to the deep ocean. #4 - natural noise excluding deep ocean heat transport. Solar activity has declined, as has mean ENSO activity since the '90s. Most of the forcing. After all, the models include approximately a +/- 0.2 C uncertainty and this easily includes a +20% rate of global warming (for the past 30 years that would be +0.1 C or so) so these results don't necessarily mean the models and observations are in disagreement. I reckon you're right, if Flanner's results are good (and they look pretty solid IMO, but we should see if other groups can reproduce them), then it suggests something else is up. Some combination of the above 4 plus probably other stuff could be that something else.
  47. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    "Cool It" ! See Lomborg errors. Warning - there are a lot.
  48. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    #21: Pete, 'A Climate Modelling Primer' by Henderson-Sellers & McGuffie is the textbook I used for introductory climate science. 'Combining feedbacks' on p38 (of my edition) isn't explicitly the same as the workings I used in my link (we used different symbols and signing conventions at different points...), but the explanation is pretty good IMO. It sort of helped explain it to me, but I first understood it because my lecturer was good! (a recent buy is 'thermal physics of the atmosphere' by Ambaum which is pretty good IMO. Covers radiative transfer in later chapters, and earlier on it does the basic thermodynamics behind lapse rate + water vapour feedback and some cloud physics too) Also, they're both relatively short. I used Trenberth's 'Climate Systems Modelling' for a while and that's a hefty piece of work! :P
  49. A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    Just in case anyone is interested (and sees this !), there was another good BBC programme on today, to do with Climate Change, the difference between what the public may believe and what the science says, and the role of 'Climategate'. It was a HORIZON programme called 'Science under attack' and is available on iPlayer until Sunday 30 Jan 11. (Don't know if it will work for those outside the UK but hopefully you'll be able to find it on YouTube or something. Definitely worth watching, for what could be the start of the scientific fightback...and for seeing James Delingpole make a fool of himself. As usual)
  50. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    #17 Moderator Response: You are incorrect. See "Al Gore got it wrong." Maybe you don't have it all right either. See "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg

Prev  1940  1941  1942  1943  1944  1945  1946  1947  1948  1949  1950  1951  1952  1953  1954  1955  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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