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  1941  1942  1943  1944  1945  1946  1947  1948  1949  1950  1951  1952  1953  1954  1955  1956  Next

Comments 97401 to 97450:

  1. Ten temperature records in a single graphic
    #5 "Many graphs have been made but is this a tool refined to enhance government needs to impose a carbon tax on the world." Seeing that none of the contributors here receive any accoutrements from clandestine governmental organizations, then there is no need to deceive. So the answer is of course no.
  2. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    Climatology is a sub-discipline of and a theoretical branch of meteorology. Careful climate scientists always say they don't make predictions or projections and their climate models produce only senarios since phenomena such as clouds, aerosols and in particular black carbon are difficult to model and their effects on climate are not well undersood. Unfortuntely the popular press, politicians and many scientists, lay people and in paricular the wiseguys of the enviromental families, who are not meterologists or climatologists, make no such distinction. After watching weather reports on the TV over 50 years, I have concluded that the earth's climate has not changed much at all. That is to say the pattern of weather in the various regions of earth are still about the same. Weather can be quite variable from year to year and there can be extreme weather events, the most important of which prolonged drought. However, in the long term weather enventally returns to its normal pattern. There are regions such as Death Valley and other deserts where climate has not changed much for centuries. I doubt the climate scientist can model the pattern of weather for the various regions of the earth for period of about 30 years, for example, from 2070 to 2100.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Been there, done that. Here's 2050 looking at ya:
  3. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Thanks citizenschallenge. I think John is going to take down about 10 of them in one fell swoop (a bunch were about extreme weather). We're probably looking at 11 installments, for now.
  4. We're heading into cooling
    Moderator... Can you point me to the "Litany of Completely Baseless Statements" thread so I can reply to Henry Justice? (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Try here.
  5. Ten temperature records in a single graphic
    And this proves what? Many graphs have been made but is this a tool refined to enhance government needs to impose a carbon tax on the world. Of course temperatures are rising. We are now climbing out of the mini ice age. Records since 1860 hardly proves anything in the vast scope of world history. Everything is tidal, the oceans, seasons, weather patterns, planetary cycles. The world breathes, its alive and there is nothing scientists or anybody else can do to prove otherwise because you cannot put the whole picture into a model. Nice graph though, will look good framed on the wall.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Then frame this one then: For the rest of your comment, please break it up into those components you feel most important and post them on the appropriate thread. Search function, upper left corner (in case you missed it).
  6. Ten temperature records in a single graphic
    Spreadsheet downloaded - that's an excellent resource Robert, and kudos to you for putting in the extra effort required to collate all the data, especially the reanalysis data. Many thanks!
  7. Ten temperature records in a single graphic
    Uah and RSS you mean? lol GISS is not a satellite record!
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed text.
  8. Ten temperature records in a single graphic
    Powerful, succinct, compelling and convincing. Belongs on the "Are we heading into global cooling?" or the "It's freaking cold!" or the ___________ (ad infinitum) thread. Great job! The Yooper
  9. Ten temperature records in a single graphic
    Nice work Robert, that's a very cool and useful graph.
  10. We're heading into cooling
    My previous post was for NASA's raw temperature data. Shows what their adjustments do to the slant. Another thought: Are regular thermometers in error if atmospheric infrared components increase (8-15 microns)? Yes they are. This may be the essence of time of observation bias, or TOB that is often mentioned when taking temperature readings.
    Moderator Response: Anybody who responds to this, please do so on a more appropriate thread, and post a short comment here pointing to that other thread.
  11. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    NETDR: I challenge you to draft a science-grade paper detailing your analysis and post it on a public website for review and comment.
  12. We're heading into cooling
    The effects of man's CO2 is wildly exaggerated. The global warming since the mid-1970s to 1999 and for the last century is mostly due to reductions in the rate of global ocean deep-water circulation—or Meridional Overturning Circulation—which has occurred. Global temperatures have followed closely the fluctuations in solar output and ocean circulation cycles, not carbon dioxide trends. This circulation is driven by global ocean salinity variations. CO2 changes play no role in these ocean changes. Scientists now report that the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would raise global temperatures a mere 1 degree Celsius. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen by less than 50 percent since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. The contribution of CO2 is minute at best. I don't see abnormal or unnatural global temperature rises as evidenced bu NASA's own data, taking out the corrupting urban stations. No visual upward slant over many previous decades are seen no matter where you click. Just the natural up and down temperature wiggles you would naturally expect. Check it out on this site and see for yourself: What the Stations Say! http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm#The South Atlantic However, what needs watching is whether the sunspots disappear in around 2015 and we tip from a Dalton to a Maunder like minimum. Also, watch for the buildup of summer snow (or decreasing summer melt). We do need to get rid of the brownish haze I see every time I fly in an airplane. That has to cause some dimming.
    Moderator Response: Everybody who replies to this, please do so on the appropriate thread, and on this thread post a short comment linking to your comment on the relevant thread.
  13. Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
    Found this on the website "Ice age now", phwoaarr, 1010ppm. What are they thinking ?? This has to be lunacy, surely ? http://www.iceagenow.com/1010ppm–lets_go_for_it.htm
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Magic 8-ball says: Yes.
  14. citizenschallenge at 08:45 AM on 26 January 2011
    Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Great series of posts. 10 monckton claims down and only 14 to go. love the team's stamina, I am looking forward to future installments.
  15. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    A bit more on albedo. The role of albedo and accumulation in the 2010 melting record in Greenland
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See the Flanner in the works thread.
  16. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    Re John@43. "Predicting ultimate outcomes is all about producing forecasts, and forecasts are, just like your washing machine, a manufactured product." Oh good grief, you still haven't got the issue. But instead blubber on with a marketing campaign! It is clear that you don't actually understand the issue I was describing. You are talking about a weather forecast, and that is the equivalent of an engineer taking a design and working out it's reliability. It has no relation at all to the physical design of the actual washing machine. As I pointed out twice now! When it comes to a manufactured product, the design can be changed and that will result in a new reliability calculation (a forecast of probability of failures). That in no way applies to weather, which is a product that is not 'designed'. That restricts the ultimate accuracy of a weather forecast. And the issue here isn't about political ideology or economic models for funding the best weather forecasts. The issue is the public perception of any weather forecast against the ability to predict climate. Weather forecasting has improved hugely since the 1950s, but some members of the public will always whine about how inaccurate they are. Hence the title of the article by dansat.
  17. Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    The sea ice extent is the area of sea covered by 15% or more of ice. The sea ice area is the total area of ice only (subtract the open water). For example two square kilometers that were 50% covered with ice would be 2 km2 of extent but only one km2 of area. The NSIDC and IJIS report the sea ice extent but Cryosphere Today reports sea ice area. There is usually little difference between the two trends, but the area is smaller than the extent.
  18. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Maybe you should put in your "most used sceptic arguments" " Lord Christopher Moncton says agw is a scam" and a short clear summarry of his main nonsense arguments.
  19. A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
    Thanks Albatross, that's nice of you to say.
  20. citizenschallenge at 06:23 AM on 26 January 2011
    Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
    This confused me: (UPDATE: Sea ice area data shows the same thing as extent data.) Isn't 'area' and 'extent' the same thing as opposed to 'mass' or 'volume'?
  21. The science isn't settled
    There seeme to be a reinvigorated attempt of late to redefine every form of quackery recorded over the last five thousand years as a product of "science", completely ignoring emergence of the scientific method as a product of the modern period. The Denialview is not only anti-scientific, it is also ahistorical.
  22. A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
    Oh, and better batten down the hatches. I would be surprised if supporters of WUWT do not swarm SkS in the next while. I'm sure that, being a man of honesty and integrity, we can expect Mr. Watts to issue an unequivocal corrections and retractions to Lindzen's article, Monckton's articles and Easterbrook's articles (et cetera) in the coming days.
  23. A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
    Dana @56, Fantastic news and very much deserved IMHO! I think we all here owe a huge thanks for Dana for all his hard work, not only on this piece but for others too in which he has stood up for science and for integrity.
  24. The science isn't settled
    SkyWatcher @51, Thanks, I recall that now. IMHO, you are correct, but much more importantly NAS is probably correct.
  25. The science isn't settled
    Albatross #44: Didn't the NAS say a similar thing about the basics of climate science in their letter to Science as your final suggestion? " But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.” For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. "
  26. The science isn't settled
    #41: " a few minutes of a 57 minute long program. Hardly scientific." I'm not aware of the term 'scientific' as applied to the watching of a television program. "Nurse presents a very balanced and unbiased view, bearing in mind he is a staunch advocate of AGW." There's a substantial fallacy in this need for a 'balanced view': If a body of evidence supports a conclusion, what 'balance' is created by discussing the opposite side? Do we say "Our observations show to a high degree of certainty that the earth is round, but some believe it may be flat"? That's background noise, which unfortunately gets picked up and amplified by the repeat-o-sphere. So your 'balanced presentation' does little more than provide deniers with ammunition (in this example, becoming the headline 'Scientists express doubt that the earth is round!') No, the message must be clear and unequivocal. If you are struggling to accept some aspect of AGW, despite the ample evidence presented here, by all means ask questions. But do not pretend that there is a 'balanced argument' to be made based on science -- if one existed, certainly we'd have heard it by now.
  27. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    #16: "nuclear bombs and tests" I've looked at some of the online records; they actually worked out a formula for height and diameter of cloud vs. yield. Very few of the tests were large enough to put much volume into the stratosphere. '61-'62 was the worst period due to the test ban treaty during '59-'60.
  28. A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
    This article has been picked up and re-published by The Guardian, by the way.
  29. Eric (skeptic) at 04:46 AM on 26 January 2011
    A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    The nuclear winter hypothesis came from fires, not the explosions. Here's an old paper on the topic http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ackerman/Articles/Turco_Nuclear_Winter_90.pdf
  30. The science isn't settled
    Landy Jim: Can you cite specific "instances of jobs threatened, papers refused to be published, careers damaged and even threats against the person" by scientific skeptics. We are all aware of climate scientists, like Phil Jones and many others, who have received death threats. James Hansen has documented in his book Storms of My Grandchildren that he has had grants cancelled because of his data on AGW. I have never heard of an instance fo a denier who has had grant issues or papers not published due to their content. Please provide specific instances or stop spreading false rumors.
  31. Philippe Chantreau at 03:55 AM on 26 January 2011
    The science isn't settled
    LandyJim, Calling on flat Earth ideas is underhanded, as these kind of theories were not based in real scientific investigation. even the early Egyptians had it right and were able to estimate the Earth curvature with decent accuracy, because they were using a real method. So the true scientific consensus on the shape of the Earth has been for round, and for more than 2000 years. "Only a theory" is the kind of language that creationists use to try to discredit evolution. It works only the general public, because science minded people know that the status of theory is the highest that an idea can reach in science. Saying that a set of ideas is "only" a theory is kind of an oxymoron. What could it be that's better? Theories are much farther reaching than mere laws. Real theories are seldom ditched altogether when new discoveries are made. Einstein did not even truly invalidate Newton, it expanded it and solved the problems that Newton couldn't get a handle on, such as Mercury's orbit. Newton's theory still works fine in its domain of application. It yields very precise results if you want to determine where a projectile is going to land. But it wouldn't allow for accurate GPS position reports. AGW is not a matter of opinion. The consensus model of Earth' climate is indeed a scientific theory and AGW is a normal consequence of it. That's not the opinion of the researchers, that's what the theory, based on countless research results, dictates. And, just like you said of evolution, there is really no alternative competent at integrating all these results, observations, data, analyses, in a coherent whole. There may be flaws or grey areas in the theory, as there is in any of them. It does not invalidate it. Only a more competent theory will do that. Even at that, a better theory will likely expand on it rather than replace it altogether.
  32. The science isn't settled
    I second Albatross. LandyJim's Theory: "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." Show me the evidence. Show me A) "genuine and scientifically researched objections to AGW precepts," and B) that attacks have been made on "those" who have raised these objections. The precepts you're talking about are the well-established radiative physics of CO2, CH4, and H20. I've yet to see any alternative theory that describes the observed radiative properties of those molecules. What other precepts are you talking about?
  33. The science isn't settled
    Landy Jim @41, "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." Absolute, unsubstantiated nonsense-- I strongly suspect that you have been reading contrarian blogs and/or highly inaccurate articles from certain media outlets. The people who have repeatedly received very real death threats, who are subjected to witch hunts, who have had their computers hacked (or fended off attempted hacks) are the climate scientists. I am more than happy to provide you with the abundant evidence of that. It strikes me as peculiar that you are trying to paint some "skeptics" as martyrs. Who are these martyrs? As for you claims about the FOI-- most of those "requests" were coming from overseas, Canada in particular. CRU did not and do not own the data in question and the people making the "requests" knew that-- why are we still having to explain these basic facts over a year later?! Failure to comply with some orchestrated vexatious FOI campaign (courtesy of Stephen McIntyre and friends)has nothing to do with wasting British tax payers' money. I would argue that what was a waste of money were the three investigations demanded by "skeptics" into the stolen email affair, which ultimately largely exonerated the people in question. I urge you to please read the report by Sir Muir Russel, the most comprehensive of all the investigations (here. The small group at CRU, overwhelmed, antagonized and under attack, made some bad calls and some people said some stupid things. Part of the problem was that the UEA failed the CRU by not providing sufficient guidance and administrative support to deal with the FOI requests. To my knowledge, well over a year has past yet McIntyre has yet to use those data that he demanded for anything, never mind a research paper. Does that not tell you anything Landy? "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." And it is there that you Landy need to exercise some responsible and diligence. From what I have seen thus far you seem only too happy to believe the spin, disinformation and distortion being used by "skeptics", contrarians and those in denial about the theory of AGW. Well, you have no excuses for not fact checking their claims, and applying your skepticism equally. I apologize if my tone is terse, but I and others are getting rather sick and tired of having to repeat these basics (that are freely available for people to educate themselves), not to mention having to play whack-a-mole refuting the seemingly endless stream of misinformation that people have been fed by people with agendas.
    Moderator Response: Further discussion specifically of ClimateGate should be on "A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives" or one of the other ClimateGate threads.
  34. The science isn't settled
    Landy Jim, Please read Spencer Weart's excellent book "The Discovery of Global Warming". There is an extended online version available here. I highly recommend it.
  35. 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."
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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).
  40. 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.
  41. 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 ;-)
  42. 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.
  43. 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?
  44. 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.
  45. 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"?
  46. 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.
  47. 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
  48. 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"?
  49. 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?
  50. 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!

Prev  1941  1942  1943  1944  1945  1946  1947  1948  1949  1950  1951  1952  1953  1954  1955  1956  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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