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  1942  1943  1944  1945  1946  1947  1948  1949  1950  1951  1952  1953  1954  1955  1956  1957  Next

Comments 97451 to 97500:

  1. 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?
  2. 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 ?
  3. 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?
  4. 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)
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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)
  10. 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.
  11. 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."
  12. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    @Muoncounter..response to your post is here
  13. 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."
  14. 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?
  15. 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".
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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).
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    UNEP has a site entitled "Global Outlook for Ice and Snow" here. It gives a bit broader perspective.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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? :)
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    "Cool It" ! See Lomborg errors. Warning - there are a lot.
  32. 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
  33. 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)
  34. 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
  35. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    Snowhare #20 I don't know about "fairly random" Nephi, Utah, but I think most people would take note if, say, a forecast high for the next day was 80F and it turned out to be 92F. But, please note that I very much agree with what I think is a main point of the post, that a rise of 7C in the global average is enormously more significant than a day to day variation. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
  36. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    It will be fantastic to the records if the NASA guys can recover the NIMBUS satellite data. It could add data as far back as 1964!
  37. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Monckton has been promoting this canard about winter N. Hemisphere snow cover trends refuting AGW for some time: "There has been no decline whatsoever in the total global extent of sea ice since satellite records began. New records for the extent of northern-hemisphere snow cover were observed by the satellites in the winter of 2001 and again in 2007. This year, many ski resorts are opening early as Arctic weather strikes. Many temperature stations in the northern hemisphere recorded record low temperatures in October/November 2008." [Here on Tuesday, 09 December 2008 19:51] What is more, he could have not made that claim about the 2001 and 2007 extents being records without having looked at all the data. So he cannot plead ignorance. Furthermore, as the Rutgers data show, Monckton's claim that the N. Hemisphere snow cover in the winters of 2001 and 2007 were record highs is demonstrably false. Unless, he was referring to a specific month-- either way he has deceived the reader. According to the Rutgers data, 2001 and 2007 were not spectacular years for N. Hemisphere snow cover, not even close. According to Rutgers the record high N. Hemisphere snow cover extents for the individual Boreal winter months since 1979 are: December 1985@ 45.99 million km^2 (followed by 2009 and 2010) January 1985 @ 49.87 (followed by 2008 and 1979) February 2010 @ 48.39 (followed by 1980 and 1985) The Rutgers data go back to late 1966, in which case the records are: December: 1985 (followed by 1970 and 2009) January: Unchanged February:1978 (followed by 1972 and 2010)
  38. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    Another useful analogy perhaps to explain the difference between weather and climate: a gas. It is impossible to know the exact position and speed of every molecule in a gas, but it is perfectly possible to describe it’s behavior in macroscopic terms (temperature, volume, pressure), and to use that knowledge to generate electricity via a thermodynamic cycle. The knowledge of the microscopic scale isn't necessary to successfully predict the behavior on a macroscopic scale.
  39. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Jim And my background is in Mechanical Engineering. After several years looking fairly intensely at AGW my position firmed up quite strongly, based particularly on the thermodynanmics of present circumstances and the deep paleoclimate record. I accept that there is still uncertainty about the magnitude of the future warming, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the more detailed prediction made turn out incorrect to some degree such as hurricanes for example - frequency vs intensity. What convinces me is the larger planet-scale phenomena. And the aggregate temperature rises predicted for later this century are terrifying. A world with that much warming isn't a world that can feed 9-10 Billion people. I hope your son is well.
  40. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    I am often amazed at the accuracy of weather forecasting; it is not uncommon for the prediction be accurate down to the hour of precipitation onset. I find it instructive to read the 'technical discussion' offered by the weather service here in the US. This discussion will evaluate multiple models, indicate when they diverge and when they agree, and even offer comments on how small changes in storm path may result in large changes in weather outcome. It may be beyond the scope of a short discussion, but I think the accuracy of weather forecasting up to 10 -14 days in advance strengthens my confidence in climate models. Here is today's discussion for my area: http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&issuedby=LOX&product=AFD&format=CI&version=1&glossary=1 It is not particularly interesting right now, but can give a very good idea of the confidence of predictions.
  41. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    @ 23 & 24 Then you may want to start following Neven's Sea Ice blog for the best in real-time coverage and cutting edge commentary of the Arctic melt season... Keep an eye out for Artful Dodger's posts; he's a sharp one... The Yooper
  42. Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
    The Ville at 23:32 PM on 24 January, 2011, re "They don't think that reliability is 'engineered' and they just get the engineered result." This does apply to weather forecasts as there is considerable variation in the quality of weather forecasts available and it can be a case of getting what you pay for. For most people, probably including most who post here, weather forecasts are of academic interest and I doubt that few, if any, would be subscribing and paying for private forecasting services. However those who have a vested interest in the future weather, be it those in the agriculture sector, or insurance companies offering rain insurance or the like, do not rely on the free forecasting services even if they are being supplied by the major forecasting bodies who generally have the resources and authority of their government backers behind them. Instead, and this is where the "engineered reliability" comes in, they will instead rely on those professional forecasters whose approach and ability to think outside the box when it comes to compiling forecasts, has them years ahead of the major bodies who are normally considered the authority. Many jokes are made about the record of our own BOM and CSIRO forecasts, as are the UK's Met office recent record, but people will joke about something that appears not to be paid for directly out of their own pocket. However when someone is paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for reliable forecasts, where the outcomes and gains or losses can be measured in hundreds of thousands Dollars, then one can be sure that the "engineered reliability" is carefully taken into consideration, and that is what private forecasting services are able to demonstrate. There is no doubt that as time progresses the forecasts from the major services has improved, but so has those of the private services, the lag appears to me to be at least a decade, that being they time between new indicators being identified and utilised by those operating at the leading edge, and the main stream bodies encumbered with their bureaucracy and their need to serve their political paymasters.
  43. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    MarkR: I have an alternative idea. Flanner et al claim that cryosphere albedo feedback is larger than the models have. But those models still track real temperatures (more or less), right? That means that if we include the "correct" feedback, then they (or most of them) would be running too hot, no? Isn't it therefore more likely that something else in the models is off a bit (e.g. aerosol forcing, other feedbacks)?
  44. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    #6: "Skeptics too often produce...". Skeptics don't, _denialists_ do. Skepticism is essential for science, and I don't think we should let the meaning of that word become corrupted. That would really be a lasting victory for the denialists. And, a skeptic who is not skeptical also towards his own ideas is no real skeptic, rather some kind of polemic. BTW, for a prolonged time, winter NH snow cover may increase under global warming, the increase in air moisture content thus generating a (local) negative feedback, in part via albedo. But I don't think this will be very significant for the overall warming process, because the "lost" radiation is relatively weak - few insolation hours and low angle. (These days, I use the solar collector, Norway, mostly for feeding the heat pump, rather than direct heating - that's the best use of it. But in March, the situation will have changed dramatically.)
  45. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    @23 Gordon: The most annoying thing is that we will be ejected from the game and will never find out the result.
  46. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Dana @8, "perhaps just being careless." You are being far too generous. Monckton is fully capable of talking about paleo climate, historical temperature record etc.. He knows these data, he makes a livelihood going around the world speaking to them. So I think it highly, highly unlikely, that Monckton happened to simply "forget" about some inconvenient data points. Besides, even if Monckton did err by chance, then Anthony Watts should have caught it and had him change it ;) What would clarify this is to determine what time window for snow cover Monckton has shown in his slides. I'll get back to you should I find anything.
  47. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Tom #6 - nice sleuthing. Here is the Goddard plot in question: Since Goddard omits the data prior to 1989, had he been using this WUWT post as a reference, Monckton would not be aware that 1978-79 had the record NH snow extent. I'm still not sure how Monckton would have confused the "record" of 2009-10 with 2008-09, perhaps just being careless.
  48. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    I posted too soon. I have just discovered that the NSIDC records on snow coverage start in November of 1978, whereas it was Dec 1977 - Feb 1978 that set the record on the Rutgers data. Monckton may not have been dishonest in this case (beyond cherry picking winter).
  49. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Following up on this article with a few google searches, I think I may have found the source of Lord Monckton's error. In particular I found an article at Watt's Up With That called "Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent Second Highest on Record". (Google it if you want to see it. I don't link to trash sites.) In this article, Steve Goddard produces a graph of NH winter snow extents with a clear upward trend. Looking closer, it becomes obvious the trend in introduced by carefully selecting a start year of 1989. (Sceptics to often produce odd trend lines in graphs by because of the start date for it to be other than carefull selection.) Had the potty Lord seen an earlier version of the graph, it would explain his belief that the winter of 2008 had the highest snow extent.
  50. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Albatross - you're correct, I confused this winter (which is only 33% complete, so Monckton's claim that there is "some chance" of a new record is rather silly) with last winter. I've corrected the text accordingly, thanks.

Prev  1942  1943  1944  1945  1946  1947  1948  1949  1950  1951  1952  1953  1954  1955  1956  1957  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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