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  1952  1953  1954  1955  1956  1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  Next

Comments 97951 to 98000:

  1. More animations of the Warming Indicators
    Well done. My next request would be an "indicators of a climate sensitivity of 3˚C or higher" graphic... with links to Skeptical Science pages, as well as to the individual peer-reviewed papers supporting each indicator. IMO, we are letting the deniers "win" when we let them focus too much of the debate on the obvious and undeniable (whether the world is warming, what is actually causing the warming, whether greenhouse gases actually work as understood, etc.). The relevant debate, at this point in time, is "how warm are things going to get?" Lindzen and Spencer know this is the only battleground they have left, so they put their energies into the magical properties of clouds, despite a severe lack of evidence supporting their position. On the other side, there are myriad proxy studies, simple physics based mathematics, model results, and more that point to 3˚C or higher. Every time I look, it seems like another study points to 3˚C+ warming.
  2. What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
    This may be O.T. so please direct me to the proper topic. I used the search function already and this is as close as I came. I would be interested in your readers response. Roy Spencer made the following challenge. What most people don’t realize is that the vast majority of published research on the topic simply assumes that warming is man made. It in no way “proves” it. If the science really is that settled, then this challenge should be easy: Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record. Studies that have suggested that an increase in the total output of the sun cannot be blamed, do not count…the sun is an external driver. I’m talking about natural, internal variability. The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.
  3. We're heading into cooling
    Check out this site: //www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/noaa-confirms-recent-global-temperature-change-is-historically-small-warming-is-decelerating.html NOAA/NCDC Annual Global Temperature Change vs CO2 dataset clearly shows the big picture: Rising levels of CO2 have had little, if any at all, impact on annual global temperature changes. The global annual global temperature changes are within normal variability.
    Moderator Response: The appropriate thread for this comment *and for all responses* is There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
  4. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    Eric (skeptic) 48 "You would have been better off ignoring him (Monckton)". I disagree. Demonstrating the countless deliberate misrepresentations and out-right false claims by Monckton and others who claim to be skeptics is essential in revealing to others just how determined and corrupt the denial machine is. Most skeptics/deniers I encounter have little if any idea how science works or the value of the peer review process. Rather, their knowledge is based entirely on what their preferred political sources tell them. In other words, they cannot separate science from politics nor do they wish to do so.
  5. Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
    John, either your inability or choice not to respond to JMath (1/31/10) does not instill confidence. He makes a very valid point of criticism; one I have voiced myself on various forums. The utility of Dr. Mann’s temperature reconstruction is entirely dependent upon an assumption that is neither provable nor disprovable; thus is unscientific. The assumption is, as JMath pointed out, that the tree ring divergence problem only pertains to recent years. Since there are no recorded temperatures throughout most of the time span of the hockey stick graph, there is no way to verify the correctness of this assumption. This in turn casts grave doubts upon the accuracy of the entire reconstruction.
  6. More animations of the Warming Indicators
    I put together a video on "fingerprints" and "indicators". With help from Bach!
    Response: Thanks for the link. Here's the embedded video for those of you too lazy to click on the link:
  7. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    RSVP, instead of wallowing in victimhood or bringing up spurious attempts at diversion, why don't you comment on the subject in hand : Monckton. What do you think of the 'arguments' given by him above ? Do you agree with him or any of his 'arguments' ?
  8. CO2 lags temperature
    I keep having a ground hog day.
  9. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    JMurphy #41 By admitting my denial, I become guilty of acting in bad faith, yet if I deny my denial, I am labeled a hypocrite. If we are returning to the middle ages, perhaps it is due to the oxygen depravation.
  10. CO2 lags temperature
    Feet2thefire is plainly in complete ignorance of the logical place of models in science. A model is a set of mathematical formula that encapsulate a combination of known physical laws and some proposed theory. For any models other than the simplest, they need to be run on computers because of the number of calculations involved. For even moderately complex climate models they need to be run on super computers. But that does not change their logical basis. Because a model is a set of mathematical formulas encapsulating a theory, the output of a model run is just the prediction of that theory for a given set of initial conditions. (In chaotic systems, its a little more complex than that, but that's basically it.) So, and obviously, model outputs are not evidence. But that does not mean they are irrelevant. When Santer says, "Model experiments suggest that this increase cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone.", that means that no theory using natural variability alone as inputs predicts the observed increase in tropopause height. Just to make this quite clear. Models (and hence theories) including anthropogenic influences predict the increase in tropopause height. But no model (and hence theory) not including anthropogenic influences predicts the increase in tropopause height. This fact is not, of course, evidence. It is, however, proof that the increase in tropopause height is evidence of anthropogenic influence. Feet2thefire's slovenly argument is simply a demand that emperical observations (even if only with radiosonde) be not counted as evidence against theories that don't predict it; and not be counted as evidence for theories that do. It is a de facto demand that science be evidence free. I have not gone through all of Feet2thefire's endlessly turgid and repetitive spammed responce. I did note in passing a few blatant errors. Reanalysis is not, for example, weather forcasting. But what struck me most was the obtuse nitpicking. Obtuse because the nitpicks is clearly based on a total failure to understand what is said. They reveal Feet2thefire to be a scientific illiterate. Just one example. He picks fault with Santer for saying, "To date, no study has quantified the contributions of different anthropogenic and natural forcing mechanisms to tropopause height changes over the 20th century." (My emphasis) According to him, this is an admission by Santer that as of 2003, nobody had answered Spencer's challenge. But for his responce to make any sense, tropopause height would need to be the only possible signal of anthropogenic climate change.
  11. CO2 lags temperature
    @228 - The Santer paper is not good science. How in the world did Science actually publish such a weak, sloppy, illogical mess like that? I am not impressed. Is Santer kidding?
    A model-predicted fingerprint [human, I will assume he means] of tropopause height changes is statistically detectable in two different observational (“reanalysis”) datasets.
    It is a model, folks. Models are not empirical evidence. First of all, Santer is using tropopause height as a proxy for, not warming, but he takes it to an unwarranted next step, bypassing the warming itself and going straight to "humans did it." His statement should have been in two parts. First it should have said, "We show that tropopause height is a quantifiable proxy for a warming climate," and then he should have shown his evidence that it was humans that caused the tropopause height change. His logic is flawed. His CO2 = humans thinking is getting in the way of his logic.
    Increases in tropopause height over the last several decades have been identified in radiosonde data (2), in observationally-constrained numerical weather forecasts (reanalyses) (3), and in climate models forced by combined natural and anthropogenic effects (4).
    Wow. The only empirical evidence here is the first, radiosonde data, and it is only evidence that the tropopause has changed. Nothing in that fact points at humans. The 2nd one is weather forecasts, and forecasts are not empirical evidence. They are guesses. The 3rd is climate models, and models are not empirical evidence, either. So all he is left with is "Weather balloons say the tropopause changed height." That says nothing about humans. To Santer maybe it does, but it isn't scientific to take that quantum leap. Santer: In logic you can't leave steps out.
    Model experiments suggest that this increase cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone (4).
    Again, models are not empirical evidence. They are lines of code and can only give back what is programmed in. GIGO anyone? I am not slurring the modelers intentions, just that they need each physical process to be 100% proven out before they can rely on the output of that portion of the code. And they also need to not include even one code character of supposition or surmise or assumption.
    To date, no study has quantified the contributions of different anthropogenic and natural forcing mechanisms to tropopause height changes over the 20th century.
    THIS one is beautiful. Santer here is admitting that as of 2003 no one - I repeat, no one - had done what Dr. Spencer is asking in 2011. So, the first question should be, "Has anyone done it since then?" Of course, in this paper Santer is claiming that he and his cohorts have come to rescue climate science from that oversight. But has he?
    We estimate these contributions here, and demonstrate the usefulness of tropopause height as an integrated indicator of human-induced climate change.
    Sorry. Demonstrating based on estimates? Not science. I think he can do better than that. Really guys, this is not well done. On this site where you claim to be properly skeptical, you don't let that pass as science, do you? And this one in the Abstract caught my eye:
    Tropopause height changes simulated over 1900-1949 are smaller than in recent decades, and are driven largely by variations in volcanic aerosols and solar irradiance.
    I'll even pass on the "simulated" and get to the real goody: This is the same solar irradiance that has been shot down as a direct and naturalforcing for warming itself, but it is okay for Santer to drag it out and claim a causal link to tropopause height? For a proxy? Wow. That sure seems to be a double standard. But at the same time, let's see what Santer does with it... Okay, he only mentions it twice in the body of the text. The first is
    The natural external forcings considered are changes in solar irradiance (S) and volcanic aerosols (V)
    where he assigns a variable name to it. Okay... No real science there. . . Then the last mention of solar irradiance is:
    Solar irradiance changes over the 20th century warm both the troposphere and the stratosphere with offsetting effects on tropopause height.
    First here, let's point out that this is the only meaty (?) use of solar irradiance in the entire paper. But this is puzzling. Without any sourcing, he states it as fact, leaving everyone else (I guess) to stipulate that it is an uncontested fact. But, wow. He is giving solar irradiance a power that isn't referenced and a power that isn't allowed to anyone who tries to use it as a direct forcing on climate warming directly, who want to use it as a "natural forcing." They can't use it directly, but he can use it as a forcing - for a proxy - with no demonstrated evidence that it is even really true. Do I have that right? He can't do that. VERY poor logic, sloppy concepting of the paper - what can I say? Terrible... And in conclusion, nowhere in it does Santer develop an answer to Dr. Spencer's challenge. Models and simulations and estimates - none of them are empirical evidence that does what Santer claims it does. Solar irradiance - if he wants to use that for proxies, he has to "show his work," and prove why it is valid to use it. And then allow everyone else to use it. Seriously, if I were a grading it as a paper, I'd flunk the dude.
  12. Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
    HumanityRules, Thank you for admitting that you are arguing belief. You are correct that such a discussion is not going to be resolved by "trading science". This is the core problem in self-proclaimed skepticism - the two "sides" are not having the same discussion. I do agree that humanity is comprised of dynamic problem solvers. Dismissing the results of that problem solving because it conflicts with belief is not beneficial. The original instance of the term CAGW, that I know of, is the Oregon Petition.
  13. Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
    54 actually thoughtfull There is no possibility of a logical discussion between us on this subject. You see humanity as passive victims of change. I see us as dynamic problem solvers. That simple fact is not going to be resolved by trading science. I guess you're on "The Road" with Viggo Mortensen, I'm in the Shuttle with Bruce Willis. Of course that assumes CAGW is on the horizon.
  14. CO2 lags temperature
    I have never heard of Dr. Ferenc Miscolzi and can't find any published work by an author of that name. Can you provide any citations? That claim is in direct contradiction to many different lines of empirical evidence. argument: CO2 effect is weak argument: Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
  15. CO2 lags temperature
    #231: "there still seems to be strong scientific debate over the issue" It's not really a debate; that would imply some sort of parity between the two sides. If you look around this site for any length of time (and you should), you will quickly realize that most denier positions fall flat on their face. "despite being told that 'the science has been settled' by the majority of the media" What media do you watch? Most of the media ignores climate change as a political hot potato -- and those who do talk about it feel compelled to pretend it needs a 'fair and balanced' presentation. "the work of Dr. Ferenc Miscolzi" Very convincingly shown to be false here. Before falling for a fringe theory, it would be best to read up on the basics here at SkS. Start with the newcomers guide, then read through the rebuttals to the common skeptic arguments.
  16. It's not bad
    eric. that's nice. I'm not expecting Apocalypse tomorrow, or even in my lifetime. However, the papers by Matthews and Weaver, and Hare and Meinshausen for instance lead me to conclude that even if we start making changes now, it will take a long time to turn the climate ship around. There are significant risks associated with change that becomes too rapid as well - instability from climate refugees, effects from failures in food production, in particular - that I suspect will effect everyone on planet however isolated from direct effects they may be.
  17. CO2 lags temperature
    hey guys, i am an engineer so i am no expert in the field of climate science however i am deeply interested. i take quite a neutral position on whether CO2 is driving the climate, there still seems to be strong scientific debate over the issue despite being told that 'the science has been settled' by the majority of the media. I was just wondering have you guys seen the work of Dr. Ferenc Miscolzi? he has published quite a few papers. His conclusions are that there is a constantly maintained green house gas factor that cannot be changed with further emissions alone. He claims that there would be an equivalent amount of water vapour withdrawing from the atmosphere as the CO2 rises. I'm interested to hear standpoints on his work. Thanks
  18. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    That is the paradox of addressing purveyors of misinformation. Ignore them and they can spin that as proof of how they are correct and there is indeed a conspiracy to suppress The Truth. Cuckoo Science
  19. Eric (skeptic) at 14:05 PM on 3 February 2011
    It's not bad
    David Horton, you noted in the other thread that I am in your shoes because I live on earth. I live in Northern Virginia, a climate somewhat moderated due to the Appalachians to the west, but still can be cold and dry in the winter. In the summer it can be hot and humid. I think about winter cold a lot, so I have plans for that: a southern exposure on which I already use passive solar: foundation painted black, with some acrylic (a mistake) covering and warm air intakes. I have heat mass in the crawl space. I heat with wood. There's a lot more I could do and will as I have time. I also think about summer heat and have started five shade trees. I don't worry about drought, my well is 200 feet below the river and the river will never go dry. I don't worry about floods on the river 80 feet below. My summer electric bill peaks about $50 / month with central air so I haven't done much. There simply isn't as much to do about heat except perhaps water some plants, put up shade cloth, etc.
  20. Eric (skeptic) at 13:50 PM on 3 February 2011
    Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    Actually I am not in your shoes (more details on an appropriate thread). But I was referring specifically to Monckton obsession. This is how far you have come in a little over 4 years: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/14/science.comment You have turned Monckton from a typhoon of errors into a flood of much more clever misinformation. You would have been better off ignoring him.
  21. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    Eric "Y'all seem to take it much more personally than I would in your shoes." You are in our shoes. Or do you have another planet lined up somewhere, and a deal with Virgin Space for a trip?
  22. Eric (skeptic) at 13:03 PM on 3 February 2011
    Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    Tom, that is true, politics follows the path of least resistance and Monckton puts on a good performance. I am on the other side politically on this (because I believe we have time on our side), but in the long run it hurts the skeptical cause to have so much misinformation out there. Anthony Watts is also in the entertainment business as are many weathermen. I don't think the popularity of his blog is due to a yearning for scientific truth. When I started my research in the late 90's I took things more seriously. But I can't anymore so that is why I don't care what Monckton says. I just do the little bit I can to correct the more outrageous falsehoods that I see (mostly on conservative forums).
  23. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    When skeptics invite Monckton to adress Congress, we are forced to take him more seriously; and skeptics less so. Until skeptics rebut and repudiate the likes of Monckton themselves (and that includes the likes of Anthony Watts), any suggestion that scientists should take their views seriously are laughable.
  24. Eric (skeptic) at 12:20 PM on 3 February 2011
    Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    Climate sensitivity is something I have written about on other threads. What Monckton says: "Most of the few dozen scientists worldwide whom Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT estimates have actually studied climate sensitivity to the point of publication in a learned journal have reached their results not by measurement and observation but by mere modeling." That is wrong, paleo estimates do not use models. I haven't written about sea levels, but Monckton says "Professor Niklas Mörner, who has been studying sea level for a third of a century, says it is physically impossible for sea level to rise at much above its present rate, and he expects 4-8 inches of sea level rise this century, if anything rather below the rate of increase in the last century." Also wrong, greater sea level rise is certainly physically possible. The former above is distortion, the latter is cherry picking of scientists or both can be considered misinformation. The reason I've never commented about Monckton is I simply do not care what he says. Y'all seem to take it much more personally than I would in your shoes.
  25. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    And if future when submitting graphs, please use the appropriate scale for the axes, in you case the y-axis. For an excellent article on the appropriate scale for axes and other important graphing techniques, please see How to cook graph skepticalscience.com style (Cat and coffee warning. His latest is very funny too).
  26. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    "Springs may be coming earlier, but if autumn is too then there would be no net difference." The data and literature I provided do not support your (unsubstantiated) assertion. Please demonstrate for us here, using the literature and appropriate data, that the snow in the fall (September-November) has been arriving sooner. You made the assertion, it is up to you to substantiate it instead of musing hypotheticals. Agnostic, you may not realise it, but you are presenting as a concern troll...and this discussion is getting tiresome, especially when I hunt down numerous papers to back up my point and your retort is essentially full of "what ifs". Monckton misled, that much is unequivocal. He chose that part of the picture which fit his agenda. Dana (and I) provided seasonal and annual data.
  27. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Agnostic, "I'd really love to know why the ANNUAL average is not being shown..." I fail to see how you keep missing this graph from the above post: Do you not see the title of that Figure? "Northern Hemisphere Annual Snow Extent" And if future when submitting graphs, please use the appropriate scale for the axes, in you case the y-axis. Thanks.
  28. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    "I think that you are missing the point of the post. It is Monckton who is cherry-picking. " No i have not missed the point. I can see that John makes an excellent general point that we would not necessarily expect to see a reduction in winter snow extent, especially initially, but that spring would arrive sooner. He then goes onto to create a graph depicting how springs have had trending smaller extent. Well that is also cheery-picking. Springs may be coming earlier, but if autumn is too then there would be no net difference. If autumn comes at the same time, and spring earlier then there would be longer periods of the year with reduced ice extent. That would show in the Annual average as a decline. But if autumn starts earlier then it means the seasons are not respecting our notions of when they should start. That might possibly indicate some change to the climate, just not necessarily warming. (NB I am not disputing that there has been warming!) So I took the data he posted and made my own graph - taking care to ensure that the missing data was patched. ""Would it be not reasonable to suspect that there was some kind of change in data collection?" I do not think so, Brown and others do mention it." Hmm. My plot points bounce around, then suddenly drop a bit and remain pretty consistent thereafter. Never-the-less I scanned the article you linked regarding uncertainty and they seem to think it is not unprecedented - something like it occurred in the 20's. I suppose it's possible but you have to admit it really looks suspicious. "Inparticulare look at Table 4.2-- it shows N. Hemisphere snow extent showing statistically significant decreases between March and August (excluding May), with negative trends between January and October" Why just between March and August? In my experience mother nature does not always rock up on cue - surely the safest way to be sure that you account for different starts to the seasons is to take an annual average? If there is a trend it should still show up. I will look at the links you posted carefully, some I have already scanned before, but nothing there leaps out at me in answer to the questions I posed. If the Rutger data is as reliable as you suggest (and I have no reason to suppose otherwise), then simply comparing percentage differences of annual averages seems more striking in their consistency than as a clear trend - apart from that big jump at 1989. "All this presents a consistent and coherent picture. " Well to you may be, but I can't see one yet. I'd really love to know why the ANNUAL average is not being shown...
  29. Bjarne Mikael Torkveen at 08:34 AM on 3 February 2011
    Norwegian translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    Thanks for the nice comments. Sorry about the small typo. Tunnel vision, I guess.
  30. CO2 lags temperature
    Alleagra, Wow, Spencer is doing a merry dance...and the goal posts keep shifting so much and so far that it is a wonder anyone can keep up...perhaps that is the point. How about this Spencer....you please show us a peer-reviewed paper (published in a reputable journal please)which demonstrates that most of the observed warming to date is from natural forcing. I do know of a paper off the top of my head which addresses his loaded question (sounds like a similar situation to Lindzen cherry-picking 1995 in the HadCRUT record), but I will have look. I suspect Spencer has scoured the literature and carefully formulated his question so as to try and claim a "gotcha". We'll see... Oh, already found one, Schwartz et al. (2010): ".....and cooling by natural temperature variation can account for only about 15%." And "The standard deviation of the difference in temperature over 150-yr intervals for the period (1000–1850) based on the synthesis reconstruction of Juckes et al. (2007) yields 0.2 K, which is 25% of the observed increase in GMST (Fig. 2). Somewhat smaller changes in GMST were found in simulations of the twentieth century with coupled ocean–atmosphere global climate models using estimated natural forcings only (as reported by Solomon et al. 2007, see their Fig. 9.5), which for 19 runs with 5 models yielded a temperature increase of 0.09 K (standard deviation is 0.19 K, maximum is 0.49 K)" Spencer might also want to try and explain what is causing the planet to be in a net positive energy imbalance (see Murphy et al. 2009). One cannot blame that on internal climate variability, nor can one blame it on solar. Also from Murphy et al. (2009): "After accounting for the measured terms, the residual forcing between 1970 and 2000 due to direct and indirect forcing by aerosols as well as semi-direct forcing from greenhouse gases and any unknown mechanism can be estimated as −1.1 ± 0.4 W m−2 (1σ). This is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's best estimates but rules out very large negative forcings from aerosol indirect effects." Then there is Foster et al. (2010), in which they state: "Trenberth et al. [2002] found a residual global mean surface temperature trend of 0.4°C over the period 1977–1998 after ENSO impacts alone are removed. More recently, Thompson et al. [2008] removed an estimate of global temperature variations associated with both ENSO and the so‐called cold ocean/warm land or “COWL” pattern of extratropical temperature variation, and found a residual global mean surface warming of 0.4°C over the 1950–2006 period. In all of these previous analyses, ENSO has been found to describe between 15 and 30% of the inter seasonal and longer‐term variability in surface and/or lower tropospheric temperature, but little of the global mean warming trend of the past half century." Where the residual refers to the anthropogenic component. Trenberth et al. (2002) found that: "For 1950–1998, ENSO linearly accounts for 0.06 C of global surface temperature increase." And there are more where those came from....what does Spencer think he is trying to pull here? These games being played by those in denial about AGW/ACC (and it seems now that Spencer is officially in denial about AGW) disgust me. Spencer is just providing fodder for the "skeptics", who will lap anything up it seems so long it fits their preconceived (and misguided)ideas.
  31. CO2 lags temperature
    "Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out unicorn farts as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record." They can't! It's a conspiracy!
  32. CO2 lags temperature
    #224: "Show me one peer-reviewed paper ... " How about Santer 2003: Our study shows that the increase in tropopause height over the second half of the 20th century was predominantly due to human activity, and provides independent support for claims of recent tropospheric warming. And Hegerl et al 2011: we find that external forcing contributes significantly (p<5%) to the reconstructed long-term variability of winter and spring temperatures and that it is responsible for a best guess of 75% of the observed winter warming since the late seventeenth century. This warming is largely attributable to greenhouse-gas forcing. A more appropriate thread for this fish-in-a-barrel is It's not us.
  33. CO2 lags temperature
    The It's the Sun argument discussion provides links to 17 more peer-reviewed papers on this topic.
  34. CO2 lags temperature
    argument: It's not us Geophysical Research Letters Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes Science Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans argument: Models are unreliable Nature Geoscience The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes
  35. CO2 lags temperature
    Alleagra, Wow, Spencer is doing a merry dance...and the goal posts keep shifting so much and so far that it is a wonder anyone can keep up...perhaps that is the point. How about this Spencer....you please show us a peer-reviewed paper (published in a reputable journal please)which demonstrates that most of the observed warming to date is from natural forcing. I do know of a paper off the top of my head which addresses his loaded question (sounds like a similar situation to Lindzen cherry-picking 1995 in the HadCRUT record), but I will have look. I suspect Spencer has scoured the literature and carefully formulated his question so as to try and claim a "gotcha". We'll see...
  36. CO2 lags temperature
    I have just noticed this site and will read submissions on it with interest. I have a simple question. Dr. Roy Spencer [ http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/ ] who I am sure, needs no introduction, has just posted a comment "Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/a-challenge-from-dr-roy-spencer/#more-33053 Any offers for him?
  37. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    Astounding is it not JMurphy...and the hypocrisy and double standard they live by is equally astounding.
  38. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    RSVP, Please just answer the question, it is a simple one. A "yes" or "no" will suffice.
  39. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    How come so-called skeptics can't even criticise someone as obviously false as Monckton ? Or, if they do, they try to make out that those doing the criticising are worse ? There can only be one explanation : denial.
  40. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    Albatross #38 "What is your position on Monckton's campaign ...So far you have not stated your position regarding these actions. Please do so. " I guess I do see the mote in Monckton's eye, but I also see a few beams here and there.
  41. Skeptical Science iPhone app now with blog posts
    I was just updated to the new version on an iPod Touch (3rd Gen) running version 4.2.1 of iOS. The application starts, shows Loading... and then closes. I tried turning the iPod off and then on again, but the application fails in the same way.
  42. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    Agnostic @24 and 25, "While the melt might be coming sooner, it could be balanced out by snows arriving sooner meaning no net (or very little) change, so it perhaps not enough just to concentrate on just spring compared to winter." and "There doesn't seem to be a very strong trend, but it does look to be downwards." I think that you are missing the point of the post. It is Monckton who is cherry-picking. Dana81 has placed the tendencies in context, not to mention exposing the flaws with Monckton's assertions. Please read this page from the IPCC AR4. Inparticulare look at Table 4.2-- it shows N. Hemisphere snow extent showing statistically significant decreases between March and August (excluding May), with negative trends between January and October. They also state for Eurasia and Europe that: "Lowland areas of central Europe are characterised by recent reductions in annual snow cover duration by about 1 day yr–1 (e.g., Falarz, 2002). Trends towards greater maximum snow depth but shorter snow season have been noted in Finland (Hyvärinen, 2003), the former Soviet Union from 1936 to 1995 (Ye and Ellison, 2003), and in the Tibetan Plateau (Zhang et al., 2004) since the late 1970s. Qin et al. (2006) reported no trends in snow depth or snow cover in western China since 1957." Monckton is focusing on Winter (well at least November and December are) because those data are showing a small, statistically insignificant increase)and ignoring the other data which do not support his ideology. "Would it be not reasonable to suspect that there was some kind of change in data collection?" I do not think so, Brown and others do mention it. If there was going to be a step change then is should have been in the late 60s when the first satellite data became available. Other observations platforms have come online since then, but non of them seem to coincide with the step change in 1989. You must also remember that so much snow has has been lost in summer in recent decades that there really is not much more to melt anymore. So that contribution to the overall trend in recent years has dwindled. Yet, Dana's figure shows a marked downward trend in annual N.Hemisphere snow cover. Research has also shown that the the length of the melt season in the Arctic (and Greenland)is increasing. If you fit a quadratic to the annual N. Hemisphere snow cover data data between 1989 and 2010 (which provides a much better fit than an linear model), you get an inflection point around 1996, with a negative slope thereafter. All this presents a consistent and coherent picture. Your questions about uncertainty in the data are answered in Brown and Robinson (2010). The Rutger's data are not wrong. The model's have underestimated the loss of Arctic sea ice. Regarding "by how much did climate models 'expect' snow extent to decline?" Read this. You might also find this paper by Brown and Mote (2009) interesting, it speaks to the anticipated complex response of snow cover to warming and increased precipitation. And last, bit not least, this paper by Dery and Brown (2007), which concludes: "To summarize, strong negative trends in weekly SCE over the period 1972–2006 are observed in the NH, North America and Eurasia. The largest declines occur during spring over North America and, to a lesser extent, over Eurasia. Persistence both on weekly and annual times scales influences trends in North American and Eurasian SCE. The similar response of the North American and Eurasian snow covers, including their co-variability, persistence, and amplified trends during spring, provide evidence of the snow albedo feedback as a possible mechanism contributing to recent changes in observed SCE."
  43. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    Thanks for a really, really nice, condenced and easy to read small document. It is a good hope of getting lesser educated or missinformed friends and colleagues to read this on such and important subject. I've got a comment on page 4, where the upper right figure is showing the amount of build up of the Earth's total heat content. I think that either the text: "Ocean Heating" should have said: "Glaciar Melting and Ocean heating", if that is the case. If that is not part of the graph, the accumulated heat made by Glaciar Melting could be added as another factor? When knowing that the heat energy needed for melting 1 kg of ice, could otherwise increase the temperature of 1 kg of water with nearly 80 degrees Celsius (if I got the numbers right?) the spent energy (heat) for melting thousands of km3 of glaciers during the same periode is enormous. If I'm remember right, the netto ice-loss on Greenland alone is more than 100 km3 annually?
  44. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    RSVP 33: "the sky is a long way off from falling" There are pieces that have already begun to fall as has been discussed in other threads, which include ocean acidification, changing agricultural areas, sea level rise, increased albedo, increased chaotic weather and more. How much has to fall before you are willing to recognize those facts?
  45. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    RSVP, Please, this thread is about Monckton myths. I am reading a lot of words from you, but seeing very little content or substance. This is how threads get derailed. What is your position on Monckton's campaign of cherry-picking, misinformation and distortion? So far you have not stated your position regarding these actions. Please do so.
  46. Norwegian translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    Fantastisk! (Fantastic!) The whole document is so nice and perfect for presenting to actually anyone. I've must send my congratulations to Bjarne Mikael Torkveen, which have done a really good job. Great Bjarne! :-) It could be nice to have his Email to contact him of minor changes which I might spot... The first one I've spotted is "en blått kirseærtre" which should been spelled: "et blått kirsebærtre".
  47. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    That's an apples-to-oranges comparison! If we consider the ~0.9 K change seen so far and assume we started at 288 K, then you can compare the linear model response to the 'full' Stefan-Boltzmann response. You also need to consider atmospheric emissivity, which I assume is constant at 0.8. The linear feedback response model expects a blackbody feedback for the 0.9 K warming of about 2.926 W m-2. The 'exact' model calculates 2.939 W m-2. The fractional error in changes seen so far from linearisation is 0.46% or 0.013 W m-2. Absolutely tiny compared to the full fluxes, and effectively impossible to measure to that precision in the climate anyway. Full models include the 'exact' version, this simple linear model appears to be a good approximation according to them. For the blackbody feedback it's very good, for the others it seems to be reasonable.
  48. Dikran Marsupial at 00:49 AM on 3 February 2011
    It's not us
    The argument is about what is observed to have happened, and makes no assumptions about what values U_n and E_n actually have, and does not make any assumptions about the sources or whether they vary. Think of U_n and E_n as being the total natural uptake and emissions from natural sinks and sources that actually ocurred in a particular year. We don't know their individual values, we can't directly observe them, but we don't need to know their values, the key point is that we can infer the difference between them and know if the natural environment is a net source or a net sink. Your definition of indirect anthropogenic emissions is unworkable. Firstly issues such as deforestation are already included in anthropogenic emissions as it comes under "land use change". Secondly, the main way in which our emissions have changed the carbon cycle is that there is now far more *uptake* because the atmospheric concentration has risen. The whole reason the natural environment is currently a net sink is due to its response to our emissions. If you want to increase the anthropogenic emissions by including an "indirect component", it just means that the natural environment must be an even stronger net carbon sink than the basic mass balace argument suggests, in which case it remains the case that man is responsible for the observed rise in CO2 (i.e. we agree). As to your question, to understand the ratio if isotopes that you should expect to be in the atmosphere, there is a more important consideration, namely that vast quantities of carbon are recycled between reservoirs annually. If you look at the figures for the fluxes, you will find that the oceans and terrestial bioshphere exchange about 160GTC (IIRC) with the atmosphere each year. This is about a fifth of the atmospheric reservoir, so the residence time (the amount of time a molecule remains in the atmosphere before being taken up by the oceans/biota etc.) is only about five years. This rapidly replaces carbon with "fossil" isotopic signature with carbon of a "natural" isotopic signature, so the change in 12C is not as great as you might expect. However this has nothing to do with the rise in atmospheric CO2 as it is only an exchange of carbon, that is if anything opposing the rise. Thus even though CO2 has risen by about 40% due to anthropogenic emissions, only about 4% of atmospheric carbon is of directly anthropogenic origin (due to the effects of the large exchange fluxes replacing it with "natural" carbon). The export from upper to deep ocean reservoirs is entirely irrelevant. The mass balance argument only involves fluxes into and out of the atmosphere, and only the difference in total emissions and total uptake matters. As to papers on my second post, I haven't seen any papers that use a model of the carbon cycle that is so rudimentary that the result is easily obtained. Anyone who works on the carbon cycle will find it too obvious to publish a paper on, and instead are working on more complex models that take into account things like upper-deep ocean fluxes. The one paper I have seen that uses such a model is the one by Essenhigh (2009), but in that paper Essenhigh fails to understand the distincion between residence time and adjustment time and hence the conclusion of the paper is incorrect.
  49. Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
    I should add (forgot to mention this in the first post) that if winter melt is happening earlier because the world is warming, it should show up on yearly averages. Longer snow-free periods is really what John is driving at at surely? While the melt might be coming sooner, it could be balanced out by snows arriving sooner meaning no net (or very little) change, so it perhaps not enough just to concentrate on just spring compared to winter. If this is not the case, then I would be interested to know how scientists have come to the conclusion that "a new study by Flanner et al. (2011) has found that so far, snow cover is declining more rapidly and causing more global warming than climate models expect." given that the annual extent from the figures John posted don't appear to have changed much. And by "much" I must qualify that with not knowing whether the 2-3% difference is a lot or little, within natural variance or cause for concern because of man-made effects. For example, by how much did climate models 'expect' snow extent to decline? How much of the decline do they expect natural variance to account for? How much from anthropogenic forcing? Or are the figures from Rutgers wrong? What are the margins for error?
  50. Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
    JMurphy #35 "you just have to think about a life which doesn't involve exploitation, waste and spoilation of land, energy and the environment" It is "patently obvious" that you are asking me to think about the answer you did not provide. At least nothing concrete. Just more words.

Prev  1952  1953  1954  1955  1956  1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2025 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us