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  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  Next

Comments 98251 to 98300:

  1. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    #155. Please see my previous comment (#151). The current la nina is NOT the strongest on record. Current SST anomalies are about the same (0.1C lower) than the 2008 La Nina which was the weakest "peak" la nina since 1975 and the lowest "peak" la nina since 1950. (unfortunately I can't past a pictures here, otherwise you'd see exactly what I mean, but I can refer to my another post to give you an idea: here; #13. Now, time will tell if the current la nina will get any or much stronger, though most indications don't point that way. Also, and as I pointed out previously, global temperatures LACK 3-6months behind in response to ENSO events. Hence, most of the atmosphere won't respond until right around now...
  2. actually thoughtful at 05:02 AM on 19 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Apirate, There isn't much I can do if you insist up is down and down is up. The null hypothesis is the one where you don't monkey with the system. Pumping in 6,000,000,000 tons annually of CO2 into a basically closed systems is a textbook example of monkeying with the system. Take a look at : http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm I admire those of you in a quixotic battle with reality, but I do think it requires being impervious to some important facts to maintain, for example, that it is PDO, or ENSO. Natural cycles are, by definition, cyclical. For natural variability to be in play, what went up must come down. Barring an external forcing (which our clever climate scientists tell us is CO2 - but you want to ignore that, which leaves us with NO forcing) - the longest cycle ever claimed is a 60 year cycle. If you start in 1950 you are toast (we are at 60 years - no cooling). If you start at 1980 - (and ignore lots and lots and lots and lots of counter-facts) - you have 30 years of non-stop cooling to get this cycle to come back to the 1980 start. Good luck. I don't mean to be rude but you have broken my system - it only works when you use facts and valid logic. You came back with a muddled logic, which is so confusing that you can't properly frame the topic - or even see how bad your initial conceptual frame is. I urge you to come up with another way of thinking about it - as your starting position is one that I (pessimistically perhaps) think you won't be able to think your way out of until the data is even more overwhelming. Here are some ideas for other approaches (if it helps, we can call the your first effort a draw, as I am at a loss as to how to throw you a logical life preserver - your concept is internally consistent, but doesn't allow you to recognize reality until a scientific proof is available). Recognizing, of course, that science doesn't have proofs. Science has theories. Theories that explain the world, and are considered "generally accepted" when there is no better theory available and the preponderance of evidence supports the theory. This is the case with climate science (sometimes called AGW). So here are some ideas and ways to think about it that should avoid the shoals of your flawed null hypothesis. 1. Why is warming more at night? 2. What evidence will convince you that AGW is correct? What will convince you it is false (bonus if you can get to your "final answer" within the decade). 3. Can you offer off a complete theory with an equivalent level of explanatory power (if you understand CO2 and greenhouse gases are causing the warming, you can explain coral reef bleaching, rising sea levels (and their rate), changes in weather patterns, loss of mass at arctic and Greenland ice sheets, loss of mass at the South Pole and on and on). If your mind takes you to the null hypothesis - fight the magnetic pull of that closed circle argument. Once you get back on that track you could find you have no escape (there is, but it requires getting out of that endless loop).
  3. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    I have just discovered an excellent reference that clearly discusses clouds, interferences, etc. My contribution (GWPPT6) was meant to be a description of the effect of CO2 as a GHG that can be calculated without the use of a computer. As such it has significant limitations, in particular it does not deal with any of the important effects of interaction (e.g. between H2O and CO2) that are dealt with in the reference. The upshot of the reference is that the simple approach of GWPPT6 overestimates the GHG effect . That result is fine with me because it was my only purpose to describe the basic physics of the absorption. At any rate for those who wish a signifcantly more inclusive, but very clearly presented, description of the GHG effect I strongly recommend, G. A. Schmidt, et.al.,J. Geophys. Res.,Vol 115, D20106 (2110). In this paper the authors distinguish between a maximum, acting alone, effect (which is what is calculated in GWPPT6) and a minmum effect (upon removal of CO2, for example) where the effect in question is calculated with the inclusion of vater vapor and clouds. The result that relates to GWPPT6 is that the "Single Factor Removal", i.e. the effect as calculated with all interactions and then with all intereactions with CO2 removed, results in a decrease in the current GHG effect of 14.0%, while the "Single Factor Addition) (add in CO2 with but ignoring interactions) is 24.6%
  4. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    Indeed; however, MEI is a ranking system not a value or measurement in it self, such as a SST for example. MEI looks at "all" effects of la ninas and el ninos, combines those and ranks the outcome: six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific, some of which not related or only indirectly related to temperature: e.g. sea-level pressure, zonal and meridional components of the surface wind, and total cloudiness fraction of the sky. ONI is a SST. In addition, MEI is bi-monthly, ONI tri-monthly. Hence the fact that some bi-monhtly MEI rankings are high doesn't necessarily mean it is also the coldest (lowest SST) la nina, which it obviously is not according to NOI. We indeed need to wait and see how the current la nina develops; in December SSTs crept up a bid, but have decreased again somewhat in January. The most recent pattern of SST anomalies is similar to that observed since mid November 2010. I'd expect the NDJ season somewhere between -1.3 and -1.6 at the most. Note that global temperatures lack often 3-6 months in response to ENSO events.
  5. actually thoughtful at 04:32 AM on 19 January 2011
    Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Eric (skeptic) My information comes from NASA. "The solid record of La Nina strength only goes back about 50 years and this latest event appears to be one of the strongest ones over this time period," said climatologist Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California." The language was clear than I remember, so I can live with "one of the strongest". (the link is long, and my patience short - you can google the quote and see the story - it is not the data, but Bill Patzert's analysis.)
  6. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    NETDR, you're still doing the analysis wrong. You don't fit a curve to the log data. If the log data is linear then the growth is exponential. If the log data has grown faster than linearly (as is the case for the CO2 data), then the growth is faster than exponential. Tamino has already shown all of this. You're just doing the analysis wrong and thus arriving at the wrong conclusions.
  7. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    Dikran As is commonly accepted the log of the CO2 is proportional to the effect of the CO2. The log is increasing so slowly that the effect increases slowly too. Saying something is exponential is just hand waving if the exponential part is very low, which it is. Since the slope of the effect [log] is .0018 the increase is small. in 90 years the effect increases 16 %. The effect of the second derivative as shown above is negligible and is negative . [-5E-05x3 ]
  8. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    All, This is one of the fallacious statements made by Monckton: "CO2 concentration is rising in a straight line at just 2 ppmv/year at present and, even if it were to accelerate to an exponential rate of increase, the corresponding temperature increase would be expected to rise merely in a straight line." That first claim has been shown to be demonstrably false. The second claim is a "what if", but in the real world the appropriate mathematical and statistical treatment of the data (and appropriate nomenclature, as noted by Dikram @24) show that the we are already there. This really is a no brainer and it is disturbing that people are willing to go out on a limb and shred their own credibility by trying to defend Monckton's fallacies.
  9. Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
    I have a question which I hope will not be considered too off-topic: In looking at the history of temperatures in the 20th century, we see a slowing of temperature rise which I guess goes roughly from 1940 through 1970 or so. In previous discussions I see that this is attributed to sulfate aerosols. OTOH the fact that the slowing occurred roughly starting in 1940 makes me wonder if WW2 had something to do with this. (This is just a historical side note to the larger discussion, I have no hidden agenda.) Thanks to anyone who cares to respond.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Welcome to Skeptical Science. You start off with an excellent question. I won't go into it, as it is off-topic here, but there's a couple of nice posts on that topic here and here. Please post any further questions and comments on that subject on the relevant thread. For other questions, the Search function, located in the upper left of every page here, is your friend.
  10. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    NETDR @153, Feel free to quantitatively demonstrate that "The PDO is a natural cycle and I [and others on this thread] contend the warming from 1978 to 1998 can easily be explained by it." on the appropriate thread. IMHO, you would probably have better luck explaining more of the variance in the global SAT record using the AMO than the PDO. "From 1998 to present it s debatable whether there is any warming" Also on the wrong thread, and you seem to have been hoodwinked by Monckton et al's misinformation. Robert Way uses various datasets to dismisses that myth here. This will suffice for now:
  11. Dikran Marsupial at 02:43 AM on 19 January 2011
    Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    @NETDR "So the rate of acceleration term is tiny." That is irrelevant; if the rise in CO2 is exponential (or faster) then the increase in radiative forcing will be (super-) linear, regardless of the acceleration. The log of an exponential is a linear function, it is a fact of mathematics that can't be circumvented by fitting polynomials. I think part of the problem is that there is a colloquial meaning of "exponential" used in hyperbolic statements about uncontrollable runaway growth. There is another mathematical definition. In this case, it is the latter that is relevant, but some are using the "hyperbolic" definition and hence are surprised that the deviation from a linear model is not that large. However, to the more mathematically inclined, that is no big surprise.
  12. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    I think the central problem in Monckton's claim of "log(exponential) = linear" has perhaps not quite been addressed here... The reason people think of our growth in emissions as roughly exponential is that really is the standard assumption of economics - a roughly constant growth rate from year to year. That translates into a close to exponential rise in CO2 emissions, assuming carbon intensity doesn't change (or changes itself at an exponential rate) with a doubling time of around 30 years (say 2%/year growth). But the *total* CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a combination of the *pre-industrial* value (280 ppm) plus this exponentially growing anthropogenic piece - i.e. something like: CO2(year) = 270 ppm + 100 ppm * 2^((year - 2000)/30) In the long run, that expression is going to be dominated by the exponential term. But for the next 50 years or so it's a *SUM* of a flat term plus an exponential. And the logarithm of that is not something that rises linearly, but something that rises faster than linear (for now).
  13. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    Moderator I totally disagree! The discussion about the PDO belongs on this thread. The name of this thread is "Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?" The PDO is a natural cycle and I [and others on this thread] contend the warming from 1978 to 1998 can easily be explained by it. The period 1978 to 1998 is the only period when there was unequivocal warming which has been linked to CO2 [incorrectly in my opinion] From 1998 to present it s debatable whether there is any warming. If so it is slight at best.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] As you well know, having commented on the PDO thread several times (and been corrected several times there), in-depth discussions of various topics at Skeptical Science need to be placed on the appropriate threads. As you were counseled before, you maywill need to learn to use the Search function to do that. Discussions on PDO belong on the PDO thread already linked for you. As for the "no warming since 1998" meme (you are aware, aren't you, that 2005 and 2010 were both hotter than 1998?), removing the impact of natural cycles like ENSO and other things like volcanoes, explain this (from Open Mind):
  14. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    First of all I was incorrect the exponent is 2. [I saw it after I hit "submit"!] We don't need to assume a constant acceleration. The 3 rd order equation for a best fit is: y = -5E-05x3 + 0.0159x2 + 0.7345x + 312 So the rate of acceleration term is tiny. The sample is over 50 years so any acceleration should be evident. I am only looking at 90 years because we will have transferred to renewable fuel by then. Mark R said "You test for the acceleration in a standard way (trend in the residuals) and you find it. You test it against an exponential increase too and you find an acceleration there. " I like the third order polynomial better. I also took the log of the CO2 data and plotted it. The slope was .0018. The equation is: y = 0.0018x + 2.4878 Over a 90 year period the rate of increase in effect is almost negligible. You could do the increase in increase forever and the effect is negligible.
  15. Not a cite for Soare eyes
    Looking at the page for the International Journal of the Geosciences, it has an "open access" icon at the top, next to the name of the journal. International Journal of the Geosciences- Open Access Does this mean that anybody with the price of publication can now be a "peer reviewed" author? There appears to be another paper on climate science in Volume 1, Number 3 of IJGS "Recent Energy Balance of the Earth" by Knox and Douglass:
    A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993-2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003-2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001-2002. Using only 2003-2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.161 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.
    Gee, that's a surprise. Using a shorter interval obscures the trend? Who knew?
  16. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:31 AM on 19 January 2011
    Global Warming and Cold Winters
    You can not ignore the opinions of this discussion, Professor Mike Lockwood: “There is no doubt that the frequency of those blocking events in winter is higher when solar activity is low,” says Lockwood. “What was a slight surprise is that the sun was changing the jet stream, but only when the jet stream has travelled across the Atlantic and begins hitting land over Europe.” At present in the Arctic - the Arctic Circle - half a year continues night. Large extra warmth can come only from the equatorial zone (system: NAO - AO - AMO - AMOC).
  17. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    #151: "it is more correct to say that due to the past el nino we have a temperature tie" That seems like a lot of fancy tap dancing to explain what clearly stands on its own. "If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long," said James Hansen, the director of GISS. Perhaps one should ask 'why was this el Nino so strong? why is the following la Nina also so strong?' Perhaps there is somewhat of a longer term mechanism driving those oscillations. But ask those questions on the appropriate thread.
  18. Hockey stick is broken
    Your second graph, LandyJim, I presume comes from Monckton, or someone similar ? The latest date on it would have to be 1994, I would imagine. How do you think it would look with the temperatures up to 2010 - whatever the temperature scale on that graph actually means and for which location. Do you know ? What do you believe you are trying to show with the Vostock graph - that temperature has varied in the past ? How does that relate to today ? There are more of these you can see here and here, if you like those sort of long-term measurements. As for the fourth one, it isn't from the Abrupt Climate Change paper as you stated; and neither is it from the The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland" as suggested in your subsequent post. Well, I couldn't find it, anyway, after a quick look, although I did find the data. Perhaps you could point it out more exactly ? You can even see EPICA and VOSTOK compared here, if you would like.
  19. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    OK..on reflection comments about Vineyards are unhelpful and very misleading. I was remembering statements made in History of Roman Britain from School and as I am not really a wine drinker..I was not aware of the extend of modern British Vinyards. The Most Northerly I have found, which clearly blows my earlier comments well out of the water is this one.. Holmfirth Vineyard, Woodhouse Farm, Woodhouse Lane, Holmbridge, Holmfirth HD9 2QR This is surprisingly close to surviving sections of Hadrian's Wall and thus I think in future I will ignore Vinyards and Hadrian's wall comments... Apologies for that.
  20. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    Perhaps this would be worth a short post? You can estimate final CO2 from current trends, assuming we continue as usual. First I tested to see whether quadratic was a good fit. It's ok: you can test for acceleration by assuming C=At^2 where C is carbon, t time and A constant. Rearrange to get C^(1/2)=At. Not plot the two together and if the risiduals (difference between a straight line and the actual results) are not random then you have some kind of acceleration. In this case there is an acceleration and it's positive: we are increasing faster than with the square of time. We can use this to put a MINIMUM on the amount of CO2 we expect by 2100 assuming we continue on as Mauna Loa data says we have for the past 50 years or so. Take the annual differences in CO2 and then plot them against year then fit a line: the trend is the acceleration in change of CO2 per year per year. It is 0.026 +/- 0.04. You can assume a constant acceleration (i.e a quadratic) which we know is a MINIMUM for the CO2 changes we expect. Then you can use a SUVAT to determine final CO2: s = ut + (1/2)at^2 Where u is the current rate of increase of CO2, about 2ppm/yr averaged from 2001-10. a is the acceleration, or the 0.026 we just worked out. Therefore final s, or CO2 concentration in 90 years time at 2100 is just over 680 ppmv. (This is LOWER than the actual better fit) So we expect an additional minimum of 3 W m^-2 of CO2 radiative forcing in the next 90 years from the Mauna Loa data. On top of the ~1.8 W m^-2 from the past 160 years. Obviously an acceleration if you bother to look at the Mauna Loa data. Which Monckton doesn't. His analysis is simply wrong too: exp * ln is only linear in special cases. I did this in a rush literally on the back of an envelope and excel. Off to lunch, but I'll check it later. Please correct me if I got it wrong!
  21. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    You don't need anything other than a simple spreadsheet to check the Mauna Loa data. Check the residuals from the linear fit: if they're random then there's no acceleration. They're not, so there is. You can plot the data logarithmically like Tamino did (I did it for annual, rather than 10-yr means). And the annual data residuals show acceleration above exponential! (although we should be careful with individual periods - 1990 saw the USSR collapse for example) You test for the acceleration in a standard way (trend in the residuals) and you find it. You test it against an exponential increase too and you find an acceleration there.
  22. Dikran Marsupial at 23:51 PM on 18 January 2011
    Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    @chemware - looking to see what simple equations fit a finite sample of data best tells you next to nothing about the process that generates the data. For example, as you point out, a quadratic is a Taylor series expansion of a more complex (or simpler) function, so if a quadratic fits well, it may simply be because it is approximating an exponential. If a more flexible quadratic fits better than an exponential, it may simply be that the quadratic is better able to model the random variability in the data, than the less flexible exponential, and hence the difference in fit is meaningless as it is down to random chance (this is known as "over-fitting" in statistics). You don't need economic modelling to make inferences about emissions, as good records of emissions are kept (by e.g. the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center). The fact that the airborne fraction (the proporion of anthropognic emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere) is approximately constant, gives support from physical modelleling that emissions are rising approximately exponentially (I have done the differential equations myself to check that this is the case). The test Tamino uses to establish that the rise is faster than exponetial is unequivocal. If it were merely exponential, then taking logs should give a straight line; the fact that the resulting line curves upwards is definitive proof that the rise is faster than exponential. This remains true regardless of whether a quadratic or any other function provides a better least-squares fit.
  23. Not a cite for Soare eyes
    re 25: Keith, I tried to explain in my post that he hasn't 'eliminated' CO2 caused warming, he's simply suppressed it. You can still spot it: a constant rate of warming from CO2 becomes a constant offset in his graph. An-above-linear rate of CO2 warming would appear as some function with a positive gradient. But Soares manipulates the data to minimises this effect whilst maximising noise. If you want to look at the noise then that's useful, if you're trying to find whether CO2 caused warming exists then choosing to minimise it and then acting all surprised when it's too noisy to see if it's there (actually, to IGNORE that it's too noisy and simply claim that it isn't) is ridiculous. The conclusions of the paper are utter dross.
  24. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #168. lol Eric! I thought I'd found a Roman Vineyard at Hadrian's Wall, but it would appear to be a new one, from here Since the publication of the first edition in 2004 the northern limit of English vineyards has advanced from Mount Pleasant, Lancashire, to Accomb, Yorkshire, within 5km of Hadrian's Wall. The book also states the following: The latest predictions of global warming show that the average summer temperature in southern England may rise by 4.5-5.0 degrees C. by 2080 and by 6.0 degrees by 2100. The new edition describes how these data can be used to predict the areas where different grape varieties may be planted across the UK. Some parts of southern England may be too hot for viticulture by 2080. Sobering stuff!
  25. Eric (skeptic) at 23:22 PM on 18 January 2011
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Since I have never posted a graphic, hopefully the moderators will allow me this one
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Graphics are permitted when they pertain to the topic of the thread. Give us the context of how this is on-topic or we'll have to delete it. Thanks!
  26. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #165. LandyJim It is a fact that Romans in Britain (AD73-AD490~) grew wine grapes as far north as Hadrian Wall..currently anywhere further north than Bristol and you need a straight jacket as your barking mad. I can't find any evidence that the Romans grew grapes any farther north than Lincolnshire, looks like it was almost all imported. Can you point us to some? The most northerly vineyard currently in the UK is in Camforth, Lancs which is a bit farther north than Bristol (about 200 miles). The English Wine Producers have over 30 barking mad vineyards located in the Midlands and the North alone.
  27. Eric (skeptic) at 23:15 PM on 18 January 2011
    It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    Re: Strength of current La Nina (from other thread). There seem to be conflicting measurements. The one I and others posted was this table: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml But the chart on this page http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ shows it historically strong. Apparantly the table is ONI, measured by SST differences only whereas the latter graph is MEI (M for Multivariate) taking into account more variables. IMO the MEI would be a better indication of La Nina effects, so I would call it strong (strongest since the mid 70's). We also will have to wait and see about the duration, it hasn't been around long.
  28. Hockey stick is broken
    Here is another reputable reference for the GISP2 Ice Core Data sets from Richard Alley ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt And here is the abstract from the top of at work. ABSTRACT: Greenland ice-core records provide an exceptionally clear picture of many aspects of abrupt climate changes, and particularly of those associated with the Younger Dryas event, as reviewed here. Well-preserved annual layers can be counted confidently, with only 1% errors for the age of the end of the Younger Dryas 11,500 years before present. Ice-flow corrections allow reconstruction of snow accumulation rates over tens of thousands of years with little additional uncertainty. Glaciochemical and particulate data record atmospheric-loading changes with little uncertainty introduced by changes in snow accumulation. Confident paleothermometry is provided by site-specific calibrations using ice-isotopic ratios, borehole temperatures, and gas-isotopic ratios. Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local, regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these paleoclimatic changes.
  29. Hockey stick is broken
    @JMurphy #62 I will concede that the graph could have a better quality about it, however it was used for illustrative purposes. Graph 3 of the Vostok Ice cores comes from a Climate campaigner in New Zealand http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm who is a member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition http://www.nzclimatescience.org/ This information originates in a very reputable and peer reviewed article: Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Benders, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436. If you would like to read more information about the Vostok cores, you can here.. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html The last graph is a reproduction of one that appeared in a Science Online and Journal Peer reviewed article which is actually pro AGW. There is credit for the article in the image if you look. R. B. Alley1, J. Marotzke2, W. D. Nordhaus3, J. T. Overpeck4, D. M. Peteet5, R. A. Pielke Jr.6, R. T. Pierrehumbert7, P. B. Rhines8,9, T. F. Stocker10, L. D. Talley11 and J. M. Wallace8 And an online link is here http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5615/2005.abstract If you wish to see other articles written by Richard Alley.. http://www.sciencemag.org/search?author1=R.+B.+Alley&sortspec=date&submit=Submit What I am am saying is that we should not dismiss natural variations in the climate, we must not dismiss influences on those variations, only then can the impact that we have be truly assessed and then action taken accordingly. To me that is common sense.
  30. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @Muoncounter. None of my posts are meant to be or taken as ideological rant. The comments I have made are not specifically off topic they are simply explaining a truth which is connected to and related to the response I gave. Whether we like it or not, most things in science are interconnected, and treating them is isolation creates confusion and misleading statements.
  31. Hockey stick is broken
    There's a quick discussion of LandyJim's first 'graph' here. There's much more wrong with it than just a dodgy y-axis.
  32. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    @15 Ian Love: Actually, a quadratic can have physical meaning as a second order Taylor expansion of a more complex function. In this instance, the rising atmospheric [CO2] is a function of economic activity and CO2 sequestration mechanisms. Economic + physical chemistry modeling, anyone ? I'm not at work right right now, but I'll have another play tomorrow with TC2D - I'm intrigued to see which simple equations best describe the data.
  33. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    I agree with Phillippe #7. Deniers deny for emotional reasons, and ethereal stuff like data do not reach them. The sad part is that their shortsight is caused by an attachment to stuff that is threatened by the very AGW they don't want to see. A new world of changing climate will be a major enemy of free market, business-as-usual or individual freedoms
  34. Hockey stick is broken
    @Muoncounter: Please explain to me where in my post I have made a personal attack and to whom did I direct it? Regarding information about the graphs...fair point, but if you look at the links, they are hardly dim store blogs (surely is that not a personal attack on the blogger?) One is actually on this site. Bleating is something we all do...the western world is bleating about Climate change and ignoring the bigger picture which is far more important in my opinion. I thought my post made it clear what my position is, I do not agree with AGW, but I do agree with not polluting the environment, so I am not opposed to cleaning things up, just for the right reasons. I have kept the post on topic, it is about the hockey stick is it not? Well to counter one argument you need to justify that stance, I think I did that rather well.
  35. Zvon.org guide to Skeptic Arguments at Skeptical Science
    The guide is intended as a search interface to SkS and contains direct links to primary literature (and Web of Science) which are often not present in the original rebuttals - and as the links are via doi they should work even after a few years. And obviously you do not have to use it. I know about one user who will use it regularly - myself. :)
  36. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    The Mona Loa data shows the increase in CO2 to be approximately linear so far.
    A very short section of a curve is also 'approximately linear', but it isn't, 'actually'. As pointed out above, the non-linearity of CO2 increase is evident from the linear trend superimposed in your own graph. Do you agree, NEDT, that the exponent is 2, rather than 0.122?
  37. Zvon.org guide to Skeptic Arguments at Skeptical Science
    There is a very basic question not answered here: what is the point of using the Zvon Guide to SkS instead of SkS itself?
  38. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    Maybe NETDR & Chemware are talking at past Dana1981? A quadratic fit to the CO2 data is just that - no particular physical meaning. NETDR didn't calculate an appropriate logarithmic effect - his/her calculations do not assess exponential behaviour. Exponential behaviour is equivalent to log(CO2) being a linear function, for which Tamino in Monckey Business illustrates is slower than the actual growth of CO2 - which dana1981 links to and quotes above. The facts do not back up NETDR!
  39. OK global warming, this time it's personal!
    "if the skeptic arguments are so transparently weak, why is a whole website such as this 'so far' excellent example needed to debunk them." Because, unfortunately, so many people are taken in by these, and more sophisticated arguments from skeptics. Gullibility or unskeptically accepting whatever reinforces a preferred of view is hardly limited to climate science, of course.
  40. A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
    A very nice post, caerbannog. Thanks
  41. Renewables can't provide baseload power
    What about nuclear?
    Moderator Response: Off topic for this thread
  42. gallopingcamel at 17:56 PM on 18 January 2011
    OK global warming, this time it's personal!
    John Cook, You have my sympathy for the distress that you are suffering. However I am encouraged to know that you are still out there blogging away. I wish I could offer you some comfort but science says "a warmer world is a wetter world".
  43. Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino
    typo? In the text just below Fig. 1, shouldn't it read ...."1998 in a close third buoyed by the anomalous lack of warmth (or less warmth) demonstrated in the 3 records " rather than - "anomalous warmth demonstrated" ? Great post. Table 1 really puts to rest all the talk about "no warming" since whenever. "It is true that in 1 of the 6 major indices there is in fact a negative slope," I thought this might be a good place to remind readers, again, that this is HadCRUT, known to have a cool bias, due to lack of Arctic coverage.
  44. gallopingcamel at 17:21 PM on 18 January 2011
    Global Warming and Cold Winters
    Phila (#81), you said: "This sort of braying certainty really isn't compatible with your attempts to present yourself as a humble amateur truthseeker." That one stung a bit; you accurately described my self assessment. While I respect the opinion of "Climate Scientists", I respect the opinion of historians much more. Historians tell us that warm periods are associated with growth and prosperity while cold periods are associated with hardship and misery.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] I, too, love history. The problem with your statement, GC, is that you assume warming periods documented in the historical record will approximate that yet to come in this century (2 degrees C or more), when there's no evidence to suggest any such thing.
  45. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    Actually, I think NETDR has stumbled onto something, despite his lack of understanding of fitting and statistics. I suggest people go and grab the 30 day demo of TableCurve2D. A simple quadratic is a remarkably good fit to the data, with an adjusted Rsq of 0.9991. Other more complex equations fit the data better, but at the expense of any physical meaning.
  46. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Lindzen is now posting a few opinion pieces, including this one on GWPF ("The GWPF's primary purpose is to help restore balance and trust in the climate debate that is frequently distorted by prejudice and exaggeration"). It's been reposted on WUWT, not surprisingly. In this piece he states that "the climate's changed before", "it's not bad", "no warming since 1995", "environmental groups gathering power", etc. The 2010 version of L&C is available here, if you wish to read it. No changes were made in terms of extra-tropical heat exchange - they're apparently still using the 2001 model. They have stated that Pinatubo has an effect on forcings, though, which does address one of the Trenberth 2009 objections.
  47. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    NETDR, in your formula 0.122 is a constant, not the exponent. The exponent is 2. And the logarithmic effect, as discussed in my article, is between forcing/temperature and CO2. The logarithmic effect has nothing to do with the (exponential) rate of growth of atmospheric CO2. You seem to be in way over your head here. To quote from tamino, who did a much, much more thorough analysis than you (emphasis added):
    "Over time, the growth of CO2 has NOT been linear, but it also has NOT been exponential. It’s been faster than exponential (as the logarithm has grown faster-than-linear, i.e., it has accelerated). And yes, the acceleration of log(CO2) (the faster-than-exponential growth of CO2) is statistically significant. That settles it."
  48. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    #142, the current la nina is absolutely NOT the strongest on record, but instead so far ties with 2008 (the weakest in a series of decreasing la ninas since 1975, see my previous posts). The OND and SON seasons for the current la nina are -1.4 each. The record so far is for 1973: -2.1. FYI: the '09/'10 el nino was 1.8 (currently 22% stronger than the current la nina) and the record el nino of 1998 was 2.5. Similar to el ninos, la ninas tend to peak around the December time frame. Given the current development (of the last two seasons: -1.4) it is highly unlikely the current la nina will become much colder; if any. However, compared to el ninos, la ninas tend to linger a little longer whereas el ninos show a more "spiky" character. I recently read an interesting NOAA statement on ClimateWire (paid subscription, can't link) regarding 2010 being a tie with 2005, which was -according to the statement- "due to the la nina that developed (which started officially in July 2010), cooling things down. And if it wasn't for the la nina we would have THE warmest year on record." OK... how about the fact that we had the 4th strongest el nino winter '09/'10 on record and that global temperatures always lack 3-6 months in response to ENSO events; the atmosphere is just starting to respond to the la nina in other terms, and 2010 temperatures are therefore at the earliest affected Nov/Dec 2010 by the current la nina. (this is a well-known fact, hence why for example the NASA data point for Dec 2010 is .40 compared to .74 in Nov). Hence, it is more correct to say that due to the past el nino we have a temperature tie with 2005. Or in other terms, if we hadn't had that el nino -or neither the la nina- where would 2010 then rank?
  49. Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
    Moderator "Read the Tamino post located at the link dana1981 provided you with. You'll find your answer there." I read the link but believe my analysis is better. I did a 2 nd order curve fit and he didn't. Also he didn't calculate the logarithmic effect which is vital to understand the effect. Tamano is welcome to his opinion but I disagree and the facts back me up.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] If you want us to take you seriously you'll have to do better than that. Tamino is a professional time-series analyst who has proven his worth in the climate blogging wars over the years. Dismissive handwaving of his work costs you dearly in the credibility department here. A proper way forward would be for you to publish your work in a peer-reviewed body, as Tamino has done in the past. And in the spirit of teaching the teacher, you could post your claims at Tamino's place, Open Mind.
  50. Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
    #148: Yooper, A classic! But this is more like the Battle of New Orleans
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Nice! Caught me listening to this one. The good old days, before the CO2...

Prev  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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