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  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  Next

Comments 98401 to 98450:

  1. Models are unreliable
    I see a lot of parallels between the modelling discussed in this article and the technical analysis used by some stock traders. Of course there are many differences, but at the heart of it, both types of modelers are trying to use intelligent analysis of past data to predict/project the future. I highly recommend the book, A Random Walk Down Wall Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street) for a very approachable explanation of some of the techniques that modelers use. The author's arguments that it is impossible to "beat" the stock market through this analysis isn't relevant to weather modeling. However, I think he does a good job of addressing the question of identifying success based on past data.
  2. Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
    Sphaerica and Daniel, That is an awesome graph, much better than mine @26. I see that it has a problem though-- they are soon going to have to change the colour shading because the warm end of the spectrum is becoming saturated.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] They can always paint it black...
  3. Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    jonathansf13 #8 - the International Journal of Geosciences (IJG) definitely seems very sketchy. It's the same journal that published the horridly flawed Soares paper claiming that CO2 increases are currently following temperature increases (we're working on an article on that one as well). And the group which publishes IJG (and many other journals) seems to have a sketchy habit of re-publishing papers which had been published long ago in other journals, without telling the authors. It's very strange.
  4. Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
    DKoD was on this 2 years ago, with some nice displays showing NH warming.
  5. Oceans are cooling
    Is BP still trying to argue that oceans aren't heating up because they were shown to heat up too much? Some people really do sound like broken records...
  6. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    #37: I was surprised to find a way around the paywall. Nice that he also mentions that molecules like N2 are transparent to IR 'in earthlike conditions'. Perhaps some of our deniers are actually speaking about conditions on Titan?
  7. Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    ClimateWatcher - You might want to take a look at the latest numbers for Argo data and OHC.
  8. Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    Matthew, I'm not sure but it might represent heat lost to the atmosphere in the lead-up to the El Nino of 1998. That's just a guess though!
  9. Oceans are cooling
    #26: Stake through the debate or the debaters? Is it just me or does it look like that graph needs a quadratic fit: kind of flattish from '55-'75, then Bang Zoom Straight to the moon!
  10. Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    The difference from 1910-1945 though, ClimateWatcher, is that there was a substantive rise in sunspot numbers (&, we assume, total solar irradiance), from 1979-2010 though, we've seen a fall in Sunspot Numbers/TSI, yet still we've got oceans warming almost as fast as they were in 1910-1945. Just FYI.
  11. Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    Why did the rate of warming within the oceans decrease between 1993 and 2004. Sure it is going up, but from 2004-2008 on that graph posted above shows this...Why?
  12. Oceans are cooling
    @ KR (25) You really know how to put a stake through the heart of a dead debate. ;) The devil's advocate in me can hear the cries now: "They've hidden the decline!" The Yooper
  13. Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    I read the Knox and Douglass paper last week, and the first thing I noticed was that it was submitted on July 28, revised August 10, and accepted August 30. This could not have been a peer reviewed paper, the process was far to quick. I don't know what the standards of the International Journal of Geosciences is, I have never attempted to publish there, but they can't be too strict about scientific integrity.
  14. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    muoncounter - I was just reading that article this afternoon, wanted to put in a link, but couldn't find a publicly accessible version! Thanks for putting it in. Excellent paper. I especially appreciated Figure 2d, showing the interleaving of CO2 and H2O spectral lines.
  15. Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
    Tom Yulsman pioneered it here. It's just a step to the left right... The Yooper
  16. Oceans are cooling
    gpwayne - There's an updated chart of Argo and XBT data at the Argo data center through 2009, including the latest updates to XBT corrections. Well worth looking at.
  17. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    New summary paper Infrared radiation and planetary temperature in Physics Today. Covers the basic physics, addresses the 'saturation fallacy', compares absorption of CO2 and H2O and ties in AIRS data. Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere makes higher, more tenuous, formerly transparent portions of the atmosphere opaque to IR and thus increases the difference between ground temperature and the radiating temperature. The result, once the system has come to equilibrium, is surface warming.
  18. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    A skeptical friend points out that the average temperature of the near-surface atmosphere is cooler than the average temperature of the sea surface (link). His question is: how can the atmosphere warm the oceans if the surface of the oceans are, on average, warmer than the atmosphere? I figure the answer is 'circulation' - and that much of the heat transfer from atmosphere to ocean would occur at night and in warm regions. It's not been easy verifying these details on the net. General overviews, like the post heading this thread, are quite common. I believe my skeptic friend's deficit comes from 2-dimensional thinking.
  19. Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    There is also a rebuttal to Monckton's attempt at a rebuttal : Mike Steketee's response to Christopher Monckton How much longer can Monckton continue to make merry with the truth ? He obviously has no shame.
  20. What is the Potential of Wind Power?
    Even though I understand from the title that the subject is technological, I first thought "Global wind power has doubled over the 3 years" referred to the natural climate system and that it could not happen. In a minute I realized what part of wind power it meant. Certainly there is much wind power as a natural thing at high altitude, but it is not wind power as energy resource (as anonandon expects) yet, until we find some safe and reliable means to transmit it to the point of demand. I think that local energy storage (temporal aggregation) is crucial for utilization of wind power near the ground. Connecting together (spatial aggregation) does not guarantee stable supply. And the storage must be low-cost with respect to resources. Sometimes pumping water may work, but probably the main way will be something chemical, perhaps some kind of fuel cells. I think we should look for storage materials more conveniently stored than hydrogen. As for the issue of co-generation of electricity and heat from fuel, there is a trade off between efficiency in generating electricity and opportunity in supplying heat. Counting electricity and heat which have different utility in quantities of energy tends to favor co-generation, but if we think about exergy (energy potentially convertible to work), combination of high-efficiency heat engine and on-demand heat pump may be better.
  21. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    barry, water may be a poor conductor of heat, but there is always some conduction. I'm sure someone has shown that one can warm water by having warm air at its surface (while keeping the bulk of the water beneath the surface insulated from any other source of heat). It may be slow and inefficient, but there is no reason why water cannot be warmed - to some extent - by a warmer gas at its surface. When we're talking about such a huge surface area, that amounts to a lot of heat over months and years. Remembering that there's also direct (even if inefficient) heating by radiation. Once you add in convection by ocean currents, there's plenty of scope for heating to affect the whole of the ocean.
  22. Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    So is the Knox and Douglass paper just cherry-picking data? Did they justify their choice of data sets?
  23. Alden Griffith at 12:10 PM on 15 January 2011
    Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    Nice post, John. I need to catch up with some more posts of my own...
  24. Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    John, great post! n.b. the Purkey and Johnson link doesn't seem to be working.
  25. Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    Of course we will not attack Lord Monkton personally. Monkton is certainly permitted to follow any hobby that he desires. And his public speech is often engaging. On this issue - and many others - I notice a few members of Congress often will mistake pompous bufoonery - for valid science. But that is strictly a criticism of Congress.
  26. Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
    Sphaerica @ 38 - That really is a great graphic, Gareth Renowden over at Hot-Topic highlighted it a while back. Says it all doesn't it?.
  27. Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
    I realize now that I should have mirrored the graph horizontally... right now, the months read right to left (i.e. January is on the right, December on the left).
  28. Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
    This image is global, not NH, but it's my personal favorite for conveying the warming seen in the past century, by year and month, with the most dramatic change starting around 1980. In that period you can easily see the trend for greater warming in the winter and spring, Pinatubo, El Ninos, and more. It's also annotated for volcanic eruptions, solar minima and maxima, El Ninos and La Ninas (click the link to get to the larger image to see the annotations clearly, or go to the gistemp page itself). It's a slight modification of the GISS image from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Tvs.year+month.lrg.gif at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ (near the bottom of the page). [I just spliced the three separate segments together, and rotated it to fit neatly in a narrow column.] Click this link or the image to see a larger copy. Monthly Mean Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index
  29. ClimateWatcher at 11:24 AM on 15 January 2011
    Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    Through 1979, sea SURFACE temperatures do exhibit a solid warming trend ( I get 1.36K per century rate from the Hadley numbers ). That isn't the highest rate for a thirty plus year period, however. From 1910 through 1945, the SST warming was at a rate of 1.7 K per century. Climate watching is, unfortunately, a multi-lifetime pursuit.
  30. Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
    The analysis in this article concerning why Monckton's claim amounts to mere disinformation is good. But (and you knew there was a 'but' coming, didn't you?) it is still not very readable for the general public; I am not sure just who its target audience really is. Does this audience include anyone with actual influence over climate policy? So one of Monckton's many false claims is refuted. How many more to go? How do we avoid playing a losing game of catchup, one where we correctly and scientifically refute each one of his false claims, but only too late, after he has persuaded a politically significant population (e.g. the Republican Party in the US) to shut their ears to us? It is already too late to avoid disaster; soon it will be too late to avoid catastrophe.
  31. Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
    Albatross, I was surprised they said "most", too. I looked to see if it was safe to say "northern hemisphere meteorological winter", saw that bit in wikipedia, and qualified my statement as a result. From others: "Forecaster Ian Michael Waite said: ‘We expect January to be colder than average – there’s no way we’re moving out of this mini ice age any time soon.’ Whoever that Ian Michael Waite is (couldn't find anything about him from his supposed home on NetWeather) but he seems to have provided the all-important quote that the so-called skeptics and deniers can latch on to. But has he spoken too soon ?" London certainly isn't experiencing a continued "mini-ice age" this first half of January, unless "more or less normal temps" qualifies.
  32. Seawater Equilibria
    Dr. Franzen, I was late coming back to check, but I just saw your replies and calculations in 74 and 80, in reference to my fear expressed in 72. Thank you very much!!!
  33. Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
    Dhogaza @35, We are in agreement, on all fronts :) Just a small comms breakdown. I am surprised that the Wikipedia article says "most locations". As far as I know, all the major climate centres around the world (NOAA/NCDC, Hadley etc.) consider DJF to be the boreal winter.
  34. Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
    Question: The surface of the oceans is on average warmer than the near-surface air temperature. How can atmospheric heat warm the oceans? (My guess is that circulation patterns from diurnal and latitudinal changes sea heat exchange from air to oceans under certain conditions, but I still wonder how the oceans are heating when, generally, the air is warmer than the water)
  35. Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
    "In meteorology and climate, regardless of where one lives in the N. Hemisphere, the boreal meteorological winter is officially DJF." So claims being made here and elsewhere that Europe, or even portions of Europe, are experiencing their coldest winter on record, or coldest winter in 327 years are simply ludicrous." Wikipedia only says "most locations in the Northern Hemisphere". I said NA and Eurasia because I know it to be true for those two continents, and of course all the screaming of record cold centers around the eastern US and northern Europe. "So claims being made here and elsewhere that Europe, or even portions of Europe, are experiencing their coldest winter on record, or coldest winter in 327 years are simply ludicrous." Certainly true, such claims are bull, and I'm well aware that we're only about 1/2 way through meteorological winter. And where I live in NA, it's not been a cold winter at all.
  36. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    AS @ 51 No, that graph is NOT what De'ath et al's data show. It took a bit of hunting to figure out where that graph even came from, but eventually I found it here: More Coral Reef Shenanigans It's a perfect example of why you should RTFP and understand what the authors actually did before you declare them wrong. Apparently, what the creator of that image did was use the raw data from only the NEW sample sites, which were only a small subset of the total number of samples used by De'ath et al. The majority of the of the data were from Lough's previous samples which included hundreds of corals. The assertion that there were only 9 samples in the early 2000s is false. At the end of the study period in 2005, there were still 21 corals in the sample and 77 for the previous year. At the peak, there were ~300 corals in the sample, not the ~60 shown in the graph. Not only is the creator of the graph not using most of the data De'ath did, they also didn't correct for distance from shore and sea surface temperature. As Lough and Barnes (2000) found in the paper you cited, skeletal density increases with distance across the shelf and calcification increases with SST (which co-varies with latitude). Failure to correct for these variables introduces a spatial bias as corals from different parts of the reef enter the record- e.g. years with more corals from the North would increase the average calcification rate and make it look like calcification was increasing over time, even in the absence of any real temporal trend.
  37. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    co2isnotevil - I would recommend you read Petty 2006; there is a summary of some of the more important spectral data here in The greenhouse effect and 2nd law of thermodynamics, intermediate.
  38. What is the Potential of Wind Power?
    Re Ericmair@26 Haven't seen that one before. Reminds me of the hydraulic power systems in London that pre-dated electric grids. There were massive steam engines that were connected to massive hydraulic accumulators, those were connected to a network of pipes that fed factories, providing power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hydraulic_Power_Company I guess the Gravity Power thing is an accumulator, the exception being that it would drive a generator??
  39. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Regarding my criticism of the GWPPT presentation, it was at the request of rfranzen and I spent at least an hour of my valuable time pouring through it to see what he was doing wrong. Upon review, as I said, the math seemed OK. In fact, it's virtually the same math I've used. The problem was the data going in to the analysis. Much better data is available now and will produce far superior results, just probably not the expected results.
  40. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    This is directly related to Hfranzen's post. He claims the same same exact thing that I do which is that half of what is absorbed by the atmosphere by GHG's is radiated out into space. Look at the GWPPT presentation he references. If this is the case, which I believe it is, the same thing applies. Why is it so hard to admit that the clear sky atmosphere radiates power into space? Look at the Trenberth paper. He claims that the atmosphere radiates 169 W/m^2. His number is so much higher because he assumes a much narrower transparent window. Examining the emission spectrum of the Earth, the emission lines of the GHG's in the atmosphere are mostly dark, so the only place in the spectrum where this power can be emitted is in the transparent window. KR can't answer this, so how about hfranzen? What is the origin of this power? He must be able to answer this to explain his own work.
  41. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    hfranzen - For my part, I wish to thank you for putting in the not-inconsiderable work on your guest post, and for presenting the information for people who do not have your physical chemistry background.
  42. Eric (skeptic) at 08:49 AM on 15 January 2011
    What is the Potential of Wind Power?
    If I could ask just one favor, it would be nice to not just throw around empty rhetoric about how bad wind is or responses that there is a conspiracy against wind power. Also please don't turn this into another debate over nuclear power. My view is a great deal of the criticism over wind can be answered with solutions at small and large scales. Both scales can be optimized with a smart grid. Here's just one article about various alternatives http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_challenge_for_green_energy_how_to_store_excess_electricity/2170/
  43. Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
    #33: "rumor mill and misinformation machine" Yeah, funny how they think talking about the weather during the summer is cherry picking; but in winter, they seem to pick up every Local on the 8s. Risking John's ire, I will note one weatherman who seems to have his head on straight: Cold? This isn't cold. Forty below is cold. But we're a long way from the record-cold days our parents and grandparents experienced. Thursday was the 99th anniversary of the day in 1912 when thermometers in Oakland, out in Garrett County, registered 40 degrees below zero. That was, and still is, the record-cold reading for the state. This is by no means an invitation to play dueling weather reports here.
  44. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    co2isnotevil - I'm going to go with the moderator on this. 450 posts, most of which repeatedly pointed to errors in your framing of the problem, is several hundred too many. Been there, done with that.
  45. Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
    Arkadiusz @ 51 GBR calcification decline looks like this. Maybe it would if De'ath et al made all the errors that Professor Ridd and his colleagues did, that simply wasn't the case. But again you continue to be off-topic, this post is about bleaching the calcification "argument" is in the works.
  46. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Response to #90 Good advice - I feel like I've stepped through the looking glass and am trying to discuss science with the Red Queen. I did initially feel gratified by a number of responses from some participants who were interested in learning something.
  47. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    KR, The earth must emit 240 W/m^2 at 255K The power from the surface, clouds and indirectly the surface beneath clouds that passes through the transparent window in the atmosphere is at least 100 W/m^2 too low. What is the origin of this extra radiation, if not the surface or the clouds? This isn't a strawman or red herring, but a question that you can't seem to answer. I've answered this question, but you don't like my answer because it implies there's something horribly wrong with your 'consensus' science. You tried to say it comes from GHG's, but this would be in the emission spectrum of those gases, which when observed from space, are dark. To help you answer the question, consider the following: The average surface temperature of 287K corresponds to 285 W/m^2. Clouds have an average temperature of about 261K, corresponding to 263 W/m^2. The clear sky atmospheric window is about 45% and the window between clouds and space is larger, at about 55% (far less water vapor). Clouds cover 2/3 of the planet. You would claim the windows are even smaller, but that only makes things worse for you. The energy passing through the transparent window is, 1/3 * 285 * 45% + 2/3 * 263 * 55% = 139 W/m^2 Where is the other 101 W/m^2 of radiative power coming from?
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Much of this was worked over in excruciating detail on a prior thread. Questions specific to Hfranzen's post, which stands on its own, are the topic here.
  48. Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
    JMurphy, The "skeptic" rumor mill and misinformation machine seems to be working full tilt. I cannot believe, simply cannot believe that claims like this are being made: "Brace yourselves for a 'mini ice age': This winter set to be coldest in 300 YEARS" This is definitely something for the CSRRT. But the request has to come from an organization or reporter. Any takers?
  49. What is the Potential of Wind Power?
    Storage is the answer. Only pumped storage can manage the capacities needed to do a proper job. Now there is Gravity Power (http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/grid-scale-electricity-storage.html) All the advantages of pumped storage without most of the hassles and a lot cheaper too.
  50. What is the Potential of Wind Power?
    I find myself very much in agreement with scatter and Heraclitus regarding airborne / high altitude wind power. It seems to offer such obvious benefits for more reliable and stronger wind - potentially without the visual impact of huge windfarms at groundlevel. And yet Magenn have had flying prototypes of their Air Rotor turbines since 2006 without bringing a product to market. Is there some catch that I just haven't seen or am I just being a bit too impatient?

Prev  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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