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  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  Next

Comments 99451 to 99500:

  1. Not So Cool Predictions
    Esop @34, "How on earth has the CRU dataset all of a sudden become more reliable than the much beloved UAH dataset (that is even run by a skeptic). I thought brave skeptics proved the CRU data to be fraudulent in the Climategate scandal?" A most excellent point. Northing new though-- cherry-picking, contradiction and internal consistency appear to be the bread and butter of wannabe skeptics.
  2. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    BP and Argus, Please stop obfuscating, arguing strawmen and disrupting this thread and answer this pertinent question here. Thanks.
  3. Not So Cool Predictions
    #29 (fydijkstra): How on earth has the CRU dataset all of a sudden become more reliable than the much beloved UAH dataset (that is even run by a skeptic). I thought brave skeptics proved the CRU data to be fraudulent in the Climategate scandal? Why is it that "skeptics" now all hail the CRU data to be the most accurate? This seems odd, what has changed? Could it have something to do with the fact that CRU don't cover the high Arctic, thus omitting the region that has warmed the fastest, by far, causing a rather large cold bias in the data?
  4. It's the sun
    #770: "not sure that the peak values are the most important. ... from the diagrams in the article in can clearly be seen ..." Figure 5 in the Krivova paper is a graph of UV flux vs. time. In order to represent increasing energy, the area under the curve must increase: either the peaks must be bigger or the width (time duration) of the peaks are broader. The largest peak UV was in 1958 and the time duration of the subsequent cycles is the standard 10-11 years. What part of that is clearly demonstrating your point? If you are saying that the cumulative energy summed over all cycles is increasing, that's obvious. But that sum is not a measure of the energy balance at TOA or in the oceans. Here are the author's conclusions: ... since the LTE approximation underlies the computations of the brightness spectra of different photospheric components, the original version of the model fails in the UV. Although it contributes little to the total irradiance (such that the modelled TSI is nevertheless quite accurate), this wavelegth range on its own is of special interest for climate research due to its important influence on the chemistry and dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere ... -- emphasis added There is no mention of UV contributing to ocean heating. Their "value of about 1.25 W/m2 as our best estimate for the 11-yr averaged increase in the TSI between the end of the Maunder minimum and the end of the 20th century, compared to 1.3 W/m2 derived by Balmaceda et al. [2007] and Krivova et al. [2007]" doesn't specifically say that it increased through the end of the century. Further discussion specific to ocean heat content should go here.
  5. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:34 AM on 5 January 2011
    A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Excuse me, I format the wrong one link: Quantification of DMS aerosol-cloud-climate interactions using ECHAM5-HAMMOZ model in current climate scenario, Thomas et al., 2010.: “The regions with higher DMS ...
  6. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus wrote : "It is interesting that you have such exact sociological data on those you categorize as skeptics/deniers. What is the source of that?" So as to not go any more off-topic, or into controversial labels, here are a few links for anyone who wishes to do their own research into those who are into anti-AGW : ExxposeExxon Wikipedia 'Climate Change Denial' Wikipedia 'Opposing scientists' Wikipedia "List of Climate Scientists' Wikipedia 'IPCC WG1 authors Wikipedia 'Merchants of Doubt' IPCC AR5 WG1 Authors It is very easy to work out from those simple links (which lead to loads more) what political persuasions are represented, how many women are involved in this field and how many of them are so-called skeptics.
  7. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Berényi Péter wrote : "It is predicted, indeed. The only problem is warm snow, unlike the one we are having, is called rain." Why do some people prefer newspaper reports of comments by scientists ? Couldn't you find a newspaper report of a paper which suggests what you are hoping to show ? Berényi Péter wrote : "Let's be a bit more specific. Currently it is colder than average everywhere, except in some regions where no one lives and where "warmer than average" is still damn cold." "Let's be a bit more specific" without actually specifying anything in particular ? Right Berényi Péter wrote : "Now, that's preposterous. You should immediately provide peer reviewed references to support this abominable insinuation." My last off-topic comment on this : if you'd read the article, you would have seen that the study in question is being peer-reviewed prior to publication. I wonder if you will still call it an "abominable insinuation" then ?
  8. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 23:19 PM on 4 January 2011
    Not So Cool Predictions
    Weather might be hard to predict sometimes. Climate is easier to predict. So far the predictions of the way the climate is likely to change here in Australia are spot on. It's going to have more wet up north and more droughts and hotter down south. When it does rain it's likely to be heavier downpours. And this is just what has been happening. The world-wide pattern of warming is fairly close to predictions as well, except the changes seem to be happening just a tad faster than some people expected, mainly because we've chosen the higher emissions path while many people thought we'd act sooner to cut emissions. It would be nice if it were more like economic predictions where people take action when there are dire economic predictions so that they don't eventuate as often. If we all took enough action quickly enough, we might avert the worst case scenarios. At the moment the worst case seems to be the one we're choosing to follow, given that predictions are based on assumptions about emissions.
  9. Exxonwhereareyourmoney? at 23:15 PM on 4 January 2011
    It's the sun
    #770 Update: here is a couple of figures showing the latest (corrected) data on energy content of the oceans (one together with GISS-projections). http://i47.tinypic.com/20kvhwn.png http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Further discussion on ocean heat content should go on a more relevant page. Use the search function in the upper left corner of every page to find a more appropriate thread if continuing a discussion of OHC is your intent. Thanks!
  10. Antarctica is gaining ice
    @vank #69 Thank you. You have expressed your ideas and background quite clearly. The right answer would have been an epistemologically valid argumentation and inference departing from your CO2 similar levels. You were asked that before and avoided to provide it. Now, confronted with your "trick" you abandon all doodles in climate science and answer in a proficient way about "tricks" including what I suppose to be an expression proper of the "trade". Keep this coming and thank you again. I need for my students more material like your posts, which are very juicy for that purpose.
  11. Exxonwhereareyourmoney? at 22:53 PM on 4 January 2011
    It's the sun
    #769 I´m not sure that the peak values are the most important. The oceans are acting as large integrators and from the diagrams in the article in can clearly be seen that the overall imparted energy has increased (from the UV-band) until about the year 2000. Since UV have a higher penetrability than light in the oceans it is not strange to assume that variations in UV energy fluence may have some impact on the total energy content. The decrease in energy fluence after approx. 2000 is consistent from what is observed, i.e a stable decrease in ocean energy content (since 2002-03). This may eventually have an impact on the surface temperatures as well. (The word "may" should be used more often in climate science considering the uncertainties).
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Your own linked graphic you provide in 771 below shows the fallacy of focusing on short time scales: Datasets are noisy; the overall trend is up, like global temps.
  12. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @Argus #155 "Alec Cowan, I have no response to that - I was just challenged to produce some data." I think you were challenged to make some sense before of that. I fail to understand the purpose of your comments #19, #43, #64, #74, #78, #80, #89, #90, #92, #93, #94, #114, #116, #120, #121, #141, #142 (and counting). There's a lot of things going on there but all seems to be summarized in "hey, hey, look this", "I don't like what you are saying", and probably some pleasure of getting +50 replies to your comments. Can you state your point in a nutshell (be aware I don't even use your 'scientifically') provided you can't even answer #143.
  13. Not So Cool Predictions
    @29, fydijkstra: ""No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors." *Most* (all?) real systems are chaotic in some degree or fashion. That something is chaotic and hence unpredictable *in detail* is not the same thing as being unpredictable *in broad*. If you turn on the cold and hot taps to your bathtub and begin filling it, the detailed water motions in the tub are quite chaotic and impossible to predict making the precise motion and temperature of a specific location in the tub unpredictable over more than a few seconds at a time. That doesn't mean that (if the stopper is in) the tub isn't going to fill up at a quite predictable rate and with a quite predictable average temperature at any given moment. You should read an old essay by Isaac Asimov for the Skeptical Inquirer titled "The Relativity of Wrong".
  14. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    JMurphy 153, I just made a guess that most of those who are active on this website (and who seem to share the exact same convictions) are, or at least seem to be, male, judging from their names and the way they write. It is interesting that you have such exact sociological data on those you categorize as skeptics/deniers. What is the source of that?
  15. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #143 Alec Cowan, I have no response to that - I was just challenged to produce some data. #145, michael sweet, As for links, I think it's too much work to edit complete link information to all items, with the current comment posting system. You can google like I did - you should have enough search keywords/key figures. Since you live in Florida I can give you the Florida link directly (cut in two parts): http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/12/ coldest_december_on_record_in.html The UK stuff came from: http://en.wordpress.com/tag/record-cold/ The Åland item is in Swedish: http://www.abounderrattelser.fi/news/2010/12/nytt-koldrekord-pa-aland.html
  16. Not So Cool Predictions
    @29 “Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate” If the existence of unknown factors would stop scientists from studying a subject and making predictions, no science could ever be developed. Chaotic systems can be studied, just like any other system. It is true that it is much harder (or sometimes even impossible) to make accurate detailed predictions for a chaotic system, nevertheless it is often possible to draw general conclusions. Climate scientists have predicted global warming, and thus far, they seem to be right. Regarding climate change we have to do what we do with all risks: assess the risk, based upon the incomplete knowledge we have, and act accordingly. Ignoring the knowledge we have and conclude: “we don’t know and we will never know” is perhaps a comforting thought for some people, but it is not a very scientific attitude. I don’t think this attitude can be classified as “skeptic”. I therefore propose to use the term: “climate ostrich” henceforth.
  17. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 20:55 PM on 4 January 2011
    Not So Cool Predictions
    @29 I don't know the IPCC ensemble models seem to be doing a pretty good job thus far. Also how are we expected to make informed decisions about things such as water resource management and flood control without future prediction to base them on. As long as the models are based on known physical processes and quantify the uncertainties there is no reason to ignore them. As our knowledge of the atmospheric system and computing power increases so will the accuracy of the models.
  18. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    It often strikes me that the argument 'we are recovering from the LIA' is given as a physical reason for heating. Complete nonsense of course. A cup of hot water is cooling when you put it on the table not because 'it is recovering from its hot temperature' but because there is an energy transfer from the hot system (your hot water) to the environment. THAT is a reason. The fact that 'your cup is recovering from its hot temperature' is a CONSEQUENCE of that energy transfer. If however you put the table on fire, your cup will not cool despite its desire to 'recover from its hot temperature'.
  19. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Hello, Is the year average of 2010 already published?
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] See the last paragraph of Michael Sweet's comment here.
  20. Antarctica is gaining ice
    This your idea not mine....voting rights and nuclear weapons vs. ice core samples and graphs(interesting argument. The "rephrasing ideas" system is only a sophists trick. Its a graph and it tells something or we can all play Struthio camelism.
  21. Not So Cool Predictions
    Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. The illusion that the climate can be predicted is an example of Kelvin's fallacy: the assumption that there are no unknown unknowns. For the time beeing the warming by greenhouse gasses seems to have been compensated by other factors. The El Niño of 2010 has not been able to break the record temperatures of 1998 (according to the HadCrut data set, which seems to be the least unrealiable). This could have been caused by the very long solar minimum, but nobody knows for sure. If the next solar maximum will be very low - as many solar scientists expect - the climate of the next 10 years could bring new surprises.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Ummm, not so much. Despite a moderate El Niño lasting a surprisingly few months followed by one of the strongest La Niña's of all time, with a still-somewhat quiescent sun, the only remaining surprise will be if 2010 is not the warmest year in the instrumental record. All very predictable (climate, not weather). Despite what climate ostriches may wish to say.
  22. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus wrote : "It seems that the the vast majority of so-called warmists are also male, so what was it you were trying to hint at? Please elaborate!". I don't know what you imagine the word 'warmists' means (it seems to mean different things to different so-called skeptics, depending on which particular urban myth/so-called skeptical argument they are putting forward at any particular time - often in contradiction to their previous argument), but those in opposition to the so-called skeptics (or deniers) are the vast majority of scientists and other rational thinking people - up to half of whom are women. I am pleased to be a part of that mixed community, as opposed to the community of so-called skeptics (or deniers), the vast majority of whom are male, middle-aged (or above) and of a right-wing persuasion. But each to his own...
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] It is perhaps best to avoid such labels altogether and to think of it thusly: There are those who prefer to focus on what is the best explanation for what all of the data shows, using the scientific method. And there is everyone else. Then there's no danger of running afoul of the Comments Policy.
  23. Not So Cool Predictions
    Albatross @18. Thanks, I hadn't checked back at his site before you posted the link. Another thing to add to the list of egregious mistakes Easterbrook refuses to acknowledge. I posted a politely-worded and relatively inoffensive critique of the entry at WUWT. Let's see if it goes through moderation.
  24. Not So Cool Predictions
    Marcus #26 - yes, a shutdown of the thermohaline is certainly a possibility. However, from my understanding, recent measurements show that it's quite unlikely to happen in the next century. That's why I said European cooling is more likely to come from shifting Arctic weather patterns. Much more likely in fact.
  25. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    The whole thing took place in maybe 30 seconds. I doubt any of the others had even seriously considered the possibility until that moment. Are you surprised it played out like it did? I am not surprised that AGWers continue to rubbish the possibility even after its been pointed out to them. Real scientists keep an open mind about such things.
    Real scientists ask for supporting data, which Lindzen has not provided. Real scientists keep an open mind, but limit it because they don't want their mind to fall out. Meanwhile, apparently modern plants and animals also react to perturbations more quickly, and this is why we're finding overwhelming evidence of northward migration of species (in the NH). Just an artifact of more accurate, more quickly reacting, organisms. And glaciers, too. Magically, just as thermometers became biased toward warm transient temps (but not cool ones, what's Lindzen's argument on this line???), so did glaciers. And arctic sea ice. Etc.
  26. We're heading into cooling
    Keenlyside et al (2008) stated that internal variability in the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures may cause a temporary halt in the rise of global surface temperatures for the 2010-2020 decade. When I read the paper, it did not say that global temperatures would increase by .4 degrees celsius from 2010 through 2020. Where in Keenlyside's study does it say that global temperatures will increase by .4 degrees celsius this decade?
    Moderator Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] Try looking in Figure 4:

  27. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Re: muoncounter (151) Artegal = Mann Archimago = McIntyre Braggadocchio = Monckton (apropos) Redcross = Hansen Talus = Tamino The Blatant Beast = Watts (very apropos) The Yooper
  28. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #150: I don't see the good Dr. as the noblest mind; "That cursed man, low sitting on the ground, Musing full sadly in his sullein mind." But I was wondering who would be his Hawk.
  29. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    "With that said Baird, and Drs. Cullen, Cicerone and Meehl all disagreed with Lindzen's hypothesis (and reasonable people reading that transcript will probably agree with Meehl et al). " The whole thing took place in maybe 30 seconds. I doubt any of the others had even seriously considered the possibility until that moment. Are you surprised it played out like it did? I am not surprised that AGWers continue to rubbish the possibility even after its been pointed out to them. Real scientists keep an open mind about such things. Re: Deep Ocean warming. To keep it more on topic, thats an issue for further discussion for another day in another thread.
  30. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Re:muoncounter (148) "Spencer also says ... " I'll play: "The noblest mind the best contentment has." Come on up. Superior'll be like bath water soon... Thee Yooper
  31. Not So Cool Predictions
    Actually, Dana, I have seen some scientists speculating that-were a sufficient quantity of fresh water (primarily from Glacier melting) to enter the Northern Atlantic, that this would be sufficient to cause the Gulf Stream to slow-or even stop. The resulting cooling would still be Anthropogenic in nature, & would still have to be preceded by a *very* significant amount of warming. Even then, other scientists are not sure if there is sufficient glacial mass-this time around-for such a thing to occur. Just thought you might be interested.
  32. It's the sun
    #768: "shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries ..." Figures 5 and 6 in the paper (pdf here) clearly show the solar UV max coincident with the late '50s 'grand maximum'. That suggests that in the 50 years since, the 4 subsequent solar maxima were flat to lower than this well-known peak. That's the key point in this post: between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. See the graph at the top of the page. On another note, when I was in the awl bidness, we referred to Mother Exxon as 'the double cross' - and that was before the Valdez.
  33. Eric (skeptic) at 12:24 PM on 4 January 2011
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Florida had numerous record low average temperatures in December, but no extreme cold. For example, Tampa was about 10 degrees below average at 53.2 breaking the old record of 54.5 (Dec 1935). It was interesting that no daily records were broken during the month (in Tampa). It just reached 32 twice (the all time low for December is 18 in 1962).
  34. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #144: "Spencer also says ... " "the Northern Hemisphere also cooled in December, more consistent with the anecdotal evidence. :) " That's his cute little smiley face. He'd do better with these faces to back up his anecdotes. Yooper, I'm heading north.
  35. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Daniel @146, Yes, 2012 is going to be an interesting year. The 2011 Arctic melt season could also be interesting given the current low ice volume and extent. Warning signs everywhere that the break pads are wearing out quickly ;) An yet here we are "debating" those in denial about AGW. Sadly, I suspect others will be doing so circa 2050 and beyond. Thanks for the like to David Benson's model-- so far it is working out pretty well, as are Arrhenius's estimates of global SAT.
  36. Not So Cool Predictions
    jorgepeine... AR4 does not, as far as I am aware, suggest that aerosol/cloud issues would "exactly counteract" the influence of CO2 and other GHG's. In fact, they say that the lower bounds for climate sensitivity is 2C with 3C-4.5C being more likely. The latest paper (Dessler 2010) on cloud effects suggest positive feedback and very unlikely that there is any negative feedback. See here for a recent SkS article related to this.
  37. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Re: Albatross (144) Good thing Ma Nature's had Her foot on the brake, then (do you smell brake pads wearing out?). 2011 is the year the foot comes off da brake and onto the accelerator in 2012. A good run while we had it. On the plus side, instead of heading south for spring break I can save money & just stay at home... The Yooper
  38. Not So Cool Predictions
    wow this is a super paper ... and I think there is no doubt on the effect of CO2 causing AGW On the other hand IPCC 2007 (AR4) admits some big uncertainties in the aerosol/cloud issue (see the diagramm in chapter 2 of AR4 on radiativ forcing) which could exactly counteract the influence of CO2 and other GHG's ... There seems to be some further research activity underway at CERN with project CLOUD ... Anybody has heard of the outcome of this project??
  39. Exxonwhereareyourmoney? at 10:13 AM on 4 January 2011
    It's the sun
    Well, the sun isn´t dead yet: A combination of the increased TSI and UV may explain up to 0.44 degrees of the 0.55 degree HADCRU warming - 80%. "A peer-reviewed paper [Krivova et al.] published in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) show a significant increase since the Maunder minimum in the 1600's during the Little Ice Age and shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries.....Use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates that a 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity could account for an approximate .44C global temperature increase.....A significant new finding is that portions of the more energetic ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum increased by almost 50% over the 400 years since the Maunder minimum.....This is highly significant because the UV portion of the solar spectrum is the most important for heating of the oceans due to the greatest penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels. Solar UV is capable of penetrating the ocean to depths of several meters to cause ocean heating." [N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira, S. K. Solanki 2010: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, A12112, 11 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2010JA015431
  40. Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
    oops... first sentence was chopped: When proxy readings are validated by multiple, independent proxy methods, they can be viably compared.
  41. Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
    When proxy readings are validated by multiple, independent proxy methods. When a proxy record starts to conflict with the observational records, which should be considered valid - indirect proxy or direct observation? Should the whole proxy record be discarded when its validity starts to decline due to extraneous factors?
  42. Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
    "The “trick” was a way of presenting the data in this one particular graph, namely to truncate the tree ring data at the point when it diverged" A quite incredible comment. The infamous "hockey stick" graph grafted post 1978 instrumental data (the blade) onto proxy data (teh stick). It failed to display the post 1977 proxy data, which shows a blade pointing in teh opposite direction. Hence the song, "hide the decline".
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See the thread Is the hockey stick broken? for a thorough discussion of these graphics.
  43. Not So Cool Predictions
    Whoops I meant to say cooling *winter* temps in Europe and North America, and only when Arctic air is pushed southwards, not during the entire winter. The overall temperatures in these regions will continue to rise, of course.
  44. Not So Cool Predictions
    GeoffThomas #19 - this post and rebuttal is about *global* cooling, as I specifically noted in the sections on Lockwood and Overland. However, either myself or another Skeptical Science author will likely have a post on weather vs. climate in the near future. It's next on my list of priorities unless somebody else gets to it first. Cooling temps in Europe and North America are more likely to come from changes in Arctic air circulation (due to the rapid warming there) than a slowdown of the thermohaline.
  45. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 09:20 AM on 4 January 2011
    Not So Cool Predictions
    Geoff, That is the theory, I've not seen any evidence to back it up though, can you point me in the direction of any articles relating to this? There is evidence to suggest a slowing of the meridional overturning circulation of about 30% but no change to the Gulf Stream, as far as I'm aware.
  46. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus, It is good to see you finally produce some data that we can review. Can you provide links to the data, at least three appear to be newspaper reports (the last two especially), not actual data. (I live in Florida and while it has been below average in December, it has not been record cold). You have found a few sites where it has been cold this winter. I doubt that it will be "An all time record cold spell in Europe" as you claim. A few cold nights in Ireland and Sweden are not a record cold spell in Europe. Germany did not rate a mention in November in the NCDC report and on their dot map of world temperatures Germany is shown as warmer than usual. From the NCDC November report: "The most notable warm anomalies around the world during November 2010 occurred across the northern high latitudes, including Alaska and a large swath of Canada and encompassed most of Europe and Asia. The coolest anomalies were seen over Scandinavia, most of Australia, and the eastern and central Pacific Ocean." It was not "record cold" in most of Europe during November, it was unusually warm. Perhaps Europe will get a mention for its December temperatures. We should wait for the GISS and the NCDC yearly and December summaries to come out. GISS usually comes out around the 10th and NCDC around the 17th of the month. NCDC will mention cold spots around the globe and say how they compare to past records.
  47. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    FWIW, the RSS data for December 2010 have been released. Global anomaly for TLT (lower troposphere) was +0.251 C. The UAH lower-tropospheric global anomaly was +0.18 C. So much for BP's suggestion that global temperatures were below average in December 2010. Spencer also says that 2010 and 1998 are in a statistical tie for warmest year in the UAH record. For comparison, here are the RSS December anomalies going back to 1998. Note, the RSS product doe not extend north of 80N and south of 72.5 S. Annual values are in parentheses. 1998: +0.312 (+0.55) 1999: +0.116 (+0.09) 2000: +0.008 (+0.08) 2001: +0.292 (+0.24) 2002: +0.236 (+0.33) 2003: +0.487 (+0.36) 2004: +0.166 (+0.25) 2005: +0.219 (+0.37) 2006: +0.334 (+0.28) 2007: +0.096 (+0.31) 2008: +0.172 (+0.09) 2009: +0.243 (+0.26) 2010: +0.251 (+0.51) Remarkably, the global RSS anomaly for December 2010 was higher than that for December 2009 despite the moderate/strong La Nina event developing in the early summer of 2010 and despite the PDO being strongly negative since July 2010.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You may be interested in David B. Benson's decadal temperature prediction over at RC in October then.
  48. Not So Cool Predictions
    NickD... What's great about PopTech is that, when he gets a mention he usually lives up to his name and pops in to argue his points, thus driving more traffic to the site where he's posting. And he's a vociferous commenter.
  49. Not So Cool Predictions
    It might be worth your mentioning that there are predictions the gulf stream "the heat conveyor" will slow down and in fact has slowed down, which will mean that Europe and America will experience winter cooling, - most folk who know anything about climate change know of this so I guess you don't feel it necessary to mention it but the article is not only directed at the already informed. Regards, Geoff Thomas.
  50. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    “The effect of clouds in a warming world is a difficult one to predict. One challenge is that clouds have both warming and cooling effects. Low-level clouds in particular tend to cause a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight, while high-level clouds tend to cause a warming effect by trapping heat.” Nought out of ten – see me. Heat is not a substance, it is not caloric, it cannot be trapped or stored. Energy can be stored but it is not heat. Whether or not any part of stored energy can do anything – produce work or raise temperature – depends on its surroundings. Heat is the transfer of energy between a higher and a lower temperature. It is, by definition, uni-directional. The way you present thermodynamics in this thread simplifies the first law and ignores the second. It suggests to the non-scientist (journalist, politician or lay reader) that the more energy absorbent material we add to the atmosphere, the higher will be its temperature because the “heat” cannot escape to space. Angstrom demonstrated 100 years ago that this is not the case.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See Second Law of thermodynamics for a thorough discussion of this question. Hopefully, we don't have to reinvent this wheel.

Prev  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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