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. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 02:10 AM on 4 January 2011
    A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    As for the work of A. Dessler, based mainly on models - I remind comment R. Spencer from 09.12.10 and 31.12.2010. (e-mail exchange between A.D. and R.S.), and A. Dessler – RealCimate (09.12.10). For me, it is important - here - the sentence of R. S.: “What we demonstrated in our JGR paper earlier this year is that when cloud changes cause temperature changes, it gives the illusion of positive cloud feedback – even if strongly negative cloud feedback is really operating!” By R.S. drop area of low clouds, which results in increase in the share of high clouds - stopping LV (alleged positive feedback described by AD) - "was the first" - is the reason for the current increase temperatures. “Low-cloud feedback has a strong amplifying impact on the tropical ITCZ shift in this model, whereas the effects of high-cloud feedback are weaker.” - this result was obtained when tested AMOC (Sensitivity of Climate Change Induced by the Weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation to Cloud Feedback, Zhang, Kang and Held, 2009.), which weakens in warm periods. Negative opinion of low clouds can be up to 4 times higher than assumed in the models, which used the A.D.: Is There a Missing Low Cloud Feedback in Current Climate Models? Stephens, 2010.: “The consequence is that this bias artificially suppresses the low cloud optical depth feedback in models by almost a factor of four and thus its potential role as a negative feedback. This bias explains why the optical depth feedback is practically negligible in most global models (e.g., Colman et al., 2003) and why it has received scant attention in low cloud feedback discussion.” I also think that the changes in low clouds (decrease) precede warming - and I have a "strong" evidence. What could be the reason? Svensmark's theory is according to the latest data for only a few percent of cloud cover (eg: Kulmala et al., 2010.). However, note that after the explosions of volcanoes (El Chichon in 1982 and especially Mt. Pinatubo 1991) observed a significant decrease in regional and global NPP, which is difficult to explain short-term (1-3 years) cooled. NPP only now reached the level prior to 1992 (Mt. Pinatubo). Here you can see that ozone levels are lowest circa 1992-1999 ( graph second from the top - on the second slide). The reaction is a bit low clouds shifted over time: Decreasing cloud cover - now slightly increases - such as ozone. This paper: Factors affecting arctic ozone variability in the Arctic, Weatherhead et al., 2010., shows why the fall of ozone in the atmosphere - especially topic of water vapor in the stratosphere is interesting (delaying the restoration of ozone). In the tropics, ozone (rzem the sun) strongly influences the clouds: Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing, Mheel et al., 2009.: “One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system response to variations in solar output is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific associated with such solar variability.” “Two mechanisms, the top-down stratospheric response of ozone to fluctuations of shortwave solar forcing and the bottom-up coupled ocean-atmosphere surface response, are included in versions of three global climate models, with either mechanism acting alone or both acting together.” “... during peaks in the 11-year solar cycle ... ...reduce low-latitude clouds to amplify the solar forcing at the surface.” Let's go back to NPP - phytoplankton - effects of ozone and ENSO (please note here, however, with regard to this work: Lack of correlation between chlorophyll a and cloud droplet effective radius in shallow marine clouds, Miller and Yuter, 2007. - “The interactions among aerosols, cloud properties, boundary layer dynamics, surface processes, and radiative effects are complex and can be non-monotonic ...”). : “The regions with higher DMS emissions show an increase in CDNC, a decrease in cloud effective radius and an increase in cloud cover.” “We estimate a maximum decrease of up to 15–18% in the droplet radius and a mean increase in cloud cover by around 2.5% over the southern oceans during SH summer in the simulation with ocean DMS compared to when the DMS emissions are switched off. The global annual mean top of the atmosphere DMS aerosol all sky radiative forcing is −2.03 W/m2, whereas, over the southern oceans during SH summer, the mean DMS aerosol radiative forcing reaches −9.32 W/m2.” Quantification of the Feedback between Phytoplankton and ENSO in the Community Climate System Model, Jochum et al, 2010. - shows that both the ENSO influence on phytoplankton, and phytoplankton affect ENSO. Production and Emissions of Marine Isoprene and Monoterpenes: A Review, Shaw, Gantt, and Meskhidze, 2010. - This review shows that according to numerous works, the impact of aerosols originating from the biosphere (including phytoplankton) can be decisive for the low clouds - and: Global phytoplankton decline over the past century, Boyce et al., 2010.. The first important work that indicates that ozone may have a significant impact on phytoplankton (DMS as a consequence of aerosol - a cloud low) was: Ozone depletion may leave a hole in phytoplankton growth, Andrew Davidson, Kelvin Michael, Manuel Nunez, Simon Wotherspoon and Ben Raymond, 2006. – with relation to this work: - we read: “New research suggests that the growth of phytoplankton is reduced by 56% when stratospheric ozone drops below 17% or less than 300 Dobson Units (DU).” But in another relation: Ozone hole alters Antarctic sea life, Emma Young, 2006., , is sentence: „However, Kevin Arrigo at Stanford University, California, says that on average, chlorophyll concentrations in Antarctic waters under the ozone hole have not changed since the late 1970s, when stratospheric ozone was much higher than today.” K. Arrigo also has estimated that: Primary production in the Southern Ocean, 1997-2006, Arrigo, van Dijken, and Bushinsky, 2008. - “Unlike the Arctic Ocean, there was no secular trend in either sea ice cover or annual primary production in the Southern Ocean during our 9-year study.” For 1997 - 2006 agreement. However, for the years 1987 - 2004, it was found that: Stratospheric ozone depletion reduces ocean carbon uptake and enhances ocean acidification, Lenton et al., 2009. - “We find that Southern Ocean uptake is reduced by 2.47 PgC (1987–2004) and is consistent with atmospheric inversion studies.” UVR indisputable impact on the primary production in Antarctic waters this work states: Temporal changes in effects of ambient UV radiation on natural communities of Antarctic marine protists, Thomson, Davidson, and Cadman, 2008.: “This recurrent decline in ozone over Antarctica between January and April coincides with blooms of diatoms that appear to have low UV-B tolerance but are responsible for ~47% of annual primary production in Antarctic waters.” And this paper: Ozone depletion: ultraviolet radiation and phytoplankton biology in antarctic waters, Smith et al., 2009. - “A minimum 6 to 12 percent reduction in primary production associated with O3 depletion was estimated for the duration of the cruise.” - It is noteworthy that in this figure, however, changes in chlorophyll usually precede changes in temperature. Figure adapted from: Satellite-detected fluorescence reveals global physiology of ocean phytoplankton, Behrenfeld et al., 2009.
  2. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    @Albatros "And if you think Hansen et al. are wrong about the time lag of the oceans, then at least try and demonstrate here why their calculations are wrong (and cut and pasting Wikipedia doesn't cut it)." Their calculations are simply irrelevent as relates to the melting Antarctic finding. Once again, this is the deep ocean being discussed. Below the thermocline. The sceptical science article you quoted is looking at ocean warming above 700m or thereabouts.
  3. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    archiesteel #127: You did, however, make a strawman argument that "warmists cherry-pick all the time," What good does it do in a debate to invent false quotes? The only thing remotely similar to your fabricated quote, which I did write (partly borrowing wordings from the top post), was "that 'warmists' also frequently take selected areas of the world where heat records for the recent past are being set, while ignoring other areas where cold records are being set".
  4. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    @Albatross "Lindzen interrupts: Absolutely...because you will have a higher response time you will pick up perturbations." This is the vital statement. And this is exactly the sort of thing I suggested might happen in my earlier post @ 62 and I gave the reasoning. If you believe the reasoning is faulty then please discuss why. If you are aware of a paper that has looked at this possibility specifically and come to some other conclusion then please let me know where it is. Until then Lindzen is entitled to have reasoned theories about things just the same as you are. If you believe Lindzen meant that thermometers LITERALLY measured highs better than lows then you're also entitled to that opinion but lets just say Lindzen is probably a lot smarter than you are so perhaps it is your understanding of his meaning that is faulty. "Can you please state for the record whether or not you support the 2010 winners of the Climate B.S. of the year award? " I consider the science and look at each conclusion and make my own mind up. I dont need to classify people before hearing what they say.
  5. Glenton Jelbert at 17:56 PM on 3 January 2011
    Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
    @Poptech Your list of the qualifications of the proponents of AGW is not terribly relevant. The whole point is that the proponents are deferring to a scientific consensus and body of literature. While denialists (or whatever they're calling themselves) are either: 1. doing their own science (not very common in the AGW 'debate', but it applies to Newton and Galileo) or 2. relying on other publications (which means that they are cherry picking from the science, because there is a consensus the other way there)
  6. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Thanks for the link @137 Daniel. Reading that led to this interesting graphic from CCE: Yup, still warming....but global SATs will no doubt be cooler for 2011, and then the whole "it is cooling" denier meme will have to be whacked again.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Yup, Ron Broberg over at the Whiteboard has put up a series of those (here). See his post here for more details plus the ultra-cool Snoopy ditty.
  7. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    TTT @74, Enough already, please stop being so lazy and stop asking leading questions-- I am not playing this game. Read the article yourself. I provided a link which you clearly have not read, certainly not in its entirety. And if you have any questions, go and ask Martinson and get back to us. And if you think Hansen et al. are wrong about the time lag of the oceans, then at least try and demonstrate here why their calculations are wrong (and cut and pasting Wikipedia doesn't cut it). Can you please state for the record whether or not you support the 2010 winners of the Climate B.S. of the year award?
  8. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    From testimony presented to the House Committee Science and Technology | Energy and Environment on November 17 2010. This exchange between Baird and Lindzen takes place about 50 minutes into the session for panel one. I provided a link earlier on this thread @10. Caveat: I did not use quotation marks b/c I am not a professional transcriber ;) Baird: Now here is the question is there disagreement with Dr. Meehl's analysis and Dr. Cullen's analysis that and Dr. Cicerone of of a greater portion of record highs in recent years relative to record lows. Lindzen: Ja, I don't think that they are meaningful statements. I mean during this whole period that he is referring to if you look at it it still looks like a random process one, and two, the instrumentation has changed dramatically during that period so the response time of modern thermometers is almost infinitesimal compared to the ones used in the earlier part of the record. Baird: Actually, I'll rephrase my question because I think it was pretty clear, but your answer did not address it. My question is-- is there any doubt that in recent years, and I'll state it as clearly as I can, that there is a greater preponderance of record highs than record lows? Unless you are suggesting that in the past the measurement devices were erroneous in one direction not another. Lindzen interrupts: Absolutely...because you will have a higher response time you will pick up perturbations. Baird: No I'm not talking perturbations....if you are suggesting that thermometers today are more sensitive to increases than to cooling. Lindzen interrupts: Ja, oh ja. Baird: That is right? That is your point? Lindzen; Ja. I think that is pretty much true. But I think there is another issue here, which is a bit weird, namely, why do we have record highs and record cold...? Baird: I don't want to ask the 'why' first, I just want to get the facts. Dr. Meehl, Dr. Cullen, Dr. Cicerone-- is it generally accepted scientific fact that there are more record highs today than record lows? Dr. Meehl? Meehl: Yes. Baird: Dr. Cullen? Cullen: Yes. Baird: Dr. Cicerone? Cicerone: Yes. Lindzen = B.S. End of story.
  9. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    "Martinson said that heat stored in deep waters far from Antarctica is being pushed southward and becoming entrained in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current" Now read it carefully. Is he saying that the heat stored in the deep waters is AGW in nature? Or are you reading that into it? This is what I would consider a very likely scenario and find his reasoning good. However the deep waters migrating is not obviously an anthropogenic effect is it. And the timeframes to heat the deep waters are all wrong too.
  10. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Um, try again. It actually is titled: "Deep ocean heat is rapidly melting Antarctic ice". My bad on mistakenly typing Arctic. You can clearly see in the Thermohaline Circulation diagram in the Wiki where the warmer waters come from and goe to. And the timeframes believed to be involved.
  11. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    TTT@69, "Utter rubbish." Now this is what one of the lead authors had to say (here) "Martinson said that heat stored in deep waters far from Antarctica is being pushed southward and becoming entrained in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, a vast, wind-driven water mass that constantly circles the frozen continent. The evidence comes from 18 years of Antarctic voyages Martinson has made to measure water temperature, salinity and other qualities at different depths. He called the increases in ocean heat in the past few decades “jaw dropping.” Now feel free to go argue with Dr. Martinson et al.
  12. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    TTT, As opposed to thermometers placed ner acres of tarmac at airports which are then branded "low population" centres? I corrected you. Now please stay on topic and stop arguing straw men.
  13. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    "And "Attention is drawn to possible warm biases in early thermometer shelters" Other papers have found warm bias b/c of poorly ventilated shelters used a long time ago." As opposed to thermometers placed ner acres of tarmac at airports which are then branded "low population" centres?
  14. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    ""....except the majority of the AGW heating is known to have occurred much later." There, fixed." Utter rubbish. Have you seen a paper that has described the warm upper ocean migrating towards the poles as the reason? It should be relatively easy to spot. No, its the deep ocean they're talking about, hence the title of the article "Deep Ocean Heat is rapidly melting Arctic ice" and its thermohaline circulation that drives that. It takes many hundreds of years for THC waters to migrate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Um, try again. It actually is titled: "Deep ocean heat is rapidly melting Antarctic ice".
  15. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    TTT @66, Read the abstract that I linked to carefully. "We suggest that uncertainties in the choice of instrumental targets at the hemispheric scale, and instrumental data inhomogeneities at the Alpine and possibly also the hemispheric-scale are the most important factors in explaining this offset." And "Attention is drawn to possible warm biases in early thermometer shelters" Other papers have found warm bias b/c of poorly ventilated shelters used a long time ago. Yes, there are many step changes in the data-- and the response time of thermometers is something they take into consideration. See this post and embedded link. As for Lindzen--your latest comments are just obfuscation. I'll post the exchange between Lindzen and Baird for you and others here to read-- will take some time to transcribe it though.
  16. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    TTT@65, "....except the majority of the AGW heating is believed known to have occurred much later." There, fixed. The thermal inertia of the oceans has been calculated to be about 30-40 years and discussed much in the literature. You seem to have chosen to misread the article. They are not saying that the heat surfacing near Antarctica was added to the deep ocean en mass over a century ago. They are saying that it has been steadily (albeit slowly) accumulating in the deep oceans for more than a century and some of that heat is now surfacing near Antarctica. An important difference. There is more clearly much more heat in the pipeline, and that is a concern, not a refutation of the theory of AGW. Now until contrarians stop engaging in B.S., and entertaining conspiracy theories, and distorting the science they will continue to have no credibility. I will take it by your silence on the B.S. awards that you implicitly agree/support with the B.S that the award winners are guilty of. Now had you come here and first distanced yourself from the BS award winners' antics and then tried to take issue with my critique of Lindzen then you might have had some credibility. Too late for you to back peddle now.
  17. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    @Albatross "Lindzen made the claim-- he provided no evidence to support his claim to the energy sub committee that newer instruments are more sensitive to highs than lows" Actually the chairman made the claim. Lindzen was asked to agree or not. My hypothesis isn't trying to do anything more than support Lindzen's belief. Its certainly not trying to say anything about the more recent measurements. "Finally, if the Lindzen's claim were true there would be a clear step change or discontinuity in the thermometer data " The data is FULL of step changes with changes in both location and type of thermometer. Perhaps this has never been investigated. "until either you or he provides credible, quantitative support it remains just that, a hypothesis." Correct. But that sure beats a bunch of people laughing at Lindzen because they haven't thought through the issue. "I did find this with a quick search, but it speaks to a warm bias in earlier temperatures." I dont think a proxy for temperatures (especially tree rings which are known to be dubious) is an especially strong argument.
  18. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    TTT, Lindzen made the claim-- he provided no evidence to support his claim to the energy sub committee that newer instruments are more sensitive to highs than lows, now that is B.S. The onus is on him to support his claim in a scientific matter. You grasping at straws on his behalf and arguing hypotheticals doesn't improve matters. Your hypothesis doesn't explain the systematic trend towards higher night- time temperatures in recent decades. Finally, if the Lindzen's claim were true there would be a clear step change or discontinuity in the thermometer data which would be detected when climatologists homogenized the data. I am unaware Lindzen's issue being raised in the papers on data homogenization that I have read. Anyhow, maybe between the the of us we can dredge through the literature to either support or refute Lindzen's hypothesis. But until either you or he provides credible, quantitative support it remains just that, a hypothesis. I did find this with a quick search, but it speaks to a warm bias in earlier temperatures.
  19. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    @archiesteel The argument hasn't come down to that at all. When the AGWers continue to ignore alternative explanations without proper consideration then they will continue to blindy assume what they're told. @Daniel I've always thought it was warmer waters doing the melting and not increased LW radiation as per increased CO2 + feedbacks. From the article "Global warming is sneaky. For more than a century it has been hiding large amounts of excess heat in the world's deep seas. Now that heat is coming to the surface again in one of the worst possible places: Antarctica." So now the thing to determine is whether the warmer water is as a result of AGW or not. It has long been believed that deep ocean heat takes a VERY long time to accumulate and the article itself suggests the heat has been accumulating for more than a century...except the majority of the AGW heating is believed to have occurred much later. If it cant be shown that CO2 first caused the deep oceans to heat that much and then migrate to the poles in the timeframes allowed then AGW is going to have another problem.
  20. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    @TTTM: In other words, temperatures have up to now been underestimated? :-) Seriously, when your argument against AGW comes down to "thermometers are more precise now", you've already lost the debate. There's a reason why contrarians are getting increasingly more shrill and desperate...
  21. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    "And no, to my knowledge there is no reason why thermometers would be more sensitive (or respond quicker) to highs than lows." @Albatros, 10 Maybe Lindzen is right about his statement and maybe he isn't. To have any chance of being right there needs to be a theory of why it might be so. Can you imagine why highs might be more prevalent given more sensitive thermometers? I can. High temperatures generally occur during the day when for example it might be cloudy for most of the day but briefly have the clouds break and temperatures rise for a short time. The new sensitive, high sampling rate thermomenters will spot that shorter peak whereas the older mercury based themometers wont respond quickly enough to see it. Compare this to low temperatures which generally occur overnight and often early in the morning (say 5am) following long slow cooling overnight. The old mercury thermometers will generally have been able to follow those temperatures down all night and perhaps give a more realistic low reading. So in fact there could well be good reasons why Lindzen's proposal is correct. To dismiss the idea out of hand simply shows it hasn't been considered or investigated properly.
  22. citizenschallenge at 13:50 PM on 3 January 2011
    A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    #2 dorlomin "The real damage of climategate was the press seeking to sell a controvesy rather than explain science. Amist one of the three strongest la Ninas for the past 60 years and very low solar activity we are still smaking straight into the 30 year average on the UAH dataset http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ (as a measure of mid troposphere temps UAH and RSS tend to show a bigger swing through ENSO cycles)" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Good observation, but I don't share your optimism, given the politicians who are moving into the US House of Representative, and State Capitals with their agenda. They, and the multimillion dollar lobbyists feeding them, are going to attack climate science with new plateaus of ruthlessness and public relations campaigns! So hang on, if you want to defend honest science it will be a rough ride, especially in Washington DC!
  23. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Re: muoncounter (138) And the best part is: it's a cherry-red dot... I so loved cherry-pickin' time growin' up... The Yooper
  24. A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    Not only the cartoon, but that title, "Nature did not Read the Hacked Emails" was right on the money. But I am surprised so few others have made the connection: the disastrous deluge of disinformation called 'climategate' is a perfect illustration of why Assange and all his puerile supporters are SO wrong when they glibly proclaim "sunshine is good". It is because people will read things out of context that some communications should be kept private. There is NOTHING shady about doing so.
  25. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #137: Yooper, I am shocked and disappointed. Showing a graph in which one point is by itself, not connected to all the others? As if to draw the viewer's attention to that point? Clearly a cherrypick. And since its obviously above the 'trend', it must be an ella NinoNinaPDOAOAMOSDI anomaly. Due to blocking. Or cosmics. Or UV. Or ocean heating or lack of ocean heating. Or excess WV and low clouds. Or lack of WV and high clouds. Or all those football fans tailgating, cooking up BBQ wings in stadium parking lots. Why just cherrypick one reason, must be all of 'em put together!
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] SDI? Strategic Defense Initiative? Or something more sinister?
  26. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Nope, still hasn't stopped: Courtesy of Tamino And the monotony goes on... The Yooper
  27. Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
    "But he designed the experiment, he chose the 95% confidence level" Actually, no he did not Lindzen and Lubos Motl did. See here. 15PacksADay probably also believes the myth that HadCRUT massaged their data to hide the decline in global temperatures.
  28. Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
    15PacksADay - So choosing to ask about a 15 year period (when just about everyone in climate science agrees that 25-30 is the minimum to evaluate a significant trend), the largest period in that time frame that did not meet the 95% significance threshold - is that good journalism? Or is that a trick question intended to advance a statistically false viewpoint? I do wish Jones had answered that question a bit differently - but he answered it correctly given the data. Positive, but not at the 95% significance level.
  29. Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
    That was a case of answering a leading/staged question presented by the interviewer rather than designing an experiment.
  30. Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
    It's been a while since I did any actual science, but my understanding is that the scientist picks the confidence level AHEAD of time, and if the result is significant, it's significant, and if it's not, the scientist does not actually get to say " Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level." The scientist does not get to post-facto change the significance level to suit the experiment. If Jones dislikes picking confidence levels, let him use Bayesian analysis. But he designed the experiment, he chose the 95% confidence level, and the data doesn't match that.
  31. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Re: actually thoughtfull (59) Or this one over at Climate Progress on December 15th? The Yooper
  32. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric @135, thanks. OK, good to hear that you agree.
  33. Eric (skeptic) at 09:13 AM on 3 January 2011
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Albatross, this question? "Has anthropogenic global warming stopped (and by that I do not mean slowed down). If so, when exactly?" Has not stopped.
  34. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #121: "roughly what I meant: "colder and snowier winters ... " Thank you for roughly agreeing; the linked article states that the cause of the those deeper winter conditions is the Arctic melt. Of course, if you play that tape forward a decade or two, all that open water in the Arctic summer will absorb plenty of heat --- that'll be nice vacationing.
  35. Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
    I only have one objection to the article; there is no reason to believe that we are on a track to only double the CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate change is not one of those problems that hit us and go away. As long as we continue to use fossil fuels, the level of CO2 will continue to rise (especially taking feedbacks into account), along with the energy content of the planet. We can divert resources to producing alternate energy systems while there are only 6 billion of us and we have enough energy to feed everyone (sort of), or we can wait until there are more people and a greater demand for energy, and dealing with an already devastated environment. On a personal note, I just got back from visiting the New Zealand branch of my family (Kapiti Coast area). John, that is a beautiful country you have. It struck me that if the typical American had the same attitude toward conservation that the average person there has, there would be a lot less trouble it the world. (And my own country would be a lot cleaner.)
  36. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Did you see this one in September? http://www.skepticalscience.com/billions-of-blow-dryers.html
  37. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric (skeptic) - The data is available; twice daily outgoing radiation from pretty much every spot on earth. Longwave radiation values are also available from other resources, such as IRI here. As to distribution versus averages - When Trenberth 2009 updated his outgoing IR from 390 (1999 values?) to 396, it was due to the local variances and the T^4 relationship increasing the estimated IR. But if you are measuring OLR from a satellite, that's a measurement, not an estimate. We're measuring the totals. Given the current state of the art and consensus of climate science, I think the Burden of Proof is on the skeptic side here. If you feel that low scale variances in water vapor distribution are increasing OLR radiation to point of providing a significant negative feedback - well, take the data and show it. But (getting back to post #73, which I had originally responded to) - unsupported and erroneous assertions of lower Arctic humidity are a lousy scientific argument.
  38. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric @129, For the record, would you mind please answering my question @122 here. Thanks.
  39. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric,@129, indeed we did :)
  40. A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    Great cartoon.
  41. actually thoughtful at 07:40 AM on 3 January 2011
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Is there any credible news regarding ocean heat energy? Or are we still at Trenberth's tragedy? I don't spend too much time doubting significance of global warming, but when I do - it is because a trip up on where the heat is.
  42. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Again, BP likes to cherry-pick (in this case, depth of measurements) and claims trends over a 2-3 years periods, ignoring the laws of statistics. There used to be a time when his input was challenging, but now it feels as if he's not even trying anymore, and just throws around whatever he can, hoping something will stick.
  43. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @BP: "And yes, in those parts of the globe where monthly average temperatures were high above normal, that is, Northern Canada, South Eastern Greenland & Eastern Siberia, including Kamchatka (almost) no one lives. It explains the general perception of the last month of last year being one of the coldest on record." So many errors in just one paragraph, it makes me think BP has sunk to RSVP's level. Sad. First, your list of places where monthly average temperatures were above normal is longer than what you've indicated. For starters, even in southern Canada (which is far from empty) temperatures are above normal. Almost 15C higher than normal here in Quebec City. Other places you could have mentioned: the western US, southern Europe, Africa, the Caucasus, the Philippines, South America...all places where no one lives, right? The fact there was a "general perception of cold" is irrelevant. What matters is the scientific reality...perhaps you should start trying to figure that out before continuing to write such nonsense.
  44. Eric (skeptic) at 07:12 AM on 3 January 2011
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Albatross, we must have crossed posts. I will find a more appropriate thread for the other discussion.
  45. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus, Albatross beat me to the reference to your wild claim @19 "An all time record cold spell in Europe, however, is worth nothing". You have not provided a single location where this winter has set any record at all, much less an all time record cold December . I have produced data on anomalies of +20C. The data at 51 show normal winter temperatures: it is December. You should admit you have no data that shows record cold, since you have not produced anything except unusually hot weather data. See these pictures of people ice skating on the Thames river for a cold year, it is much too warm to do that this year. "Skeptics" like to compare the weather to the past decade- the warmest ever recorded- and claim it is cold because it was not the warmest ever. Produce some data that supports your position or stop wasting my time with your absurd claims.
  46. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @Argus: my bad, you didn't start with the cherry-picking. You did, however, make a strawman argument that "warmists cherry-pick all the time," which is complete bull. Contrary to deniers, who cherry-pick temperature records and use these as evidence AGW is false, people who understand the science will not use record highs as evidence supporting AGW. Rather, they will (correctly) point out that such temperature records are *consistent* with AGW theory. There is an important difference, here, although I'm afraid it will be lost on those who long ago decided they didn't believe in global warming... The fact you believe dhogaza was cherry-picking in the two comments you referred to clearly shows you have no idea what you're talking about - just like back on digg. Why not actually try to learn some genuine science instead?
  47. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Are these the calculations for the no-feedback climate sensitivity? I'm wondering because I thought the no-feedback climate sensitivity was around 1.2-1.3. If I use your approximation of the Keeling curve I get a 688 ppm in 2110 and this is a 78% increase over 2010 and I would expect an increase in temperature of 1.25*ln(1.78)/ln(2) = 1.04 in 2110. How come you get 1.4?
  48. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric, in a seemingly hopeless effort to keep this thread on track. Could you please also answer the question @122 which I directed at Argus and BP. Thanks. If people wish to discuss OHC and Arctic amplification or negative feedbacks then people can go to the appropriate threads-- as will I.
    Moderator Response: Thank you for trying to wrangle this thread back on topic. Deletions might begin soon on this thread.
  49. Eric (skeptic) at 06:51 AM on 3 January 2011
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #122 Albatross, my view comes from BP's repetitive claim that OHC has stopped increasing with the main objection that it is too short a time period. OTOH, there is often a claim made that with a quiet sun we should be seeing cooling and we are not (likewise too short a time period). I put those together and conclude that the ocean is releasing stored heat to create part of the temperature increase. Or even more to your question, AGW from GHG continues as usual to create the observed temperature increase while the release of stored heat is offsetting the "quiet sun". Of course that is not quantitative because it is very hard to quantify the solar magnetic effects and the effects of the full solar spectrum on weather patterns.
  50. Eric (skeptic) at 06:40 AM on 3 January 2011
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    KR, if outgoing LW and SW (albedo) is captured on the time scale shown in the link in #112, then averaged over the month and the earth, the balance could tell us how much energy the earth gained month to month. We would be able to answer dhogaza's question "did weather save us" for that month. I don't know of any study that has done this over a decade or two and compared the results to OHC changes. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has and I would like to read it. My point in #107 was that the distribution of water vapor determined the radiative balance, not the average. If the average goes up, it will be more likely to capture outgoing LW, but only to the extent that it is evenly distributed. If it is uneven, such as what we see in blocking patterns (stationary lows and instead of a stronger but fixed latitude jet stream) then outgoing LW will be more likely to escape. In Screen and Simmonds (2010), they seem to be using averages for 1.5 degree concentric circular strips. There is no doubt about the summer increase in humidity and associated summer and early fall increase in incoming LW. Of course their use of averages for that analysis makes my evenness point moot. It doesn't address the other seasons (no increase in humidity in that study) nor the effect of weather patterns (on evenness).

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