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  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  Next

Comments 99501 to 99550:

  1. Not So Cool Predictions
    Wheels @17, The short story is that Easterbrook is bad news-- no doubt about it. Gareth Renowden has thoroughly debunked Easterbrook's latest nonsense in his latest post here. It seems that at least one "skeptic" did not resolve to absolve from distorting in 2011. In fact, they are starting right where they left off. Wheels, these antics are all a desperate attempt to keep people distracted from the reality that the the climate system is accumulating heat, and to trying and sow the seed that the planet is in fact not heading for 2-4.5 C warming, but instead "cooling". Easterbrook and the microWatts crowd are clearly in denial about AGW. The psychology of all this is fascinating, if not utterly depressing.
  2. Not So Cool Predictions
    What an inconsistency. If Oreskes is incorrect in describing how the vast, overwhelming majority of climate scientists is a consensus, how can Gosselin turn around a few months later and describe a list of ~30 individuals as any consensus, "growing" or otherwise? Also, Easterbrook! I hadn't paid him much attention before, but late last night somebody used his arguments about modern temps/the Holocene on me and I had reason to look into him. His claims of "cooling" periods over the 20th century remind me of this so much it's almost not funny. Turns out I'm not the only person who thinks his graphs smell funny: One Two Three He seems unusually weaselly. I hadn't really heard about him until last night, so maybe I'm just being unduly influenced by hasty Googling. Anybody have the story on Dr. Easterbrook?
  3. Not So Cool Predictions
    @6 - Tonydunc - although I wouldn't go so far as call Argo floats cherry-picking, some of these scientists that are still in denial (Roger Pielke Snr springs to mind) have to make the most of the Argo data before revisions are made to account for the pressure sensor faults which have induced a cooling bias. The process is still ongoing as far as I'm aware. Roy Spencer & John Christy did the same thing for about a decade with the MSU satellites when it was obvious there was a spurious cooling signal in their datasets. And of course we still have no way of measuring the deep ocean in it's entirety. With many politicians willing to bury their heads in the sand over global warming, funding for a deep ocean monitoring network may be a bit hard to come by.
  4. Eric (skeptic) at 07:24 AM on 4 January 2011
    Not So Cool Predictions
    caerbannog, I agree. The reason I posted the link was not to promote cranks, but to give a list of people, some subset of which may have cooling predictions and some subset of that may be backed up with journal papers.
  5. Not So Cool Predictions
    PeteM, Rob Honeycutt and others, some have looked rather extensively at PopTech's list. http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/
  6. Not So Cool Predictions
    A lot of the names above (and more) are in this table: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html Every "skeptic" list that I've ever seen has been padded with cranks and incompetent hacks. The above list is no exception. A couple of quick examples: John Coleman? He's with KUSI here in San Diego, and he's cartoonishly clueless. I've seen him in action on TV several times. His current knowledge of climate-science wouldn't get him a passing grade in a middle-school science class. Timothy Ball? A complete, over the top, tinfoil-hat crank. Strong words, admittedly, but fully supported by the evidence. See this link for some of that evidence: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31141 Excerpts
    Scientific Reaction To Velikovsky Symptomatic Of Climate Science Debacle By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, December 16, 2010 ..... Science Is The Ability To Predict In the end Velikovsky succeeded because he passed the ultimate test of science; the ability to predict. More important, they were in contradiction to prevailing views. He made many and apparently none are incorrect to date. The interesting one was the temperature of Venus, which was almost double what the textbooks said. The same textbooks that incorrectly use Venus as an example of runaway CO2 induced Greenhouse Effect. Failure of the University President to approve a conference on Velikovsky was symptomatic of the dogmatic, closed minds that pervade modern science. The few scientists involved with the AGW debacle deliberately exploited and practiced that condition. Their actions indicate they saw this as a battle, but it was against the truth and as Aeschylus said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.”
  7. Not So Cool Predictions
    I guess I have another footnote (hyperlink) for my "Global Cooling since..." post. :-)
  8. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @Argus #142 So, do you think that many instances of record cold in 100 years or unprecedented cold are not evidence of global warming or compatible with global warming?
  9. Not So Cool Predictions
    Rob Honeycut (#4) - I saw the list of 800 scientists. When I checked what they were saying, they were proposing several contradictory ideas ( sun , no warming , thermodynamics). I'm surprised there isn't a simple analysis of this list showing that it represents (for example )20 inconsistent ideas.
  10. Eric (skeptic) at 06:37 AM on 4 January 2011
    Not So Cool Predictions
    A lot of the names above (and more) are in this table: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html Some of the Russians in particular (e.g. Oleg Sorokhtin) have been written up in press releases, etc as having made cooling predictions.
  11. Not So Cool Predictions
    Has anyone attempted to let these scientists know how they are being portrayed on P Gosselin's blog?
  12. Not So Cool Predictions
    Rob #4 - yes it seems pretty much every skeptic 'list of scientists' follows this same pattern. Pad the list with non-experts, and find a few experts whose quotes you can misconstrue to incorrectly add them to your list, to give it the perception of validity. Albatross #5 - personally I don't think you're left with any, but I took that statement out of the post, because it's rather subjective who you consider a real 'climate scientist'. Scafetta for example - personally I think he does rather shoddy work, and technically he's a solar physicist, but you could make an argument for calling him a climate scientist, because he has published in peer-reviewed journals on solar effects on the climate. tonydunc #6 - I think the abstract of the paper tells you all you need to know - "Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats..." So basically they're looking at only *upper* ocean heat content data, only over a 5 year period, and only from Argo floats. Cherrypicking at its finest.
  13. Not So Cool Predictions
    Tony @6, A big clue here is the author "Douglass". I would not place too much weight on the paper. IMHO, a far more objective and credible paper on the state of the OHC is a paper by Lyman et al. (2010), which is discussed here. There is also a good overview here, in the 2009 State of the Climate report. Here is a link to the relevant chapter.
  14. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    #53. The International Journal of Geosciences is perhaps not quite what it seems Mind you I'm looking forward to the first articles from this prestigious sounding tome
  15. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    michael sweet, #128: "The data at 51 show normal winter temperatures: it is December. " The graph at 51 shows anomalies. Blue means considerably lower than normal. What you asked for in #82 was "data on a location that is colder than average." michael sweet, #128: "You have not provided a single location where this winter has set any record at all" Here are a few assorted records for you: - Stockholm, Sweden, longest continuous cold spell since the winter of 1788-1789. Also coldest November temp. since 1884 (-18) - Åland (autonomous part of Finland): all-time low (set on Nov 29) -18,9. - Germany record cold in November: 3-5 degrees Celsius below the long-term averages. - "Both Wales and Northern Ireland recorded the coldest November night since records began. In Wales, temperatures fell to -18.0 °C at Llysdinam, near Llandrindod Wells, Powys. Northern Ireland recorded -9.5 °C at Loch Fea." - December 20, all-time low in Northern Ireland (-18°C). - "Christmas Day is the coldest ever with mercury plummeting to - 18 as UK heads towards the biggest December freeze since 1890." / "December is the coldest across the UK since the national series began in 1910." (Pick one!) - The coldest December on record for the main climate sites in South Florida. (According to 'The National Weather Service'). P.S. This is not cherry-picking - I was asked to provide data!
  16. Not So Cool Predictions
    I just got this paper off Steve Goddard's site. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf While many of his postings are totally meaningless or worse, this seems to clearly say that there is no heat buildup in the oceans, for the last 8-10 years of so. Of course that is not a very long time period, but it makes sense to me that there there would be amore consistent rise in temps in the oceans than on land. Maybe John someone here can comment of the accuracy/meaning of these results
  17. Not So Cool Predictions
    Many, many thanks for looking into this Dana. As I suspected the contrarians misrepresented the science of several climate scientists to fit their own ideology, and you have very nicely shown that they have. "Many of these and other names on the list are not climate scientists" Heck, several of them they are not even scientists, and others are emeritus (and those in the know are aware what often tends to happen when a prof. goes emeritus). Is D'Aleo a real, practicing scientist? Or Corbyn, or Bastardi for that matter? I would argue that the the aforementioned are not scientists. Have any of them published their claims in a in a reputable peer-reviewed journal? When one excludes the wanna be scientists, the non-climate scientists and the emeriti-- just who is one left with?
  18. Not So Cool Predictions
    Dana... This sounds like the same technique that that guy PopTech (Mr. 800-peer-reviewed-papers-against-AGW) uses to justify his position. It doesn't matter to them if the authors of the quoted material actually agree with their position, the only thing that matters is their own interpretation of those author's works.
  19. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    TTT @78, I am not arguing with you on this anymore. Two reasons. First, it is OT. Second, you seem to be insisting on misunderstanding Martinson's research. But before I go, here is his abstract given at AGU: "Published literature is converging to a consensus that the accelerated glacial melt in western Antarctica is due in part to ocean heat. This talk will present the history of ocean heat on the western continental shelves of the western Antarctic, likely contributing to this accelerated melt. The record is from nearly 20 years of gridded ocean data from the Palmer Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) project situated in the heart of this critical region. Two fundamental points are covered: (1) what is the mechanism by which the warm water makes its way onto the continental shelf, and (2) what is the history of the ocean heat content with an emphasis on possible mechanisms responsible for what will be shown to be a dramatically large increase in the heat content (historical data from the same location extends the history of the ocean heat content back through the 1960s, showing a startlingly large increase in ocean heat content). Possible reasons for the increase are: (1) increased westerlies driving a stronger Antarctic Circumpolar Current flow, raising the isopycnals of the warmest waters to the height of the continental shelf for easy access via shelf upwelling, or (2) global warming of the world oceans deep waters have encountered southern flowing currents, delivering the warmed water to the ACC, eventually reaching the western Antarctic". Anyhow, maybe you can find someone to argue with on the appropriate thread, if you can find one.
  20. Not So Cool Predictions
    Rob #1 - yes it's a consensus of a whopping 31 "scientists"...except that a lot of the scientists on the list don't belong there, and most of the rest don't know what they're talking about.
  21. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    #53: "natural cyclical processes show stronger correlation in the surface record." So you are claiming that correlation requires causality? Did you run that past the denial establishment to see if they reached a consensus on that? What causes the PDO/AMO?
  22. Not So Cool Predictions
    Poor Dr. Latif. They will never get enough of misrepresenting his speech. The good side of all this is that this time they're risking to predict something. At least this is falsifiable.
  23. Not So Cool Predictions
    Dang. I took a sip of coffee right before I read "so far as to call it a 'growing concensus.'" Mistake.
  24. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    I've just been looking at that graph again that shows ocean heat content increase. It came with today's blog-post. I see now that the data for ocean heat build-up come from Domingues et al(2008) - rather than Murphy et al(2009). So I guess that means a slight correction to the references section of the Guide is necessary. No big deal. It has just dawned on me now that I was interpreting this graph wrongly in my comments above. I see now that it's a graph of the heat anomaly, measured compared to 1950, not a graph of the absolute heat content of the ocean. Duh! My apologies for this error on my part and for taking up so much of your time. I'm now largely happy with the graph. I now think it is quite realistic. I don't think the bumps are so out of scale anymore. PS: I guess what threw me was the title: "Build-up in Earth's Total heat Content" . This made me think in terms of absolute accumulated heat (which I can see now it couldn't possibly be). Perhaps a little note to explain this distinction might help others to avoid the same confusion. In any case I take full responsibility for that misunderstanding! I hope I didn't lead too many people astray. Keep up the great work!
  25. thepoodlebites at 03:53 AM on 4 January 2011
    It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    Recap: Warming trend: PDO+AMO shows stronger correlation than CO2, R^2 for CO2 = 0.44 R^2 for PDO+AMO = 0.85 where (R^2 is the coefficient of determination) A new article in the International Journal of Geosciences Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes, supports the idea of the weak correlation between CO2 and global warming, natural cyclical processes show stronger correlation in the surface record. Conclusions: "CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed."
  26. A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    They, and the multimillion dollar lobbyists feeding them, are going to attack climate science with new plateaus of ruthlessness and public relations campaigns! = = = = = = = = = = = = = = But you can only run a political campaign against science for so long. After a while it starts to really damage your credibility on other issues. The right wing will make some hay for a year or so yet, but one big arctic melt season or big el Nino and it will be egg on face time. IMHO the party managers are not stupid and will likely be seeking position that allows them to get some distance between the mainstream party and the louder, more strident 'its all a fraud' types. It they are not then their science (and some of their political) credibility is hostage to the next big global warming story.
  27. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    TTT@77, "If you believe the reasoning is faulty then please discuss why." I have already done that. You just keep repeating the same wishful thinking. You also need to learn the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Additionally, suggesting that I'm not smart enough to understand you and Lindzen is not defense. 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). Also, going by your logic, one can only conclude that you think they (Meehl et al.) are also not smart enough to grasp Lindzen's unsubstantiated musings. Poor misunderstood Lindzen. Lindzen is entitled to his opinions, but not to his own facts. In science, one is required to provide evidence/facts to support one's hypothesis-- Lindzen did not, and has not, and that is B.S. So please stop trying to spin and distort this. "I consider the science and look at each conclusion and make my own mind up." LOL TTT, you really missed your calling in life. You should have been a politician, maybe you are ;) OK, there are five award winners. Then please defend each one using science and explain to us why they are not guilty of B.S. Additionally, being a "true skeptic", I'm sure that you will be happy to add a few more examples of B.S. from the contrarians/"skeptics"/those in denial about AGW. Gleick et al. made their case, now you make yours. We are all ears.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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".
  31. 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.
  32. 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)
  33. 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.
  34. 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?
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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?
  41. 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".
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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...
  48. 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.
  49. 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!
  50. 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

Prev  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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