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  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  Next

Comments 99551 to 99600:

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric @135, thanks. OK, good to hear that you agree.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.)
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric,@129, indeed we did :)
  17. A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    Great cartoon.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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?
  24. 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?
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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).
  28. Jacob Bock Axelsen at 06:36 AM on 3 January 2011
    Are we too stupid?
    Hi Embb, I just saw your question. I have answered it too many times already. Read the papers by Hardin, Axelrod and Milinski and become wiser, my friend. Happy New Year!
  29. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Re Argus @90, Just a quick follow up. BP's post @73 was directed at Archiesteel. My post @85 was not made directly in response to BP's post@73-- I should have been clear about that. Anyhow, as it turns out I have corrected two claims made by BP in 73. Specifically, I corrected his erroneous claim about the globe being cooler than average in December @85 (made before your whining @90). And his erroneous claim about the alleged decrease in WV over the Arctic being "depleted fast" was corrected @105. Other posters have also dealt with erroneous/misleading claims made by BP @73 and elsewhere. And maybe it is time for those in denial about AGW, such as you, to ponder this figure of global temperatures: One has to be a hard core denialist (including things that I cannot say here) to be trying to argue that the globe is cooling in one of (if not the) warmest years on record. Really the desperation of the wannabe skeptics is truly pathetic and mind boggling.
  30. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus, "and the first uses of cherry-picking temperatures that I can find, are from dhogaza (#24 and #32)." Let us regroup here and go back to this claim made @19 "An all time record cold spell in Europe, however, is worth nothing" Actually, it was this comment made by Argus and his/her strawman accusation of "warmists" cherry-picking which started the whole "cherry-picking" fiasco. And for the record, those who know dhogaza know that he was being sarcastic when he made his alleged "cherry-pick". Both you, Argus, and BP have made several claims that have been demonstrated to be patently false. What do you then do-- move the goal posts or continue with yet more gish-gallop. This behaviour by you and BP is now bordering on trolling, and I would not be surprised if John or someone else has to clean up the mess left on this thread by you guys over the next couple of days Please stop with the gish-gallop (feel free to go to another forum if you want to do that), and please remind yourselves what the topic of this thread is about. I'll help: BP and Argus and fellow "skeptics": "Has anthropogenic global warming stopped (and by that I do not mean slowed down). If so, when exactly? If claiming that is has, please back up your claims with some science, data or statistics.
  31. A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    Never has so many made so much about so little. The Yooper
  32. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    villabolo #116, and muoncounter #117, That's roughly what I meant: "colder and snowier winters for Europe, Asia and parts of North America", And they thought they'd never see snow again in England... Climate is hard to predict.
  33. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    archiesteel, #102: "Contrarians started with the cherry-picking, the only reason people gave counter-examples was to illustrate that cherry-picking. Don't lie in our faces and expect us to believe you." I have gone through the history of this thread, and the first uses of cherry-picking temperatures that I can find, are from dhogaza (#24 and #32). After that I gave some counter-examples.
  34. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric (skeptic) - A question of clarification, if you please. Do you mean that monthly averages over large areas are (a) insufficient information to determine radiative balances, or (b) we are incapable of measuring such averages? I thought we were doing a decent job of measuring the averages, through satellite observations and confirmatory surface back-radiation measurements. And I cannot understand arguing that long term regional averages are inappropriate to measure long term climate.
  35. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault - When you wrote "The atmosphere does not "heat" the oceans. Not by radiative forcing nor by any other method. The oceans "heat" the atmosphere." you are quite correct. If when you mean "Heat" you mean net transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the ocean. The actual net (summed) flow is sunlight->ocean->atmosphere->space, or in more detail: Heat Transfer (net energy flow) sunlight->ocean and atmosphere ocean->atmosphere and space atmosphere->space The rate of any of these is dependent on the difference in temperatures between them. The thing is, a warm IR absorbing/radiating atmosphere reduces the effective temperature difference between the ocean and space (the final destination for the energy from sunlight). And hence it's harder for the ocean to dump energy at any particular temperature - it accumulates and warms the ocean. Radiant energy scales with T^4, so this isn't open-ended warming. These are pretty much greenhouse basics, memoryvault - I suggest you take a look at Has the greenhouse effect been falsified for an overview of the mechanics.
  36. A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    I dont think the CRU team were blameless in the FOI requests. I think its shades of gray. That being said the in the febrile atmosphere of climate gate I dont think there was a lot of space for nuance. Stuff like 'hide the decline' were in many ways spectacular own goals by the contrairians as they were easily shown up as being overhyped. They polarised the debate and motivated the more vocal sceptics but I strongly think that it made scepticism appear to be hyperbolic and politically motivated, precisely what people accuse mainstream climate science of being to the lay public. It was amplified by the surge to the right in the UK and US politically and the cold winters, but in the long run served to make sceptics sound shrill by giving the loudest voices to the least capable of making a scientific case for low climate sensitivity. 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) By the peak of the next el Nino, in all likleyhood any loss of public confidence will have been reveresed as the data continues to pile in. I strongly suspect that pressure on governments from the public, the scientific comunity and increasingly business (who will see that they need to understand how governments will tackle CO2 levels so they can make long term planning decisions) will break in the favour of taking action as the data piles in. My personal hunch is that the trend for 2011 will see political comentators and bloggers making it clear they were always luke warmers and never disputed sensitivities of up to 2C (perhaps even 3C). McKintyre has been on this for a while (and he is one of the sharpest of the contrarians).
  37. actually thoughtful at 04:11 AM on 3 January 2011
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Memory Vault When you say Angstrom's "discredited" Arrhenius's theory - do you mean the experiment where Angstrom used faulty methodology? The end result being only Angstrom's work was discredited? Is that the incident you are referring to? It appears that as far back as 1900 the only way to "discredit" AGW was through bad science (just to tie this back to the original post). I bring all this up to yes, score debating points - but also because there is a sense that somehow AGW is a new, specially tailored theory that Al Gore dreamed up right after he invented the Internet. But the reality is that AGW is climate science. It is physics and it is chemistry and any other related science. If you understand the science you are a proponent of AGW (or at worst an informed skeptic). So the task for skeptics such as yourself is first to understand enough so you see why my statement is true. Otherwise you just spark the ire of folks who have walked people through this 100s of times before and know you will either get it (unlikely due to human nature, not climate science) or walk away thinking those folks at skepticalscience are irrational (sadly the more likely outcome). Once you understand the basic truth that AGW is physics and is climate science you are ready to be a skeptic and figure out how the core science is wrong. At that point you will have the undying gratitude of millions (plus quite a bit of money from entrenched energy companies that want nothing more than the right to pollute and profit in peace). Finally, if you don't mind me asking - what is your source of information? You said it was a high school education in the 1960s, then you said Arrhenius was discredited until he was dusted off in the 70s (presumably after you graduated from high school). And yet you not only know Arrhenius but you know about Angstrom's inept assistant and the bungled "discrediting"; and you are here on skepticalscience looking for answers - so it seems likely you have an additional current source of (perhaps faulty) information. Thanks.
  38. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    I feel compelled to counter at least ad hominem memoryvault threw onto this thread about Arrhenius. I hope moderators allow it, because I've seen this comment show up elsewhere, too. Yes, Arrhenius was a board member of the State Institute for Racial Hygeine. Yes, he was involved in studying eugenics. But to link Arrhenius to the forced sterilisation programme of the Swedish government is downright evil. Evil, because that started in 1934, seven years after Arrhenius had died. Then again, I guess these same people think Newton's law are complete nonsense, considering he also dabbled in alchemy.
  39. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #117: "Winters will be shortened, perhaps warmer and even more severe" Some interesting observations from Jun 2010. There really is a consistent theme, as also reported here: Polar heat pushing jet stream south, bringing harder winters for U.S./Europe/Japan Climate change has warmed the entire Arctic region, melting 2.5 million square kilometres of sea ice, and that, paradoxically, is producing colder and snowier winters for Europe, Asia and parts of North America. This huge mass of warmer air over the Arctic in the late fall not only generates more wind and snow locally, ... altered normal wind patterns, pushing the jet stream further south and bringing arctic cold to much of Eurasia and Japan. In eastern North America, the same conditions of 2007-8 produced increased precipitation and colder temperatures in the winter.
  40. A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
    More than anything else, the so-called "climategate" emails proved that climate-scientists can get very angry when journal papers containing freshman C-student errors are used as political weapons against them.
  41. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    I have an early submission for the 2011 award. While listening to of all things, an organic gardening show on the radio. This guy (call-in) tells the host that he is having trouble with his tomato plants, which he believes is due to "aluminum". When ask why he thought the cause was due to aluminum, he said, "well, I don't want to get into conspiracy theories, but they have been putting aluminum oxide in the atmosphere and that's what's causing global warming".
  42. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 03:00 AM on 3 January 2011
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Berényi Péter All this tells me is that there is variability within the system, as expected. What it doesn't tell me is how the cycles memoryvault refers to are responsible for the ongoing, long-term rise in temperatures. This is the point I was trying to get to (eventually) with regards to memoryvault's assertions that ocean cycles can explain recent temperature trends.
  43. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus, #114: "Thanks for the link to the British climate prediction (snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past), written some ten years ago! Little did they know. Parts of it were hilarious read, in the light of this winter." They would be wrong, as a short term prediction (i.e. temporarily), not because their general concept of Global Warming is wrong, but because they were unaware of what the severe NAOs would do and, of course, to the uneducated public's general perception that their backyard is the whole world. There is nothing 'hilarious' in the longer term; still within the lifetime of children 10 years ago; when the Arctic Ice Cap meltdown gets to the point where the Artic will be mostly open water during the summer*. Winters will be shortened, perhaps warmer and even more severe (If Super NAOs become a semipermanent feature.). Summers will be worse still with the Arctic Ocean's drastically changed albedo boosting water temps by 3-5C. It will then become obvious to even 'skeptics' that the climate will be that of extremes (I'm sure that their rationalization 'du joure' would be 'Natural Global Warming' with a revisionist history of "we told you all along".). There will be nothing hilarious to the children of ten years ago, or their children, as they get repeatedly flooded with rains and buried in warm wet snow year after dreary year. Briefly put, Argus, is that; little do you know; parts of this thread will, in the future, make a hilarious read in light of the next [winter] 20 winters. * Predictions are that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer anytime from 2020 to 2030; for a few days at first, then weeks and months in subsequent years. These predictions do not take into account the effect of NAOs diminishing winter ice build up. That, of course, will accelerate summer ice loss. This makes NAO another feed back loop that has not been taken into account. 2020 to 2030 for ice free summers may actually be 2016 to 2020.
  44. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    @Berényi Péter #50 "It's here. Between third quarter of 2009 and third quarter of 2010 the upper 700 m of oceans lost 1.015×1022 J. That's equivalent to a continuous net radiative heat loss at TOA (Top of Atmosphere) of 0.63 W/m2 averaged over the entire year." Is 0-700m "the ocean"? What about 700 or more (about 75-80% of all)? Why if "ocean" cooled, sea level continued to grow? Thermal expansion of sea water is about a half of sea level rise. Aren't you copying the structure of the "travesty"? If you thought that by "ocean cooling" Anne-Marie wasn't asking for general trends, why don't you answer that in this very moment -and any moment- about half of the ocean and half of the emerging lands are cooling much more than 0.63W/m2. If we are going to divide our subjects to make an argument I will tell that half of the ocean is more than 0-700m. It looks to me like your argument is just an exploit of the gap between the availability of different sets of recent data and the delayed publication of peer reviewed comprehensive analysis. After all, much of the claim for easy availability of raw data "to check it" had purposes like that, hadn't it?
  45. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    #44: Anyone spot the contradiction(s)? a. "Stratospheric cooling and decreased IR emissions into space could simply be the result of the planet cooling off." b. "A warmer planetary surface system ... will ALWAYS have higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere." c. "the oceans have been acting as a "thermal blanket", trading heat with the atmosphere. Now the loss of heat energy is becoming measurable and the oceans are cooling." So: c. Oceans cool and atmosphere warms as they 'trade heat'. Except that a. planet is cooling, yet b. planet surface must be warmer as CO2 remains high. The only possible reply to that is: I see said the blind man to his deaf daughter, as he picked up his hammer and saw.
  46. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Hi, michael sweet (#96): "Argus, I am still waiting for your to produce data on a location that is colder than average. Hot locations support my position that it is still warming." I am not sure of what this dispute is about. I still maintain that it has been unusually cold in most of Europe, most of Siberia, in Alaska (and Eastern U.S.). See the map in #51! That's a lot of locations. Or do you just mean Greenland? I certainly agree that, at the same time, it has been an unusually mild December on the south-eastern coast of Greenland, especially. What I wanted to oppose was the erroneous picture of Greenland having +14 C every day. When I looked, the daily highs on that coast were about -5 to +5. Also, I do not trust your German maps that show "a high of 13C for Greenland". First, it is just in one isolated spot. Second, these numbers of joy do not agree with the Danish/Greenland weather site. (see: http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/) I still think that December will show to be cold.
  47. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #111: "parts of the globe where monthly average temperatures were high above normal, ... (almost) no one lives." But this is bizarre; a kind of reverse UHI? If it matters, here's a place where 1.22M people live. San Diego: December was wetter, warmer than normal Isn't arguing about how one month's weather was 'perceived' completely irrelevant? The broader pattern remains intact: an anomalously warm year ending an anomalously warm decade. Whether you think December where you lived was warmer or cooler than usual, it certainly was wet (including snow). And there is ample reason, consistent with a warming environment, for more atmospheric moisture in the early winter. See: lake effect snow.
  48. Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
    "While the inquiry did criticize the individual graph mentioned in the "trick" email, it found no evidence of CRU manipulating tree ring data or downplaying the uncertainties." So what does 'hide the decline' mean in scientific terms then?? We know what 'the decline' is. It is the decline in tree ring proxy temperatures after about 1960. So why would anyone want to hide that fact which is supposedly well discussed in the specialist literature? So what would a reasonably intelligent layman make of these facts? Well how about this: CRU's Jones used the word 'hide' in a private communication because that was his intent - to hide the awkward bit of data which did not fit the upward trajectory of the warming chart. "But this was one isolated instance that occurred more than a decade ago." [snipped]
  49. 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." This is incorrect. It's "Mike's Nature trick". Mike (=Michael Mann) did not truncate any tree ring data in his publications (not specifically in his infamous 1998 Nature paper). Instead the "trick" is to add instrumental temperature series to the end of the reconstruction (to the truncated reconstruction in the case of Briffa's series) prior to smoothing. This should be clear as the sentence continues "of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s". Finally, the effect of this "trick" is to turn the end of the smoothed series upwards (instead of downwards as they would without adding in the instrumental series), and thus "to hide the decline".
  50. How much did aerosols contribute to mid-20th century cooling?
    THANK YOU, YOOPER!!!!
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You're welcome!

Prev  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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