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  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  Next

Comments 99601 to 99650:

  1. Not So Cool Predictions
    "Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors." Tell that to all those Europeans who schedule month-long vacations each and every July or August ...
  2. Not So Cool Predictions
    Casino managers may not be able to predict actual profit and loss margins, and they don't need to. I'm afraid that the gambling that takes place in a casino has a lot less unknowns or not understood factors as is submitted. The odds are always stacked in the casino's favour. Therefore a casino manager can always predict with confidence that the casino will make a profit. I have found that the majority of those seriously studying climate science are much more cautious about such claims. That's why most climate scientists talk about "range of possibilities". While a climate scientist may not be able to specify the exact nature of what the future ramifications of climate change might be, he/she can certainly predict with confidence based upon the preponderance of evidence that change can be expected. And I've never run across a serious scientist who would dispute that there are unknown unknowns. I can use a weather forecast as an example. A forecast is nothing more than a prediction based upon certain knowns that are subject to the influences of unknowns. So if a forecast calls for a high of 30C and the actual temperature at that location for that day registers at 32C, does this mean that we should have no confidence in the forecasts being produced? Certainly not. Therefore I submit that Kelvin's fallacy does not apply here.
  3. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @Argus #161 If that's your position -which I can't share with intellectual honesty- there's still the matter of what argumentation are you trying to do with this long thread of comments to this post. It all looks fuzzy, like a bunch of examples of heights and lows that should make somebody think that while the sound of clanging may be heard, there's still a possibility to win some kind of battle. I prefer you to explain it, but we could also start a careful analysis of what you wrote here.
  4. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    "It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors" It was the consensus (bad word) of this thread that weather is chaotic, while climate is not. In each of Ned's examples, there will be times and locations where the weather varies due to local conditions and is therefore difficult to predict. However, the overall pattern and trend is well-determined from the conditions in each case. See the wiki article on chaos theory for other examples and an explanation of the specific meaning of 'chaotic' in the scientific sense. In short, complicated does not equal chaotic.
  5. Not So Cool Predictions
    Phila's suggestion is a very good one. I've replied to fdijkstra's claim over in the thread Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?.
  6. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    In another thread, fdijkstra writes: Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. That is silly, as a moment's reflection would have told you. Would you seriously object to any of the following predictions? (1) On average, in 2011, the Arctic and the Antarctic will be cooler than the tropics. (2) On average, in 2011, regions lying in the Intertropical Convergence Zone will have higher precipitation than regions lying at the poleward edge of the Hadley Cell. (3) On average, in 2011, the northern hemisphere will be warmer in July than in December, while the southern hemisphere will show the opposite seasonality. Those are all very specific, quantifiable predictions about the climate (well, #2 would require some complicated definitions to quantify...). I suspect that virtually everyone who understands the basics of the Earth's climate would agree that all three of those predictions are reasonable. OK, how about these predictions: (4) In the absence of any other countervailing forcings, an instantaneous 25% decrease in solar irradiance, sustained for a century, would cause the Earth's mean surface temperature to decrease and the extent of sea ice to increase. (5) A volcanic eruption or large asteroid impact that injected a large quantity of aerosols into the stratosphere would also cause the Earth's mean surface temperature to decrease. Those are slightly more complicated predictions, but still things that pretty much everyone would agree with. Again, they are based on conceptual or numerical models of the climate system. From here, one could move to more detailed and more complex predictions. Naturally, we will be less confident in our predictions as they get more specific in terms of time, place, and phenomena. That's OK, everyone understands that. The claim that somehow the climate is just too complicated to predict is just plain wrong. We can make simple predictions with a very high degree of confidence, and more specific predictions with correspondingly greater uncertainty.
  7. Glaciers are growing
    rockpicker - As addressed on this topic with multiple papers and lots of data, glaciers are not growing. There's also no indication that the level of undersea volcanism has changed in the last 100 years or so - and geothermal inputs are on the order of ~1% those of greenhouse gas effects. So changes in undersea volcanism isn't driving oceanic warming. Dr. Tim Ball is not what I would call a reliable source - he chairs the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which is apparently run by energy industry lobbyists, as well as being one of the best known members of the Friends of Science group. He's a well known climate change skeptic with ties to industrial groups. I'll also point out that a show which "...is a broadcast vehicle for introducing new and ancient knowledge, solutions, discoveries, and compelling stories" doesn't sound like a great scientific forum - it sounds like something closer to "Ripleys Believe It Or Not!".
  8. Not So Cool Predictions
    Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. The illusion that the climate can be predicted is an example of Kelvin's fallacy: the assumption that there are no unknown unknowns. Casino managers should not make any predictions about revenue. No loss predictions, no profit predictions, because any particular gambler's winnings/losses are unpredictable. A casino is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. The illusion that the a casino's earnings can be predicted is an example of Kelvin's fallacy: the assumption that there are no unknown unknowns.
  9. Glaciers are growing
    http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2010/timball2/ Dr. Tim Ball was interviewed by Kim Greenhouse on her program on Dec. 10, 2010. He said world glacier ice mass is currently growing, and he talked about the contribution undersea vulcanism is making to oceanic warming. Can you address these issues?
  10. Not So Cool Predictions
    Someone earlier suggested that the Gulf Stream was slowing. I've not seen anything in press that supports this. However there may have been some changes to the Labrador Current since the 1970's that requires further studies in order to deduce the implications. More on this: Atlantic currents have seen 'drastic' changes.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] the Gulf Stream slowing/stopping was a fake story. See here.
  11. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Alec Cowan 157, - I am rather touched by seeing the effort you have put into finding all my comment numbers. I don't know why you bother asking for an answer from me about #143, but (providing I understand the question correctly) my answer is: instances of record colds do not form evidence of global warming, nor do they form evidence of global cooling. Record highs and record lows are both perfectly compatible with global warming. Albatross 160, - So what is this thread about? What is pertinent? I haven't seen many significant contributions from either side in this thread. As for your earlier question in #122 - ("Has anthropogenic global warming stopped (and by that I do not mean slowed down.) If so, when exactly?") - I believe in AGW, and there is no hard evidence yet that it has either stopped or slowed down, (but I am hoping that it will slow down, and looking at some curves and other diagrams presented, I can sometimes see reasons for hope in the latest decade). I think the purpose of these two rather aggressive and hostile comments must be to get rid of all opposition, so that everybody here agrees about everything. But what then would you debate about, with whom, and why? Anyway, I am out of here.
  12. Not So Cool Predictions
    Part of a pattern that I've seen repeated over and over through the years. Always seems to be a large flurry of this sort of nonsense every time the GOP is gearing up to steer the U.S. away from concrete action on climate change. Brace for a lot more of this type of garbage in the ensuing days as the battle between the GOP and Obama heats up.
  13. Not So Cool Predictions
    fydijkstra #29 Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. Or to put it another way, climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted. Been there, done that. Please do us all a favor and search this site for your pet "skeptical" arguments before posting them. If you must post despite the rebuttals, please do it on the correct thread.
  14. Not So Cool Predictions
    @fydijkstra #29 Let me analyze your comment: You are using an extended list of buzzwords in a density that is not very common to see (chaotic system, Kelvin's fallacy, El Niño, unreliable datasets, solar minimum) along with your favorite epistemological horse "nobody knows" in a context of add campaigning ("the climate of the next 10 years could bring new surprises" Wow! How deep and precise! And you'll be the most surprised among us) Daniel Baley already set straight your idea of El Niño playing tag as the pursuer and 365-day-long 2010 becoming a warm-to-be year but no. I don't share Daniel's opinion about 2010 being the warmest during the instrumental record. In fact, what I think is worse, it's probably going to be the second many things, not only warmer. You used the buzzwords 'chaotic system' to "extrapolate" the laymen-level meaning of 'chaotic' and substantiate your argument. Your innuendo is that being the flush of a toilet a chaotic system the water can jump and smash all the s*** in your head as 'nobody knows' and the water flowing by the drainage is not an option for this chaotic system. It looks like 'nobody knows' unless you authorize them to know. I don't think so. About the buzzword use of a buzzword concept -the portmanteau 'Kelvin's fallacy'-, you twisted its basic render "rejection in the lack of an explanatory theory" with your see-how-ironic-i-look "assumption that there are no unknown unknowns". Don't agree? Provide then proper links to Kelvin's fallacy. Links with academical value. I will leave aside -by the moment- all the straw you gather to set a fire.
  15. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    TTT @82, The whole thing took place in maybe 30 seconds. Honestly TTT, do you know no shame? Your posts now reek of desperation. The exchange (mostly) between Baird and Lindzen lasted 2 min. That was followed by another discussion on the same topic (preponderance of highs versus lows) between Meehl, Cullen and Baird which lasted another 2 min and 30 sec. Total discussion about greater preponderance of highs versus lows was about 4 min and 30 sec. Real scientists keep an open mind about such things. The climate scientists whom I know and work with are inherently open minded and curious. they have also have an insatiable need to solve problem, figure to what is happening and essentially understand how the climate system/biosphere works. Lindzen provided no evidence whatsoever to support his assertion. This reminds me of surfacestations.org repeatedly threatening to expose the soft underbelly of the USA SAT record. In the end it was Menne et al (real, working scientists), who actually did the number crunching and research and published a paper in the peer-reviewed literature on the reliability of the US temperature record. This is most annoying, all it seems "skeptics" have to do is make (sometimes wild) accusations or entertain intriguing hypotheses (for the purpose of sowing doubt), without actually following through. And what dhogaza said--there are multiple, independent lines of evidence that the planet is warming which do not require thermometers. Lindzen, like Watts, is chasing ghosts and, yet again, shamelessly engaging in B.S.
  16. We're heading into cooling
    Re @1, "When I read the paper" It would seem not. Thanks Daniel, you beat me to it.
  17. Not So Cool Predictions
    Esop @34, "How on earth has the CRU dataset all of a sudden become more reliable than the much beloved UAH dataset (that is even run by a skeptic). I thought brave skeptics proved the CRU data to be fraudulent in the Climategate scandal?" A most excellent point. Northing new though-- cherry-picking, contradiction and internal consistency appear to be the bread and butter of wannabe skeptics.
  18. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    BP and Argus, Please stop obfuscating, arguing strawmen and disrupting this thread and answer this pertinent question here. Thanks.
  19. Not So Cool Predictions
    #29 (fydijkstra): How on earth has the CRU dataset all of a sudden become more reliable than the much beloved UAH dataset (that is even run by a skeptic). I thought brave skeptics proved the CRU data to be fraudulent in the Climategate scandal? Why is it that "skeptics" now all hail the CRU data to be the most accurate? This seems odd, what has changed? Could it have something to do with the fact that CRU don't cover the high Arctic, thus omitting the region that has warmed the fastest, by far, causing a rather large cold bias in the data?
  20. It's the sun
    #770: "not sure that the peak values are the most important. ... from the diagrams in the article in can clearly be seen ..." Figure 5 in the Krivova paper is a graph of UV flux vs. time. In order to represent increasing energy, the area under the curve must increase: either the peaks must be bigger or the width (time duration) of the peaks are broader. The largest peak UV was in 1958 and the time duration of the subsequent cycles is the standard 10-11 years. What part of that is clearly demonstrating your point? If you are saying that the cumulative energy summed over all cycles is increasing, that's obvious. But that sum is not a measure of the energy balance at TOA or in the oceans. Here are the author's conclusions: ... since the LTE approximation underlies the computations of the brightness spectra of different photospheric components, the original version of the model fails in the UV. Although it contributes little to the total irradiance (such that the modelled TSI is nevertheless quite accurate), this wavelegth range on its own is of special interest for climate research due to its important influence on the chemistry and dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere ... -- emphasis added There is no mention of UV contributing to ocean heating. Their "value of about 1.25 W/m2 as our best estimate for the 11-yr averaged increase in the TSI between the end of the Maunder minimum and the end of the 20th century, compared to 1.3 W/m2 derived by Balmaceda et al. [2007] and Krivova et al. [2007]" doesn't specifically say that it increased through the end of the century. Further discussion specific to ocean heat content should go here.
  21. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:34 AM on 5 January 2011
    A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Excuse me, I format the wrong one link: Quantification of DMS aerosol-cloud-climate interactions using ECHAM5-HAMMOZ model in current climate scenario, Thomas et al., 2010.: “The regions with higher DMS ...
  22. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus wrote : "It is interesting that you have such exact sociological data on those you categorize as skeptics/deniers. What is the source of that?" So as to not go any more off-topic, or into controversial labels, here are a few links for anyone who wishes to do their own research into those who are into anti-AGW : ExxposeExxon Wikipedia 'Climate Change Denial' Wikipedia 'Opposing scientists' Wikipedia "List of Climate Scientists' Wikipedia 'IPCC WG1 authors Wikipedia 'Merchants of Doubt' IPCC AR5 WG1 Authors It is very easy to work out from those simple links (which lead to loads more) what political persuasions are represented, how many women are involved in this field and how many of them are so-called skeptics.
  23. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Berényi Péter wrote : "It is predicted, indeed. The only problem is warm snow, unlike the one we are having, is called rain." Why do some people prefer newspaper reports of comments by scientists ? Couldn't you find a newspaper report of a paper which suggests what you are hoping to show ? Berényi Péter wrote : "Let's be a bit more specific. Currently it is colder than average everywhere, except in some regions where no one lives and where "warmer than average" is still damn cold." "Let's be a bit more specific" without actually specifying anything in particular ? Right Berényi Péter wrote : "Now, that's preposterous. You should immediately provide peer reviewed references to support this abominable insinuation." My last off-topic comment on this : if you'd read the article, you would have seen that the study in question is being peer-reviewed prior to publication. I wonder if you will still call it an "abominable insinuation" then ?
  24. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 23:19 PM on 4 January 2011
    Not So Cool Predictions
    Weather might be hard to predict sometimes. Climate is easier to predict. So far the predictions of the way the climate is likely to change here in Australia are spot on. It's going to have more wet up north and more droughts and hotter down south. When it does rain it's likely to be heavier downpours. And this is just what has been happening. The world-wide pattern of warming is fairly close to predictions as well, except the changes seem to be happening just a tad faster than some people expected, mainly because we've chosen the higher emissions path while many people thought we'd act sooner to cut emissions. It would be nice if it were more like economic predictions where people take action when there are dire economic predictions so that they don't eventuate as often. If we all took enough action quickly enough, we might avert the worst case scenarios. At the moment the worst case seems to be the one we're choosing to follow, given that predictions are based on assumptions about emissions.
  25. Exxonwhereareyourmoney? at 23:15 PM on 4 January 2011
    It's the sun
    #770 Update: here is a couple of figures showing the latest (corrected) data on energy content of the oceans (one together with GISS-projections). http://i47.tinypic.com/20kvhwn.png http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Further discussion on ocean heat content should go on a more relevant page. Use the search function in the upper left corner of every page to find a more appropriate thread if continuing a discussion of OHC is your intent. Thanks!
  26. Antarctica is gaining ice
    @vank #69 Thank you. You have expressed your ideas and background quite clearly. The right answer would have been an epistemologically valid argumentation and inference departing from your CO2 similar levels. You were asked that before and avoided to provide it. Now, confronted with your "trick" you abandon all doodles in climate science and answer in a proficient way about "tricks" including what I suppose to be an expression proper of the "trade". Keep this coming and thank you again. I need for my students more material like your posts, which are very juicy for that purpose.
  27. Exxonwhereareyourmoney? at 22:53 PM on 4 January 2011
    It's the sun
    #769 I´m not sure that the peak values are the most important. The oceans are acting as large integrators and from the diagrams in the article in can clearly be seen that the overall imparted energy has increased (from the UV-band) until about the year 2000. Since UV have a higher penetrability than light in the oceans it is not strange to assume that variations in UV energy fluence may have some impact on the total energy content. The decrease in energy fluence after approx. 2000 is consistent from what is observed, i.e a stable decrease in ocean energy content (since 2002-03). This may eventually have an impact on the surface temperatures as well. (The word "may" should be used more often in climate science considering the uncertainties).
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Your own linked graphic you provide in 771 below shows the fallacy of focusing on short time scales: Datasets are noisy; the overall trend is up, like global temps.
  28. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @Argus #155 "Alec Cowan, I have no response to that - I was just challenged to produce some data." I think you were challenged to make some sense before of that. I fail to understand the purpose of your comments #19, #43, #64, #74, #78, #80, #89, #90, #92, #93, #94, #114, #116, #120, #121, #141, #142 (and counting). There's a lot of things going on there but all seems to be summarized in "hey, hey, look this", "I don't like what you are saying", and probably some pleasure of getting +50 replies to your comments. Can you state your point in a nutshell (be aware I don't even use your 'scientifically') provided you can't even answer #143.
  29. Not So Cool Predictions
    @29, fydijkstra: ""No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors." *Most* (all?) real systems are chaotic in some degree or fashion. That something is chaotic and hence unpredictable *in detail* is not the same thing as being unpredictable *in broad*. If you turn on the cold and hot taps to your bathtub and begin filling it, the detailed water motions in the tub are quite chaotic and impossible to predict making the precise motion and temperature of a specific location in the tub unpredictable over more than a few seconds at a time. That doesn't mean that (if the stopper is in) the tub isn't going to fill up at a quite predictable rate and with a quite predictable average temperature at any given moment. You should read an old essay by Isaac Asimov for the Skeptical Inquirer titled "The Relativity of Wrong".
  30. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    JMurphy 153, I just made a guess that most of those who are active on this website (and who seem to share the exact same convictions) are, or at least seem to be, male, judging from their names and the way they write. It is interesting that you have such exact sociological data on those you categorize as skeptics/deniers. What is the source of that?
  31. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #143 Alec Cowan, I have no response to that - I was just challenged to produce some data. #145, michael sweet, As for links, I think it's too much work to edit complete link information to all items, with the current comment posting system. You can google like I did - you should have enough search keywords/key figures. Since you live in Florida I can give you the Florida link directly (cut in two parts): http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/12/ coldest_december_on_record_in.html The UK stuff came from: http://en.wordpress.com/tag/record-cold/ The Åland item is in Swedish: http://www.abounderrattelser.fi/news/2010/12/nytt-koldrekord-pa-aland.html
  32. Not So Cool Predictions
    @29 “Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate” If the existence of unknown factors would stop scientists from studying a subject and making predictions, no science could ever be developed. Chaotic systems can be studied, just like any other system. It is true that it is much harder (or sometimes even impossible) to make accurate detailed predictions for a chaotic system, nevertheless it is often possible to draw general conclusions. Climate scientists have predicted global warming, and thus far, they seem to be right. Regarding climate change we have to do what we do with all risks: assess the risk, based upon the incomplete knowledge we have, and act accordingly. Ignoring the knowledge we have and conclude: “we don’t know and we will never know” is perhaps a comforting thought for some people, but it is not a very scientific attitude. I don’t think this attitude can be classified as “skeptic”. I therefore propose to use the term: “climate ostrich” henceforth.
  33. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 20:55 PM on 4 January 2011
    Not So Cool Predictions
    @29 I don't know the IPCC ensemble models seem to be doing a pretty good job thus far. Also how are we expected to make informed decisions about things such as water resource management and flood control without future prediction to base them on. As long as the models are based on known physical processes and quantify the uncertainties there is no reason to ignore them. As our knowledge of the atmospheric system and computing power increases so will the accuracy of the models.
  34. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    It often strikes me that the argument 'we are recovering from the LIA' is given as a physical reason for heating. Complete nonsense of course. A cup of hot water is cooling when you put it on the table not because 'it is recovering from its hot temperature' but because there is an energy transfer from the hot system (your hot water) to the environment. THAT is a reason. The fact that 'your cup is recovering from its hot temperature' is a CONSEQUENCE of that energy transfer. If however you put the table on fire, your cup will not cool despite its desire to 'recover from its hot temperature'.
  35. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Hello, Is the year average of 2010 already published?
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] See the last paragraph of Michael Sweet's comment here.
  36. Antarctica is gaining ice
    This your idea not mine....voting rights and nuclear weapons vs. ice core samples and graphs(interesting argument. The "rephrasing ideas" system is only a sophists trick. Its a graph and it tells something or we can all play Struthio camelism.
  37. Not So Cool Predictions
    Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. The illusion that the climate can be predicted is an example of Kelvin's fallacy: the assumption that there are no unknown unknowns. For the time beeing the warming by greenhouse gasses seems to have been compensated by other factors. The El Niño of 2010 has not been able to break the record temperatures of 1998 (according to the HadCrut data set, which seems to be the least unrealiable). This could have been caused by the very long solar minimum, but nobody knows for sure. If the next solar maximum will be very low - as many solar scientists expect - the climate of the next 10 years could bring new surprises.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Ummm, not so much. Despite a moderate El Niño lasting a surprisingly few months followed by one of the strongest La Niña's of all time, with a still-somewhat quiescent sun, the only remaining surprise will be if 2010 is not the warmest year in the instrumental record. All very predictable (climate, not weather). Despite what climate ostriches may wish to say.
  38. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus wrote : "It seems that the the vast majority of so-called warmists are also male, so what was it you were trying to hint at? Please elaborate!". I don't know what you imagine the word 'warmists' means (it seems to mean different things to different so-called skeptics, depending on which particular urban myth/so-called skeptical argument they are putting forward at any particular time - often in contradiction to their previous argument), but those in opposition to the so-called skeptics (or deniers) are the vast majority of scientists and other rational thinking people - up to half of whom are women. I am pleased to be a part of that mixed community, as opposed to the community of so-called skeptics (or deniers), the vast majority of whom are male, middle-aged (or above) and of a right-wing persuasion. But each to his own...
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] It is perhaps best to avoid such labels altogether and to think of it thusly: There are those who prefer to focus on what is the best explanation for what all of the data shows, using the scientific method. And there is everyone else. Then there's no danger of running afoul of the Comments Policy.
  39. Not So Cool Predictions
    Albatross @18. Thanks, I hadn't checked back at his site before you posted the link. Another thing to add to the list of egregious mistakes Easterbrook refuses to acknowledge. I posted a politely-worded and relatively inoffensive critique of the entry at WUWT. Let's see if it goes through moderation.
  40. Not So Cool Predictions
    Marcus #26 - yes, a shutdown of the thermohaline is certainly a possibility. However, from my understanding, recent measurements show that it's quite unlikely to happen in the next century. That's why I said European cooling is more likely to come from shifting Arctic weather patterns. Much more likely in fact.
  41. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    The whole thing took place in maybe 30 seconds. I doubt any of the others had even seriously considered the possibility until that moment. Are you surprised it played out like it did? I am not surprised that AGWers continue to rubbish the possibility even after its been pointed out to them. Real scientists keep an open mind about such things.
    Real scientists ask for supporting data, which Lindzen has not provided. Real scientists keep an open mind, but limit it because they don't want their mind to fall out. Meanwhile, apparently modern plants and animals also react to perturbations more quickly, and this is why we're finding overwhelming evidence of northward migration of species (in the NH). Just an artifact of more accurate, more quickly reacting, organisms. And glaciers, too. Magically, just as thermometers became biased toward warm transient temps (but not cool ones, what's Lindzen's argument on this line???), so did glaciers. And arctic sea ice. Etc.
  42. We're heading into cooling
    Keenlyside et al (2008) stated that internal variability in the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures may cause a temporary halt in the rise of global surface temperatures for the 2010-2020 decade. When I read the paper, it did not say that global temperatures would increase by .4 degrees celsius from 2010 through 2020. Where in Keenlyside's study does it say that global temperatures will increase by .4 degrees celsius this decade?
    Moderator Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] Try looking in Figure 4:

  43. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Re: muoncounter (151) Artegal = Mann Archimago = McIntyre Braggadocchio = Monckton (apropos) Redcross = Hansen Talus = Tamino The Blatant Beast = Watts (very apropos) The Yooper
  44. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #150: I don't see the good Dr. as the noblest mind; "That cursed man, low sitting on the ground, Musing full sadly in his sullein mind." But I was wondering who would be his Hawk.
  45. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    "With that said Baird, and Drs. Cullen, Cicerone and Meehl all disagreed with Lindzen's hypothesis (and reasonable people reading that transcript will probably agree with Meehl et al). " The whole thing took place in maybe 30 seconds. I doubt any of the others had even seriously considered the possibility until that moment. Are you surprised it played out like it did? I am not surprised that AGWers continue to rubbish the possibility even after its been pointed out to them. Real scientists keep an open mind about such things. Re: Deep Ocean warming. To keep it more on topic, thats an issue for further discussion for another day in another thread.
  46. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Re:muoncounter (148) "Spencer also says ... " I'll play: "The noblest mind the best contentment has." Come on up. Superior'll be like bath water soon... Thee Yooper
  47. Not So Cool Predictions
    Actually, Dana, I have seen some scientists speculating that-were a sufficient quantity of fresh water (primarily from Glacier melting) to enter the Northern Atlantic, that this would be sufficient to cause the Gulf Stream to slow-or even stop. The resulting cooling would still be Anthropogenic in nature, & would still have to be preceded by a *very* significant amount of warming. Even then, other scientists are not sure if there is sufficient glacial mass-this time around-for such a thing to occur. Just thought you might be interested.
  48. It's the sun
    #768: "shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries ..." Figures 5 and 6 in the paper (pdf here) clearly show the solar UV max coincident with the late '50s 'grand maximum'. That suggests that in the 50 years since, the 4 subsequent solar maxima were flat to lower than this well-known peak. That's the key point in this post: between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. See the graph at the top of the page. On another note, when I was in the awl bidness, we referred to Mother Exxon as 'the double cross' - and that was before the Valdez.
  49. Eric (skeptic) at 12:24 PM on 4 January 2011
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Florida had numerous record low average temperatures in December, but no extreme cold. For example, Tampa was about 10 degrees below average at 53.2 breaking the old record of 54.5 (Dec 1935). It was interesting that no daily records were broken during the month (in Tampa). It just reached 32 twice (the all time low for December is 18 in 1962).
  50. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #144: "Spencer also says ... " "the Northern Hemisphere also cooled in December, more consistent with the anecdotal evidence. :) " That's his cute little smiley face. He'd do better with these faces to back up his anecdotes. Yooper, I'm heading north.

Prev  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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