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  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  Next

Comments 99651 to 99700:

  1. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #47 michael sweet I looked through all the monthly anomalies for snow cover. It does appear that in May, June and July snow cover has dropped in the Northern Hemisphere since 1988 but not the other months. The 12 month running mean shows no decrease in snow cover from 1988 to 2010. The graphic indicates only snow cover has decreassed. It does not make the specification that summer snow has decreased so the arrow is still not valid. Snow cover has not gone down in NH in any meaningful trend since 1988 (22 years), it should be horizontal. In your Tamio graph of summer snow cover, what would your red trend line look like if you started at 1988 instead of 1967? Would it still be going down? Or would it be a flat-line?
  2. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #73:"Come on, energy and heat are not interchangeable concepts. Energy can go every which way, back and forth, provided it is conserved (first law), while heat only moves in one direction, from warm to colder reservoirs (second law). So called "back radiation" is an obfuscation, it does not change the direction of heat flow if air above is colder than the surface, as usual. It can influence the rate of heat loss, but that's all." This entire paragraph needs to be rethought. -What distinctions are you making between energy and heat? Can you explicitly define what you are saying here? - Can you define clearly your understanding of net heat, heat flux, and heat current? - Are you claiming that thermal radiation is "target-aware" and will not radiate in the direction of any body that is "colder"? Can you clearly describe how that mechanism works? And is there a limit to the distance by which object one's thermal emissions will be "aware" of a "colder" body that might be in the path of its thermal radiation?
  3. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Why should there have been an optimum decade?
  4. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @argus: "The average daily high in December is -3" That's for the entire month, Argus. The average for December 30 is closer to -7 and -8C. You seem to have as few arguments to support your position against AGW theory as you did back on Digg. In fact, you still seem to be arguing that it isn't really warming (I thought contrarians were past that?) Anyway, in the spirit of the season (and because my GF is telling me to get off the computer and start packing the gifts), I'll wish you, and everyone else on this great site, a Happy New Year. Cheers!
  5. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus: I am waiting for you to provide data on a location that has lower than normal temperatures. I know that the temperatures are not -25C in Nuuk, the point is that they are currently substantially above normal, supporting my position. Looking at the NOAA anomaly chart I linked before shows it is 5-15 C higher than normal over most of Greenland yesterday. 10C over average for months is a lot of heat. That supports the claim that the globe continues to warm.
  6. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    If you take all the 'indicators' in the graphic ( and ignore the debate about some science being settled and some science being 'moved-on'?),which decade do we consider as the baseline period for each of the indicators or, when was the optimum decade for the earth?
  7. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    To add emphasis to Albatross' excellent Trenberth quote, people generally have little appreciation for just how much extra moisture that 4% actually is. The total moisture in the Earth's atmosphere in Trenberth's baseline is conveniently close to the volume of North America's Lake Superior. Lake Erie (another of the Great Lakes of North America) is about 4% of the volume of Lake Superior. So it may help to visualize that extra 4% moisture as the equivalent to having Lake Erie added to the air's "gas tanks" - extra moisture capacity to precipitate out. Witness the Pakistan floods of this year or the current and ongoing flooding in Australia... The Yooper
  8. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @BP: Who are you, and what have you done with Berényi? Heat is the transfer of energy by thermal contact. The surface at the poles, even though it is below zero, is still warmer than the air higher up (IIRC, around -70C at 30,000 feet). So even if we were only talking about heat transfer, your statement would be incorrect. This is talking about convection warming only - we're not even talking about greenhouse gases ability to capture and re-release IR photons. Also, in addition to your cherry-picking, you make unsubstantiated claims about the current weather, saying the world is currently cooler than average. Please provide the data that supports this. Thanks. Argus: I know you share BP's positions, but you should be careful not to jump to conclusions, lest you look as foolish as the n00b that seems to have taken BP's place. Also, you are the one who started with the cherry-picking, but ironically, you just proved msweet's point: all the temperatures you provide for the south and west coasts of Greenland are above average.
  9. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #79, Apparently you are against the laws of thermodynamics. Your +14 in Nuuk is a rare high (if it is true). It is not a record, though, the highest reading for December is +15.4, in 1980. The average daily high in December is -3, so Nuuk is not such a 'cold hole' as you seem to think. Above 0 is hardly "boiling hot" in the south of Greeenland! That's for you to "realize" now.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You need to read up on thermodynamics a bit more. Skeptical Science has some great posts on the subject here and here (be sure to read the Intermediate version as well).
  10. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Eric, I'm sorry, but this is where a wide canyon opens between us, and between you and the science. Muoncounter and I gave you peer-reviewed papers. You are railing against some very smart people and suggesting/insinuating that they have got it wrong when you say "I would also be careful about using model runs to derive a standard deviation to use to suggest a probability of an event" sounds very Dunning-Kruger-like to me. Actually, I do not think that you read the Stott et al. paper properly or that understand Fraction Attributable Risk (FAR)-- a process originally developed in the medical field IIRC. In fact, you seem to be hand waving to dismiss some inconvenient findings. The inescapable fact is that there has been an increase in heat waves in recent decades and recent major heat waves are consistent with that trend. We can expect more of the same. Maybe people will, hopefully, find the interesting interview with Santer helpful which was featured here. Or this presentation by Stott (partly garbled on my Mac though). Scientists are sincerely doing their best to understand what has happened and what will happen. And as Trenberth said recently: “I find it systematically tends to get underplayed and it often gets underplayed by my fellow scientists. Because one of the opening statements, which I’m sure you’ve probably heard is “Well you can’t attribute a single event to climate change.” But there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change. And the prospects are that these kinds of things will only get bigger and worse in the future.”
  11. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    BP at 73 has added nothing to the discussion of "did Global Warming stop in --". His claim that high temperatures are good because they result in more heat being dissipated into space are a joke (I cannot use the words that fit best). The fact that you think they are worth reading shows how "skeptical" you really are. I linked the Canada weather maps for the past week in my post. They summarize the last weeks climate in the upper corner. They unfortunately do not include Greenland, but they cover the rest of North American Arctic. They run mostly 10 to 20C above normal. I graphed the last months weather worldwide at #48 in case you missed. Don't accuse me of cherry picking when I provided the global weather for the past month- after you falsely claimed that it had been cold. You need to look at some data before you make such wild accusations. As for your forecasts of the Greenland coast, my question is: what is the normal weather in those locations? I provided you with the climatology of Eureka (and six other locations in the Arctic) in my post. I see that it is normally -25C in Clyde, if we figure the locations you provided have the same temperatures they are all about 20-25C above normal (thats 40F for Americans). The weather stations in the north are normally -33C, like Eureka, so they are only about 8C above normal. If there are any locations in Greenland that are above 0C in December that is boiling hot for them, don't you realize this basic fact? Why don't you see if you can find some locations that are colder than normal to illustrate your point instead of hot areas (which support my position)? Hint: areas under the giant red blotch in #48 are bad places to look. Since I provided data showing 20C above normal for the past week I expect your data to match or exceed my anomalies. Good luck with your data search.
  12. Eric (skeptic) at 01:59 AM on 1 January 2011
    NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Albatross, the explanation to the public should include possibilities and suggest likelihoods, but then should include all possibilities including the natural causes. I would also be careful about using model runs to derive a standard deviation to use to suggest a probability of an event. There are a lot of input parameter probability distributions and internal model relationships that control the probabilities of those events that need to be calibrated and/or validated. Muoncounter, in your original post I didn't answer whether SST anomalies are a cause or an effect. The first part of the answer is that the anomaly itself is not the issue, it the absolute temperature that matters. Temperature causes things, not delta T. The second part is that throughout history and the instrument record, blocking events have occurred with natural causes. Putting those two together, we get the possibility that natural factors cause the overall stratospheric cooling most often associated with blocking but the specific positioning of the resulting jet stream is determined through terrestrial factors including SST. After that, SST becomes another effect like any other. The UV connection to blocking is an inverse relation, with less UV creating the possibility of more blocking as represented by negative NAO. UV is both measured and reconstructed such as here: http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/jasr-haberreiter.pdf and comparing their graph of solar UV to my link in 147, we see more positive NAO with higher UV and more negative NAO with lower UV. The relationship is crude which means terrestrial factors are involved.
  13. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    michael sweet, #75, Apparently straight science is hard to digest for someone who wants everything to agree with AGW. Are you against the laws of thermodynamics? Read #73 again and try to learn something, instead of accusing the writer of "detraction, obfuscation, fabricating faux debate". As for your obsession with Greenland day-to-day weather, I would like you to look further than to one selected place, favorably situated in the southwest (ever heard of 'cherry-picking'?). The temperature forecasts for tomorrow at noon, for 11 villages along the south coast of Greenland, range from -2 to +4. For 23 villages along the west coast, the temperature forecasts range from -5 to +2. Four weather stations in the north are supposed to have -25, -26, -27, -27, respectably. Along the east coast there is great variation for the 8 listed villages, from -26 in the north down to -5 further south.
  14. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    I think #21 has a point - maybe not the one intended or maybe. The article, when calculating the final result, switched from energy to temperature. Certainly some of the (extra) energy trapped increases temperature but not all. Energy can also go into melting ice or vaporising water (no change on temp at the phase transition), wind, waves etc. I feel that to quote the change energy balance is enough for a p. chemist; and leave details of where the energy goes to the geophysicists..
  15. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    A marvelously crafted post on a truly depressing state of affairs. Here's to a Happier New Year for all in 2011! Many thanks to John and the SS team.
  16. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #44 Alec Gowan Yes, you said it. If you wanted to say otherwise, you would've written nonA-GW. Huh? Didn't know you could hyphenate AGW that way and don't know why I would want to. Roger D in post #43 also hyphenated the way I did. And you say "would've". I don't know you and you don't know me well enough to make such a statement. "could've" would have been more civil. AGW and GW are two different concepts. The first places man as the controller of the environment, both good and bad and the other is just an observation that the planet's surface is getting warmer. #4 Daniel Bailey (who, sadly, has now removed his name from the response) Sadly, there are still many people who still deny global warming is happening. All it takes is a snow storm somewhere for the knee-jerk reaction "aha, global warming has stopped". But if you're able to take a step back, peruse all the evidence for a warming world and acknowledge that yes, the planet is building up heat and warming, then all credit to you. Don't use me as a foil for something I never said. I am not "many people". GW and AGW are two different things. The term AGW carries a lot more baggage than GW.
    Response: [Daniel Bailey] A point of correction here. The comments by the moderators are in a darker shade of green than John's. John quite rightfully offered up a moderating comment in number 4 that is more appropriate than mine. While I did not remove my name from the comment space (like in Highlander, there can be only one) I support his action in this regard. The remainder of his comment you object to was a more general observation on the state of denial at play. The science has accepted the world is warming with a greater than 90% likelihood that manmade CO2 releases are its causative factor. Feel free to deny that attribution all you want. But the science has moved on past the denial (which, really, is all that it is: denial).

    [John Cook] Sorry for the confusion, I did overwrite Daniel's moderator response. From now on, I'll do what I'm doing here - append any additions to existing moderator responses so there's less confusion.
  17. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #47: "winter maximum snow area has not changed, but the spring and summer areas are much decreased." That requires something many fail to notice: If each year's snow season (from summer min to winter max) starts lower but ends at about the same area, there must be more (and thus heavier) snowfall during each successive season. And if each year's melt season (winter max to next summer min) starts at about the same area, but reaches a deeper minimum, there must be more (and thus more rapid) melt during the season. Can a cooling world produce more snow? Perhaps. But it cannot melt more rapidly. However, a warming world does melt rapidly and also has a higher evaporation rate - which leads to more precipitation as snow. Look at it from an energy point of view: There is more energy in the climate system to both evaporate water and melt ice. An oscillator with a higher energy state has higher amplitude.
  18. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #76: "the year when we demanded data... " Nice idea. Unfortunately, many of these characters are allergic to data (and other unpleasant facts). It's easier to play the 'science isn't settled' or the 'you can't be sure' cards, because those cards have always worked in the past. And let's face it, working with facts is hard.
  19. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    #147: "a sustained blocking pattern of the type we saw has nothing to do with CO2 levels" A quick search of 'Russian heat wave 2010' shows how this immediately became the darling of the deniersphere. One-liners snipped from the Hoerling report you cited were repeated verbatim, with the usual smug 'See, it's not warming that's making it so warm'. The same 'blocking' gave us the Pakistan floods. Not one of these cherry-handed oafs asked the essential question posed in #146: Is this 'blocking' a cause or an effect? Here's Jeff Masters' take: Long-lived "blocking" episodes like this are usually caused by unusual sea surface temperature patterns, according to recent research done using climate models. For example, Feudale and Shukla (2010) found that during the summer of 2003, exceptionally high sea surface temperatures of 4°C (7°F) above average over the Mediterranean Sea, combined with unusually warm SSTs in the northern portion of the North Atlantic Ocean near the Arctic, combined to shift the jet stream to the north over Western Europe and create the heat wave of 2003. I expect that the current SST pattern over the ocean regions surrounding Europe played a key role in shifting the jet stream to create the heat wave of 2010. From Feudale and Shukla 2010 The results suggest that the SST anomalies had an additional effect of reducing the baroclinicity in the European area reinforcing the blocking circulation and helping to create ideal conditions for the establishment of the heat wave. So rather than add to the firestorm of repetition, look to causes and ask: What caused the increased SSTs that led to the summers of 2003 and 2010 and is highly likely to cause an increasing frequency of these events in years to come? "weather changes originating in solar UV and perhaps solar magnetic." Any evidence for those easily-detectable phenomena? We have satellites keeping their UV eyeballs on the sun. Interestingly, the deniersphere fixated on an anomalous jetstream as their cause for these heat waves, yet the disturbed jetstream cannot possibly be the cause for this winter's early snow. That's labeled as 'climate astrology'. An example of extreme hypocrisy in action. The deniers cling to whatever idea-of-the-day appeals to them, are blind to the over-arching patterns and are incapable of seeing that events must have causes.
  20. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    michael sweet wrote : When you inform yourself about the data you might be more worried. If we were to make 2011 the year when we demanded data from every so-called skeptics (so that we don't have to keep going round and round highlighting how what they believe is based on anything BUT data), this site would go a lot quieter but at least it would be easier to wade through the "detraction, obfuscation, fabricating faux debate." Too much to ask for ?
  21. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Norman: What part of this graph: (from Tamino, linked above by Albatross) shows you no decrease in snow cover since 1988? On the bright side, this decrease in summer snow cover has stopped the last two years: no snow is left!! See my post here that gives a link to the Global snow lab and their data. The winter maximum snow area has not changed, but the spring and summer areas are much decreased.
  22. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
    No responce from PaulPS, so I assume his was a flyby shooting. But, nonetheless, part 3 of my responce to Akasofu is now posted at bybrisbanewaters.blogspot.com
  23. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    BP: Maybe all that heat is going to melt the ice in Greenland. According to this weather map the high temperature in Greenland was +14C yesterday. They measured a minimum temperature at the same location of +10C--> this is Greenland we are talking about. It has been over 0C most of this year. I live at 25 meters above sea level, how about you? At Eureka it was 20C higher than normal for the past week !!! Most of the area shown in the Canada map is 15C+ over average- for a week! It has not been below normal for any extended period of time in this area this year. Your blather about nowhere for the record heat to go is more of the same "detraction, obfuscation, fabricating faux debate." that you are now well known for. Find something you can contribute for a change. Argus: Are you aware of this data? From your previous comments I doubt it. The Canada graph linked above shows that the NOAA graph I linked at #48 does not show the highest warm anomalies-- they go off the scale. Produce some actual data that support your position. When you inform yourself about the data you might be more worried.
  24. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #40 michael sweet I did not make the claim that the arrow for sea level rise was not correct. I agreed, the sea level is still rising. The sea level graph I linked to was the same one that appeared on other sites I was looking at. I was not making a blind skeptic conclusion that the chart was not a valid work. I was researching it on my own to test the validity of the chart, this is what all should do, test, research and form one's own conclusion on the matter. One should never assume any information is correct without checking it out.
  25. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    #43 Albatross, I looked at both graphs you linked to and neither show a decrease in snow cover since 1988. There is a snow cover loss from the the starting point of 1970 to today, and that was not the point I was making. In 22 years snow cover has not decreased. Start your trend line in 1988 and see if it indicates a decrease in snow cover.
  26. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Thank you, BP, for bringing in a bit of science into this discussion, and at the same time, hopefully, cooling the overheated arguments of messieurs archiesteel and michael sweet a little bit!
  27. Berényi Péter at 21:35 PM on 31 December 2010
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #68 archiesteel at 02:38 AM on 31 December, 2010 @BP: why pick a single day, Berényi? You know, cherry-picking is a sign of intellectual weakness or dishonesty. That's what I've found. But due to blocking highs this is the general weather pattern for the entire month of december. Huge positive anomalies over Northern Canada and Eastern Siberia with actual temperatures still below freezing, while the rest of the globe is cooler than average. Your claim that the extra heat has "nowhere to go but outer space" is also incorrect. The radiated IR from the surface (it radiates IR, even if it is below zero) will still be intercepted by CO2 molecules, which will then re-radiate it. Come on, energy and heat are not interchangeable concepts. Energy can go every which way, back and forth, provided it is conserved (first law), while heat only moves in one direction, from warm to colder reservoirs (second law). So called "back radiation" is an obfuscation, it does not change the direction of heat flow if air above is colder than the surface, as usual. It can influence the rate of heat loss, but that's all. The temperature range between 255 K and 273 K (-18°C and 0°C) is an important one. It is above the effective temperature of the planet (as seen from outer space) but below freezing. In this range specific humidity of air is getting depleted fast, opening up the so called "Arctic window" for IR radiation with wavelengths above 16 μm (the main CO2 absorption band). In this range there are numerous weak H2O absorption lines while the continuum absorption is pretty low. Therefore in a dry atmosphere thermal IR radiation escapes to space almost unimpeded. Water vapor distribution is fractal-like all over the globe, but the fractal dimension decreases poleward. It is an almost space-filling fractal over the equator (fractal dimension is only slightly below 3), while over polar regions this number drops below 1, that is, the distribution becomes patchy with plenty of see-through holes in between. With temperatures below -2°C (freezing point of salty seawater) heat has really nowhere to go but to space. It can not go to the sea, as seawater is warmer, it can not go to milder places because they are mild, so it either goes to space (2.7 K, -270°C) or even further poleward over winter sea ice, then again, to space. Which part you do not understand?
  28. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
    Paul Barry The question arises then about the relative scale of each of these affects to determine which one over-rides the other - when and where. Precisely, hence the use of ocean circulation models to address this issue. A couple of simplified points though: - the heat capacity of the oceans is very large compared to the atmosphere, therefore the average increase in ocean temperature over the next century will be small (relatively speaking here - it'll be huge to the climate & marine life). In other words the oceans as a whole can absorb a huge amount of heat before there is a significant change in temperature. IIRC a 2 degree C rise in mean global surface ocean temperature by the end of the century, according to ocean circulation model projections (under business-as-usual scenarios). - The NOAA CO2 flux graphic represents variations in upper ocean water temperature that are many times larger than 2 degrees C. Ocean temperatures can vary by more than 30 degrees C. See surface temp graphic for instance: Does that help you reconcile the NOAA graphic with anticipated ocean warming this century?. The scales are different. Perhaps the easiest explanation for your skeptic/uninformed friends is that pH of the ocean was lower in the past, and the ocean warmer, when surface temperatures and CO2 concentrations were higher than today. If the warmth is supposed to mitigate the effects of acidification, why didn't it do so in the past?. Yeah, I know could lead to more skeptic arguments on acidification, but see link below. If anyone knows a particular site or source where all of this is well explained or more suited to these kinds of questions, please let me know. Try here - European Project on Ocean Acidification . Answers all the typical "skeptic"questions. Even addresses your temperature vs. acidification query.
  29. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @TOP #12 Yes, you said it. If you wanted to say otherwise, you would've written nonA-GW.
  30. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    There isn't a single news media outlet (left, right, orange blue, purple or whatever) that satisfies memoryvaults criteria (unbiased and balanced reporting). Don't all journalists have to say the motto/quote "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story" before taking a job with a news company? On the issue of equality in reporting, that doesn't mean that any whack job that has a theory has a right to equal time on TV and call it science reporting. If that happens, you move from serious news reporting to gutter press. There are 'forums' for expressing opinions (this web site for instance), that I'm afraid doesn't equate to news reporting. Bad reporting and biased 'equality' that results in inappropriate minority theories being pushed to the public generally shows a lack of knowledge of a subject, which reflects back on the credibility of a journalist to do any news reporting based on facts. The likes of Fox News and others are primarily interested playing games in order to stir up public opinion (both for and against). That is politics, not science reporting.
  31. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Soundoff #24 "I’ve often seen Gavin at RC state that each W/m² equates to about 0.75ºC increase in temperature." Increase in temperature over what time period? Surely I cannot apply 1.0W/sq.m today and get 0.75degC increase tomorrow. Or do I apply 1.0W/sq.m for 100 years to get a 0.75degC increase? One can only assume that the period is the time required for the Earth system to reach a new equilibrium where there is no forcing imbalance. In such case the S-B cooling (being exponential with T^4) would progressively close the imbalance gap - but with several forcings (cloud albedo, WV & ice albedo feedback etc) which are not as well known theoretically as the claimed CO2GHG forcing then I would not venture a guess as to the time period.
  32. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Eric @147, I agree with some of what you say, but only to a point. Also, keep in mind that Hansen was trying to epxlain the situation to the public, not fellow scientists. Regardless, research by Stott et al. (2004) and others have demonstrated that: "Using a threshold for mean summer temperature that was exceeded in 2003, but in no other year since the start of the instrumental record in 1851, we estimate it is very likely (confidence level >90%) that human influence has at least doubled the risk of a heatwave exceeding this threshold magnitude." The science reported in the IPCC also states that it is "likely" (>66% probability) that heat waves have increased since 1950 and modelling studies expect more heat waves in the future. for more heat waves. Recent major heat waves in Europe, Russia, N. America and Australia and elsewhere are consistent with that. More in AR8 (8.2.1.1).
  33. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Re: mdenison (16) Thanks so much for pointing that out! I was able to tease out posts up until the end of June, 2009. Also nabbed a bunch of missing posts prior to August 2008 as well. Updated and revised main post at top accordingly. Thanks again! The Yooper
  34. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Hansen is not correct in claiming "Almost certainly not". The probability of a sustained blocking pattern of the type we saw has nothing to do with CO2 levels. The length of the blocking event and the depth of atmospheric blocking points to weather changes originating in solar UV and perhaps solar magnetic. What changes with CO2 is some added heat in the heat wave, not the heat wave itself. There is plenty of evidence to back this up such as the negative NAO in summer http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.timeseries.gif While not a direct cause of that particular blocking, it is a cause of nearby blocking and is not correlated to CO2 or Arctic ice. Working backwards, negative NAO comes from ENSO, other weather and solar (e.g. UV)
  35. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    #145: Is this 'blocking' pattern a cause or an effect? From the esrl doc you linked, which is "evolving research assessment and not a final report," Dr. Hoerling can't seem to make up his mind: Whereas this phenomena has been principally related to a natural extreme event, its impacts may very well forebode the impact that a projected warming of surface temperatures could have by the end of the 21st Century due to greenhouse gas increases. I prefer this explanation without such equivocation, which came out a month after the 'blocking' note: Weather in a given region occurs in such a complex and unstable environment, driven by such a multitude of factors, that no single weather event can be pinned solely on climate change. In that sense, it's correct to say that the Moscow heat wave was not caused by climate change. However, if one frames the question slightly differently: "Would an event like the Moscow heat wave have occurred if carbon dioxide levels had remained at pre-industrial levels," the answer, Hansen asserts, is clear: "Almost certainly not." The frequency of extreme warm anomalies increases disproportionately as global temperature rises. "Were global temperature not increasing, the chance of an extreme heat wave such as the one Moscow experienced, though not impossible, would be small," Hansen says. -- emphasis added
  36. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    #8: Perfect! A fine example of what happens when someone spend too much time in "a haven for un-refereed pseudo-science with dangerously incorrect inference."
  37. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    From the WMO statement: "While a longer time range is required to establish whether an individual event is attributable to climate change, the sequence of current events matches IPCC projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming." (I am posting here to keep from gumming up the 5 BS thread) A longer time range is not needed, only a better understanding of how natural patterns are influenced and changed (if at all) by AGW. The Russian heat wave was caused by blocking, while the IPCC does project more heat in various forms, it does not project more blocking patterns, those are mainly natural http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/ So the second part of the WMO statement above is too vague to be factual. The best explanation of causes of blocking are natural and solar/cosmic, such as reduced UV and/or more GCR. The link I posted should have delved into that a bit more, but is balanced enough as it is.
  38. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Bob @3, You can view the three panel sessions here. The offending comments made by Lindzen were during the first panel session within the first 60 mins-- sorry that I can't be more specific than that. And no, to my knowledge there is no reason why thermometers would be more sensitive (or respond quicker) to highs than lows.
  39. It's freaking cold!
    PaulPs @70, I just posted this on another thread and it is relevant to the discussion of reduced N. Hemi. snow cover. Lockwood's hypothesis/conceptual model seems to apply to only Europe, not Eurasia or N. America. And remember the fuss last winter (2009-2010) when all that snow fell over the USA and parts of Europe....well, Michael pointed out what happened in the spring and summer of 2010.
  40. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault asks "What are the chances of this getting posted?" All of your arguments can be made on their respective threads, but I think it is legitimate to make them one time here. I agree on one point, when events like the Russian heat wave are discussed in the news, there should be an explanation of both natural and manmade causes. That balance is ok, but "balancing" science with nonsense (e.g. there is cooling right now) is not ok. That's all I'm going to say about it since there are other threads for that subject.
  41. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @Norman, Your subjective interpretation of the N. Hemisphere snow cover is not correct. Please read this new paper by Brown and Robinson (2010), in which they conclude: "Trend analysis of the updated SCE series provided evidence that NH spring snow cover extent has undergone significant reductions over the past 90 years and that the rate of decrease has accelerated over the past 40 years. The rate of decrease in March 15 and April NH SCE over the 1970–2010 period is 7–8 million km^2 per 100 years which corresponds to an 8–11% decrease in NH March and April SCE respectively from pre-1970 values. In March, most of the change is being driven by Eurasia (NA trends are not significant) but both continents exhibit significant SCE reductions in April." Not surprisingly an independent analysis of the data by Tamino back in 2008 came to a very similar conclusion-- N. Hemisphere snow cover is decreasing significantly in spring and summer.
  42. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    GC @17, "While no fan of Tamino" I can see that you would not like Tamino when you link us to WUWT and Don Easterbook. Both of those sources have no credibility whatsoever. Here is one recent example of Easterbrook fiddling the numbers, and here is another. We do not have time to deal with Mr. Watts, although many of the above posts by Tamino are thorough debunkings of Watts. I dare not guess who you will link us to next-- Goddard, Ball, de Freitas, Monckton? Oh well, at least you are open to the idea of reading Tamino's posts.
  43. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    THE BS AWARDS – A SUMMARY FIFTH PLACE goes to a news editor who insisted his reporters – Report only the facts. – Don’t take sides in their reporting, and – Point out that in matters relating to climate change, some people question the claims being made. WOW – talk about BS. How dare a news editor demand fair, unbiased and balanced reporting from his staff. What next, equal air time for skeptics? FOURTH PLACE goes to Patrick Michaels for misrepresenting the “facts” of human induced climate change to a senate committee. How do we know he did this? Because Ben Santer says so, that’s how. THIRD PLACE goes to every “climate denier” who ever pointed to a single cold weather event as “proof” that climate change didn’t exist. Well gee – I wonder where we learned that from? Here’s a link to TEN YEAR’s worth of increasingly extreme cold weather events. I wonder how many “singular” events it takes to suggest a “trend”? http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/winters_are_sure_colder_than_they_predicted/ SECOND PLACE goes to all those people who found something untoward suggested in the climategate emails. You know, like all those folk who took offence at destroying material subject to legal FOI requests, plotting to ruin other people’s reputations, and stuff like that. Not to mention of course, the HARRY_READ_ME file, or the “fudges factor” line of code that ensures one gets a hockey stick even when random numbers are input. FIRST PLACE goes to anybody who dares to suggest that maybe whatever was happening as far as warming went, has now stopped and maybe things are starting to cool off. I guess this could apply to just about any of the approximately 3 billion people now experiencing record and near record LOW temperatures, and record and near-record HIGH snowfalls. Yes, perhaps it’s time all us “deniers” started feeling a little ashamed of ourselves. What are the chances of this getting posted? Buckley’s – Now THAT’s “fair and unbiased” for you.
  44. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Re: depressing, I agree. Next year's list will undoubtedly include Republican-run U.S. House hearings, but personally I hope to see less reactionary "denialism" next year. I don't mind the shift in power for other reasons, but with power comes responsibilities, first and foremost to accept the basics of science including GW and AGW. Then without politicizing an argument over "CAGW", we can skip right to solutions because there is plenty of agreement over what works.
  45. It's freaking cold!
    PaulPS: It would be incorrect to change the snow cover arrow to up/down in the illustration. I made a brief perusal of the data at the Rutgers Global snow lab The last three years had the lowest snow cover of all the recorded years in the months of June, July and August (the record is only for the northern hemisphere, snow cover change in the southern hemisphere is small). That is a clear decrease in the snow cover. The maximum snow extent varies somewhat (so far). This is similar to the Arctic Sea ice extent which has responded more in the summer minimum than the winter maximum.
  46. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    What do you guys think december ranks and 2010 ends up as? In I thought it was raising at .15c/decade to .17c/decade...
  47. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    @Norman: "But the last ten years of SST have flatlined, not going up." False. The last ten years (too short a period to draw statistical significance, but let's forget that right now) show a temperature increase of about 0.12C/decade. No flatlining by any measure of the imagination. Since your basic premise is wrong, it then follows the rest of youra argument falls apart as well. It doesn't help to quote denier blogs as if they were actual reliable source. I really wish so-called "skeptics" weren't so credulous of oft-debunked pseudoscientific arguments. It seems all of their skepticism vanishes when they find something that reinforces their preconceived opinion.
  48. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Norman: your sea level graph reference is an outdated denier blog. This data has recently been reviewed on this site and current scientific estimates are 1-2 meters of sea level rise, approximately five times what your blog claims. Provide a peer reviewed source if you want to suggest the illustration is incorrect, not a denier blog.
  49. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Norman: The change in snow cover depends on when you measure it. The maxamium snow cover at midwinter is about the same. The minimum snow cover in the summer is much smaller. This is similar to arctic sea ice where the change in summer is greater than the change in winter. The average snow cover throughout the year is down. It is appropriate for the arrow to go down in the illustration. The fact that we do not observe monotonic rise/fall in some indicators does not mean that CO2 is not the cause. There is a lot of noise in some indicators so they seem to flatten out if you look at a short enough time frame.
  50. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    "Welcome to the 2010 Climate B.S. of the Year Award." Other than for a few specifics, how is this any different than the 2009 Climate B.S. of the Year Award? Or 2008 ... or ... iterate at will :) That's a good, but depressing, list you've made ...

Prev  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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