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  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  Next

Comments 99801 to 99850:

  1. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Marcus - and Rob Painting Yes, Mars has a lower gravity, yes it has a thin atmosphere, and yes it is further from the sun. Nonetheless, it does have an atmosphere, and that atmosphere does have CO2. So there should be "some" degree of radiative forcing causing "some" level of warming. But what do we find - zilch. Nada, nothing. Marcus As to the other points you wish me to debunk, let's see: Stratospheric cooling and decreased IR emissions into space could simply be the result of the planet cooling off. Note I said "planet", not "atmosphere". In the larger scheme of things the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere is piddling compared to other sources. The warmer climate hundreds of millions of years ago when CO2 levels were ten times higher than today? A warmer planetary surface system (atmosphere + oceans + land surface will ALWAYS have higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is fully in accordance with Henry's Gas Law - one of the Noble Gas Laws which, along with the Laws of Thermodynamics are obviously no longer taught in high schools today. The fact that temperatures are (or at least have been) rising despite a decline in solar activity. Simple. All energy comes from the sun (well most of it anyway). A large amount of it ends up stored in the oceans. The oceans have what is erroneously described on this website as "low thermal inertia", but we'll stick with the term for now since everybody here knows what it is meant to mean. Put simply, 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 too will the atmosphere. It goes in roughly 25 -30 year cycles. Has done since the last glacial. Almost like the planet breathing. Which is about where I came in.
  2. Antarctica is gaining ice
    So..... 1950 levels are equal to 1/4 of a million years ago with no industrial revolution.... Thanks for answering my question by spending your precious time. Good Night, and Good Luck PS Im not in denial.... maybe u are. I did spend 40000 € 4 years ago for solar panels on my roof (did u?)to produce clean, CO2 free electric power and i m cleaning now the snow of almost on a daily basis.... so spare me the "denial" article
  3. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    MV @ 42 You tell me why Mars IS an iceball? Low gravity, thin atmosphere, further from the sun. That rebuttal is on the "to do" list I think.
  4. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    First of all, Mars is much further away than Earth. Second-but most importantly of all-the air pressure of Mars is much lower than Earth. So even though CO2 is a large proportion of the Martian Atmosphere, the atmosphere is simply too thin to retain much heat. Look at Venus, though, with its very thick CO2 rich atmosphere. Its also worth noting that Mars once had a thicker atmosphere-warm enough to support liquid water-abut the same time water was beginning to appear on Earth-so clearly the rich CO2 of a thicker Martian Atmosphere was able to compensate for its greater distance from the Sun. So yet again your counter-argument is totally weak & unsubstantiated. I'm of course still waiting for you to provide evidence to debunk my other points with regards to CO2-namely stratospheric cooling, the decrease of IR emissions into space, the warmer climate of hundreds of millions of years ago (when CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today), the fact that temperatures are warming despite a decline in solar activity. Come on, I'm waiting.
  5. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Marcus "The fact is that the ability of CO2 to absorb Infrared Radiation has been proven-time & again-in the laboratory. Tell us, if the Greenhouse Effect isn't real, then why isn't our planet an ice-ball? You tell me why Mars IS an iceball? Much higher proportion of CO2 in it's atmosphere than here on earth - so obviously enough for a bit of radiative forcing. And yet it remains largely a frozen ball. And I never claimed atmospheric gases don't hold a certain amount of heat energy. I wrote that the transfer of heat energy is from the oceans to the atmosphere, not the other way around. Or are you now claiming that the atmosphere holds more heat energy than the oceans? And no, I didn't get my "established physics" from "Denialist propaganda sites". I got it from a good high school education followed by a degree in mechanical engineering, followed by 35 years working in the field - quite often in areas associated with heat energy transfer - you know, thermodynamics. Where did you get yours from? And for the record, I'm downunder here OZ and I don't get cable - I've never seen the Fox News Network.
  6. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    If your take on the laws of thermodynamics were true, memoryvault, then our planet would be an uninhabited Ice-Ball of a planet. It is the ability of Greenhouse gases to trap infrared radiation that gives our planet the comfortable average temperature of roughly 16 degrees C, rather than -18 degrees C. The problem is that you get your "established physics" from Denialist Propaganda sites.
  7. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Ah, memoryvault-when faced with an argument you can't win, you resort to the tried-&-true denialist tactic of character assassination. The fact is that the ability of CO2 to absorb Infrared Radiation has been proven-time & again-in the laboratory. Tell us, if the Greenhouse Effect isn't real, then why isn't our planet an ice-ball? If CO2 isn't a significant Greenhouse Gas, then why were temperatures several degrees warmer about half a billion years ago-in spite of a much dimmer sun? If CO2 isn't the cause of current global warming, then why is there a decreasing correlation between solar activity & global temperatures? If Tropospheric CO2 concentrations are not the key cause of global warming, then why is there a decline in outgoing IR radiation into space? Why is there a decrease in stratospheric temperatures over the period of 1979-2010? Seriously, your arguments are getting increasingly infantile, & its abundantly clear that you have nothing intelligent to add to these discussions-& never did.
  8. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    KR "Air has very little thermal mass, water has a lot by comparison, and it takes some time to respond to the radiative imbalance. I don't understand what your issue is with it." Temperature is not heat. The atmosphere does not "heat" the oceans. Not by radiative forcing nor by any other method. The oceans "heat" the atmosphere. Observable proof - evaporation which leads to our precipitation. There is more "heat energy" in the top 10 feet of the oceans than in the entire atmosphere, and there's a couple of miles of ocean under that, all containing heat energy. Our Laws of Thermodynamics clearly hold that heat energy will always flow to maximise entropy - or in simple terms from systems of high heat energy to systems of low heat energy. Or in this case, from the oceans to the atmosphere. All of this is very well-established physics, KR - at least in my universe - and has very little to do with VW's pulling trailers.
  9. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Ken Lambert #31, I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. I just don’t see its relevance. If one adds a continuous forcing, the climate system does reach equilibrium with that specific forcing. If one adds more forcing on top of the earlier one while the system is still adjusting to the earlier forcing and one keeps doing this, the system will never reach full equilibrium. This is true but it has incorporated the earlier forcings at some point by getting warmer in small steps. Equilibrium with a specific forcing is what’s relevant to observing the results of the standard CO2 radiation forcing formula. This is becoming way too complicated for most readers who are not climate scientists, including me. I will leave further discussion for the scientists.
  10. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Actually Thoughtfull "the world is warming, and it is warming precisely due to CO2 - as we have known since Arrhenius's work in 1896. That is 114 years of time tested science." You mean Arrhenius' work that was discredited by Angstrom within a couple of years of its publication, and languished in obscurity for for nearly seventy years until it was dusted off to give support to the CO2 AGW theory. Hardly 114 years of "time tested science". By the way, would that be the Arrhenius who was a lifetime member of the Swedish Society of Racial Hygiene, and board member of the The Swedish Institute for Racial Biology that was at the forefront in sterilising tens of thousands of "mental defectives"? Yet another climate scientist who supports global warming and dabbles in population control as a hobby - seems uncommonly common.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Further comments containing ad hominems such as yours will be deleted - and all comments replying to them. Keep it clean. Final warning.
  11. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault - If you have particular issues with what you perceive as conflicts between thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect, please say what they are. Note there are several threads appropriate for the "greenhouse effect", "2nd law of thermodynamics", and "ocean heat content", which you can find using the search box. Thermal inertia - if you hook a VW bug to a small trailer, and floor it, it's going to accelerate to highway speeds pretty quickly. On the other hand, if you use the same VW to tow a tractor-trailer, it's going to take a lot longer to get up to speed. Air has very little thermal mass, water has a lot by comparison, and it takes some time to respond to the radiative imbalance. I don't understand what your issue is with it. As to cycles - checking back (using a great number of tools) on various forcings of the climate, it's evident that solar changes, pollution albedo, El Nino, volcanos, and other things have had an effect on the climate - CO2 is not the only driver of climate. But if you look at the last 150 years, it's clear that only CO2 heating can explain the current temperature trends - nothing else correlates. In particular, look at the moderator response to posting #2 on that thread. All of this is very well-established physics, memoryvault. There are definitely uncertainties, such as just how much the climate will respond to a particular forcing, and how cloud cover will respond. But the overall picture is quite solid.
  12. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault, I again ask you to check your facts. If you break the planet's climate for the last 120 years into neat, 30 year "cycles", then you get the following. 1890-1920 -0.007 degrees per decade (effectively no warming or cooling); 1920-1950 (a period dominated by significant increases in solar output-peaking around the mid-1940's) +0.096 degrees per decade; 1950-1980 (a period where solar output remained relatively stable) +0.014 degrees per decade. Finally 1980-2010 (a period dominated by falling solar output) +0.16 degrees per decade. So please do tell us where these natural 25-30 year cycles are, because the evidence isn't backed by observed temperature trends. The other problem is, of course, if the current warming was natural, irrespective of the actual cause, we'd be seeing a warming evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere-but instead its limited to the troposphere, whilst the stratosphere is cooling. I also note you've brought up *another* zombie meme-namely the claim that scientists were predicting an Ice Age. In fact, 90% of all scientific literature of the day was predicting either no change or warming-the "Global Cooling" hypothesis was a minority view, even then. The rest of your post is, yet again, the typical ad-hominem attacks that are used as a substitute for actual proof. The fact that you've not "seen anything" to suggest anything different is just because of your own selective blindness, not the result of a lack of evidence. Unless you're prepared to provide evidence, contrary to what we've supplied you, to back up your increasingly infantile claims, then there really is no point in continuing this discussion with you.
  13. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Bibliovermis #32 I think you are confusing the totals with the differences. If the total energy flux entering the biosphere is 240.9W/sq.m and the total leaving is 240W/sq.m then the Forcing is positive (+0.9W/sq.m). Temperatures will rise in response to the +0.9W/sq.m over time. 'Forcing' is usually the nomenclature applied to this difference. For a new equilibirum temperature to be reached the outgoing energy flux has to rise to 240.9W/sq.m - hence the 'Forcing' is reduced to zero. The biosphere ceases to gain more energy than it loses.
  14. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    muoncounter Back in the Sixties we were taught in high school about the 25 - 30 year cyclical nature of climate, within a larger 600 year cycle of warming and cooling. We were taught this because it had already been observed and noted for a long time. To date I've not seen anything, anywhere, including this site, to suggest anything different is happening now. In the mid-Seventies however I did see all of this same "end of the world because man is evil" claptrap. Only then we were all going to die because evil man was causing the planet to cool down. The fact was we were simply transitioning from a 25 - 30 year cooling period into the current warming period. I have no doubt in 25 - 30 years there will be a similar period of mass-hysteria, though I doubt anybody will make the sort of money that's being creamed off this latest insanity. Since I am saying nothing untoward is happening that hasn't happened in the past and won't happen again in the future, and you people are claiming something entirely different is happening - "just this once", then the burden of proof lies squarely at your feet, not mine.
  15. actually thoughtful at 17:32 PM on 2 January 2011
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Memoryvault - your posts remind me of a frog in water warming to a boil. For some reason you are not noticing that the earth is warmer this year than last, and taken at a decade level -we haven't had a decade colder than the last since the 70s were cooler than the 60s. So we are at 30-40 years of your 60 year cycle. It better start getting cold and quick! More likely the research of thousands of scientists, individually verifying the same data but through different methods and techniques, are in fact correct and the world is warming, and it is warming precisely due to CO2 - as we have known since Arrhenius's work in 1896. That is 114 years of time tested science. Basically eternity for science. Good luck disproving the A in AGW - it is very well understood - unless the person doing the understanding has an ideological ax to grind.
  16. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    KR I tried, KR, I really did. I followed the links and I read it all, including the sub-links all the way until I got to the "Humans are causing this warming" and the link to "How do we know CO2 is causing this warming". Then I read through all the stuff about "positive radiative forcing" which hasn't even been established as fact yet, but decided to accept it for the moment in the interests of "getting educated". But then I got to the bit about this allegedly CO2-heated atmosphere "taking a long time to heat up the oceans because of their thermal inertia" and I realised our problem here is we are in parallel universes, you and I. In my universe we have something called the Four Laws of Thermodynamics. These obviously don't apply in your universe.
  17. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    #27: "disproved by observable fact." Interesting point from someone who has yet to offer any substantiated facts.
  18. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #107: "Outgoing LW is obviously higher in BP's scenario that you linked." Doesn't that mean the 'scenario' is incorrect? Read the comment, look at the data. "Albedo is not as clear" Albedo? In the Arctic, in winter? It's dark; there's nothing to reflect.
  19. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric: "KR, it is not complex at all. If weather on average creates a more uneven distribution of water vapor, then amplification of CO2 warming will be low or even nonexistent. The distribution of water vapor is what matters, not the average amount, whether Arctic or not" Actually, it's observations that shoot the "weather will save us" hypothesis down. Too bad, eh?
  20. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    "CO2 AGW theory requires a hotspot to have developed in the tropical troposphere. No observable hotspot. CO2 AGW theory disproved by observable fact." Wow, I do love how these Zombie Memes keep coming back again & again. As someone with a modicum of scientific knowledge will tell you, the hot-spot is supposed to exist *independent* of Global Warming. i.e. atmospheric physics predicts the existence of a hot-spot in the tropical troposphere about 10km above the Earth's surface-a hot spot that is meant to exist whether the troposphere's temperature were warming, cooling or remaining unchanged. The failure to properly identify said hot-spot (it has been detected, just not reliably) says more about the difficulty of detecting the hot-spot with current instruments than it does about global warming. Now a *real* fingerprint of AGW is a cooling stratosphere....oh &, guess what, the stratosphere *is* cooling-i.e. observable fact. Once again, do a little research in future.
    Moderator Response: To read more, type "hotspot" without the quote marks, in the Search field at the top left.
  21. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Eric (skeptic) - My "short answer" to BP's claims of a lowered Arctic humidity lie in the data; Arctic humidity is increasing, not decreasing. As to distribution, I will have to disagree most strongly with you. Small scale variations in WV distribution will affect small scale longwave radiation (LR) values; but our satellite measurements of OLR provide large scale values - and it's the global OLR that determines radiation balance. Having worked with fractal systems before, I will point out that once you are looking at a system from sufficient distance, whatever fractal nature is inherent in the system can be accurately dealt with as a parametric evaluation for statistical summary. In addition (as I found your less amplification statement a bit confusing): CO2 warming is extremely smooth on a global scale - local variations of CO2 are of very small values. The WV feedback is driven by CO2, but is an addition based upon CO2 values, not an amplification - the CO2 signature is quite significant in and of itself. Even in the driest conditions, a lack of water vapor will not cause the CO2 forcing to drop to lower values. Lastly, "Outgoing LW is obviously higher in BP's scenario that you linked: - quite true. It's also higher due to Arctic amplification - with the Arctic several degrees warmer than it used to be. If BP is claiming that the OLR from the Arctic is larger than could be expect from actual surface temperatures due to atmospheric window effects, he's going to have to run some numbers and data and prove it. It's certainly not what's been observed by people doing the work.
  22. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Two of the worst NH winters you say? Only if you live on the Atlantic Coasts (&, even then, not even the worst on record). The Middle East, the bulk of North America & Central Europe-not to mention the Arctic circle-are all suffering above average temperatures this winter-& last winter-& after one of the hottest Summers on record to boot, so do please get your facts straight. As to the proof of AGW-why are we getting a warming trend (which even YOU admit to, apparently) when all the natural forcings (solar output & the PDO) point towards a cooling trend for the last 30 years-a cooling trend which hasn't materialized? Instead, we've had an accelerating warming trend-i.e. the warming trend for the last 30 years has been +0.16 degrees per decade (which was faster than the warming for 1949-1980). Yet look at each decade & you see the following: 1980-1990 had an average temperature anomaly of +0.19 degrees, then 1990-2000 was +0.31 degrees (a difference of 0.12 degrees), then 2000-2010 was +0.53 degrees (a difference of 0.22 degrees). I don't know where you learned maths, but that suggests the decadal change *is* accelerating-consistent with AGW. BTW, at its most extreme, global warming *could* cause Global Cooling. What do you think would happen if sufficient fresh water were to enter the North Atlantic over a relatively short period? Here's a clue-it would reduce the salinity of the North Atlantic which-in turn-could cause the Gulf Stream to slow down-or even stop. That would cause extreme cold in North America & Europe, whilst causing long-term drought in the bulk of Africa, the Middle East & Asia. Of course, someone with a modicum of scientific knowledge-& not merely a reliance on Propaganda-would know that.
  23. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault - You ask "...what IS the "proof" of AGW anyway? Not GW, which has been observable, but "A"GW?" I would suggest taking a look at The Big Picture, which provides just that - an overview of the evidence for warming, for human attribution of the majority of that warming, and what the results of that warming may mean to us. I would also strongly suggest you take a look at How do we know more CO2 is causing warming and The human fingerprint in global warming. If you disagree with the write-ups, I suggest you follow the links on those pages to various peer-reviewed articles presenting the evidence and conclusions discussed. I believe those links will present a great deal of information for you on this topic.
  24. Eric (skeptic) at 15:37 PM on 2 January 2011
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    KR, it is not complex at all. If weather on average creates a more uneven distribution of water vapor, then amplification of CO2 warming will be low or even nonexistent. The distribution of water vapor is what matters, not the average amount, whether Arctic or not. Heat works similarly. If lots of cold ends up in the temperate zones and heat in the arctic (e.g. by current negative AO), then that is "global cooling" or maybe just less amplification of CO2 warming. Conversely if air flow patterns are less meridional then there will be more amplification of CO2 warming. This is mostly because the dominant short term factor in earth average temperature is latent heat transfer. The other two are LW and albedo. Outgoing LW is obviously higher in BP's scenario that you linked. Albedo is not as clear (NPI), but a meridional pattern would indicate more clouds (cooling or warming) and more convection (generally cooling).
  25. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Marcus 1) What FOX actually may put to air isn't even germane to this discussion. The BS #5 award in the above article was for a news editor advising his staff to offer balanced reporting. If the BS award had been for an example of actual biased reporting I wouldn't be typing this now. But while we're on the subject, what IS the "proof" of AGW anyway? Not GW, which has been observable, but "A"GW? Apart from some increasingly redundant computer models, where's the PROOF of AGW that all these "experts" are privy to? You refer to "climate scientists who can prove global warming is occurring and why it is occurring". Okay, hit me with the "proof" that it's caused by anthropogenic influences, and isn't just a continuation of a cycle that's existed since the last glacial. 2) Again you avoid the issue. BS award #5 wasn't given on the strengths or weaknesses of the so-called "experts" from either side. It was awarded to a news editor who called on his staff to acknowledge there were, in fact, "sides" to the debate at all. See 1) above. 3) Actually, "trends" in climate study are usually expressed in 30 year periods. In fact, many climate graphs and charts are measured in 30 year periods on the horizontal. There's a historical reason for that. It's because we recognised the 25 - 30 year warming - cooling "trend" a long time ago. 4) No "white-wash" "investigation" of the climategate emails has even looked at the HARRY_READ_ME files. You know, the folder where we find a line of code that ensures the progam creates a "warming" trend even when random numbers are fed into it. A line of code appropriately labelled "fudge factor". No "evidence" that AGW "science" is "crap"? How about the "evidence" of observable fact? CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere. Not only should it be getting hotter, it should be getting hotter quicker. It isn't. CO2 AGW theory disproved by observable fact. CO2 AGW theory requires a hotspot to have developed in the tropical troposphere. No observable hotspot. CO2 AGW theory disproved by observable fact. CO2 AGW theory requires that "winters warm faster than summers". This is actually stated in an article on this site as one of the "fingerprints" of AGW. And observable fact? Three progressively worsening, colder NH winters. CO2 AGW theory disproved by observable facts. But hey, why should anyone believe their own lying eyes when we've got all these "experts" to tell us what the real truth is? Like the latest "global warming causes global cooling" from Professor Rahmstorf at the Potsdam Institute. You couldn't make it up . . . .
    Moderator Response: Please don't use all caps. Use italics, or if you must, use bold. Also, the claims you have made are addressed in other posts. Either use the Search field at the top left, or click the "Most Used Skeptic Arguments" at the left. We try to keep comments on the relevant thread. In addition to the posts KR linked for you, also type "email" without the quote marks. Then search for "hotspot."
  26. Eric (skeptic) at 15:11 PM on 2 January 2011
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Marcus, I didn't see your post before I posted, my only beef with your reply is that sunspots are a canard. They have only been low since 2005 and whatever effect they might have is subject to the same delays as CO2 warming (e.g. the ocean could be releasing previously stored heat masking cooling if it exists).
  27. Eric (skeptic) at 15:05 PM on 2 January 2011
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault, the easiest argument to rebut is your (3) "there is no cooling right now", lots of threads here on that. I tend to agree about (1) AGW not being debated properly, like I said in #9 above. I have no opinion on (2) and not much of an opinion on (4), they seem a little pointless to argue about. Number (5) is where I have a simple opinion. Climate is aggregate measurements (statistics) of temp and precip, maybe a few other odds and ends like hurricanes. Climate change is the change in those statistics due to long term changes like solar, GHG, etc. Weather can impact climate, for example what happens with weather will help determine the amount of amplification of CO2 warming if any. Weather is mainly the chaotic dynamics but also the cyclical changes, so multi-year ENSO cycles are weather, along with day/night and seasonal change which are sometimes loosely referred to as climate. So while measurements of weather over time are climate, those measurements have to be statistically valid (properly aggregated over sufficient time to determine the long term non-weather changes).
  28. Climate's changed before
    Please refer to argument #31. Then refer to argument #1 because "other planets are warming" is just an indirect way of saying "it's the sun".
  29. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault. (1)If I can measure the weight of the rain-drops, though, & *prove* they were heavier on average than last year, then I'm off to a better start than the guy who, without evidence to back him, says they're not. The problem with Fox is they give MORE weight to those who claim Global Warming isn't happening-even when they have NO PROOF to back that claim-than to scientists who can PROVE that global warming is occurring & why its occurring. That's not balance, that's BIAS. (2) Refer to (1). Most of the "experts" they rely on actually have NO EXPERTISE to speak of. Those who do often present hypothesis as fact (as per Lindzen & his supposed warm-biased thermometers). Again, why are these people given more weight than those who have more than 80 years of climate records to back their position? (3) That one is simple. If you get a single Summer's day that's colder than the Winter Average, then does that mean Summer ceases to exist? Yet what you're suggesting is equally ridiculous. A year's worth of weather is worth more than a day to a month, & a decade's worth of weather is worth more than a single year. To be statistically significant, though, a trend requires at least 20 years of combined weather events. Even with the cold December of the Atlantic Coast last month, global temperatures for 2010 were still +0.66 degrees above the 1961-1990 average-making it the hottest year since records were first taken. 2000-2010 is also the hottest 11 year period in the last 130 years, in spite of being dominated by the lowest sunspot numbers in a century. (4) Well that's just straight up ad-hominem. You want to provide PROOF, not just more baseless allegations? The fact is that no climate scientists have been found guilty of wrong doing-in spite of the Witch Hunt waged by the anti-AGW crowd, & I've yet to see the anti-AGW crowd provide a single shred of hard data to show that the science was "crap". Meanwhile, all your mates have provided as an alternative is, at best, pseudo-scientific rubbish &-at worst-ludicrously convoluted conspiracy theories that would make the most ardent tin-foil hat wearer blush.
    Moderator Response: Watch the all-caps, please.
  30. Climate's changed before
    Hasn't climate also changed, (warming) on other planets and moons at the same time as the earth? Plenty of studies seem to show that to be true. AGW believers then search for any reason they can find to say "yes, but it's happening at the same time for different reasons"... what a coincidence!
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Then you should have no difficulty providing links to those peer-reviewed studies then. We're waiting... And respond on the more appropriate thread "Mars is warming," after reading that post.
  31. There is no consensus
    I wonder if the "consensus" among AGW supporting scientists is the basic need for government subsidized studies of the supposed "problem?"
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please refrain from expressions of ideological bias; stick to the topic of the post. Off-topic comments will get deleted. Thanks for your compliance!
  32. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Actually thoughtfull 1) Debating "climate change" is like trying to debate the wetness of raindrops. Were last year's raindrops wetter than this years? The "debate" is and always was about Anthropogenic Global Warming - AGW for short. And the opposite of AGW is NON Anthropogenic Global Warming - ie - warming caused by something else. So the BS award #5 goes to a news editor who dared suggest his reporters point out that some people don't agree with the "anthropogenic" part when reporting on possible causes of "climate change". How dastardly of him. 2) Straight ad-hom - "my expert is bigger than your expert nah nah nah". 3) "thinking that individual weather events make a tend" ??????. So, how many "individual weather events" like progressively colder, snowier Northern Hemisphere winters does it take to establish a "trend"? Let me know and I'll watch out for it. "You could look at the number of cold records vs the number of warm records (although better to do that for 30 years or so . . )." Whoever claimed it hadn't been warming? How would this prove the "A" in AGW? And why 30 years - why not 60 years so it takes in the natural cooling cycle that preceded this perfectly natural warming one? Or 600 years so we can take in the longer wave approximately 300 year oscillations that gave us both the MWP and the LIA? "One theory is because the world is warming due to human activity". Yes, a "theory". There are others which fit the observed facts far better that AGW. The best fit to date is the 25 - 30 year alternating warming - cooling cycle overlaid on a longer 300 year alternating warming - cooling cycle. 4) No the wrongdoing on the part of climate scientists HASN'T changed the "climate science" in any way. It was total crap before, during and after the wrongdoing by "climate scientists". In fact the "wrongdoing" was an attempt to hide the fact that the "science" was crap. Go read the HARRY_READ_ME file. 5) I'm sorry, but if medium to long term trends in "weather" are not "climate", then what the heck is "climate"? Enlighten me please?
  33. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the AGU Fall Meeting
    Greg @ 10 I owe you a reply and I apologize for the delay in making it. When composing the article, I chose not to write a lengthy description of the session you were involved in but instead opted to link to Steve Easterbrook's and Steve Mosher's very different accounts. (I also added links to your website and to your open letter). My subjective impressions your contribution to the meeting tend to be closer to Mosher's than Easterbrook's and I felt obligated to say so, bluntly. (Normally, I agree with everything Easterbrook writes and almost nothing coming from Mosher.) I should have made it clear that I don't agree with everything Mosher wrote in his article and I'm sorry that I didn't do that. As you correctly pointed out in your talk, those of us who are alarmed about climate change, professional scientists and amateurs alike, have so far been ineffective in communicating the urgency of the problem to the general public. Of course, many of us who participate at Skeptical Science do so precisely because we want to improve public communication and understanding. Occasionally, that means criticizing those among us who overstate the case--thereby making it vulnerable to attack--as well as those who invite rebuke by indulging in rhetorical excess, as I think you did. This must have been a tough experience for you and I hope that you are not too discouraged by the brickbats. Articulate advocates, like you, who care enough to stand up and speak out are needed and rare. Sincerely, Andy
  34. Models are unreliable
    The "reliability" of climate models has been has never been backed up by satellite or weather balloon data. Even the UN says they are unreliable. I know this is a rather simple line of reasoning, but I'd rather not use abstract examples. Numbers can be manipulated to show almost anything, so unless the two basic forms of temperature measurement are wrong, the "unreliable" label will be firmly (and rightfully) attached to the "what if" models.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Incorrect on all counts. If you feel differently, please provide links to supporting sources.
  35. Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
    To those of you who think Plimer is "cherry picking" and his input ought to be discounted, I would ask you if you think the data collected from the Vostock ice core sample are also suspect? The data used by Al Gore (incorrectly) came from that source. The original tests were taken from 1000 year slices that seemed to back his assumption. The retest, using 100 year slices showed a much different dataset. As the new data was out in print 2 - 3 years prior to the release of "An Inconvenient Truth" Mr Gore was forced to only intimate that increasing CO2 levels were responsible for warming. Of course I'm sure all of you debaters know the data showed just the opposite. Another dataset to consider comes from Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III) Particularly the 600 million year chart of both CO2 and temperature, which shows only one other period of time, when both Temp and CO2 levels were as low as they are today. This article also shows a glaciation during the Carboniferous period at a time CO2 levels were just slightly higher (400ppm) than they are today. I really believe the bulk of actual scientific studies, not computer simulations, support the position that IF humans are involved in altering climate... it would be a minuscule involvement at best.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Then you should have no difficulty providing links to those "bulk of actual" scientific studies then. I assume they were all peer-reviewed, right?
  36. actually thoughtful at 12:47 PM on 2 January 2011
    The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    MemoryVault's five fallacies 1)That balance means one page for lies to balance one page of truth. Rather balance means understanding that all stories have more than one side and finding out what the other side is. The balance to climate change is not "not climate change" - it is where is the doubt? For example, where is the heat in the oceans? Will the Arctic have ice free summers before or after 2020? Things like that 2)Assuming that someone presenting to Congress automatically is knowledgeable about the subject. Better to consider the validity of the science, or at least the scientist. 3)Thinking individual weather events make a trend. This whole line of thinking is wrong, for the most part. You could look at the number of cold records vs the number of warm records (although better to do that for 30 years or so...). The warm vs cold records is HEAVILY in favor of warm. One theory is because the world is warming due to human activity. 4)Thinking that any wrong doing by the part of climate scientists (if any) has changed the SCIENCE of the climate in any way 5)Thinking weather=climate. It never has and it never will!
  37. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Constant forcing is an oxymoron, unless the input changes at the same rate as equilibrium is approached. A constant energy input results in a decreasing forcing until equilibrium is reached when energy output reaches that level.
  38. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Albatross - Thank you, that's what I thought. Arctic water vapor is increasing, not decreasing. Once again, BP has proposed a complex theory of negative feedback that will somehow prevent or limit global warming. And once again, it turns out to be contradicted by the data. Berényi - Arguing from complexity, which is how I (personal opinion) interpret your repeated attempts to propose fractal and critical point issues, does not do your arguments any favors. First: If there is unrecognized complexity affecting the climate system (which you have not established), it could vary in either direction, either reducing warming as you argue or actually increasing it with additional positive feedbacks. Second: Proposing (as you have on several occasions) hypotheses unsupported or even contradicted by the actual data, and that are hence incorrect hypotheses, leads to reader evaluation that you are "crying wolf", and that new inputs from you are not likely to be helpful.
  39. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @BP makes the unsubstantiated (and erroneous) claim that WV content is decreasing in the polar regions. Well, that is certainly not what the ERA-interim data show for the Arctic. From Screen and Simmonds (2010): "A final consideration arises from model simulations which suggest that changes in atmospheric water vapour content may amplify Arctic warming. Increases in water vapour are expected with increasing air temperatures and reduced sea ice cover. In turn, water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas and can lead to further warming and sea ice loss. In ERA-Interim, specific humidity trends are found only during the summer and early autumn, and are confined to the lower part of the atmosphere (Fig. 4a). The largest humidity increases are found in the Arctic basin. An associated increase in incoming long-wave radiation has probably enhanced warming in summer and early autumn. It is of further interest to determine whether these increases in humidity are locally driven or are a result of increased moisture transport into the Arctic. It is worth noting that the humidity trends coincide with the months of lowest sea ice coverage and largest sea ice declines. The pronounced warming in winter and spring is not accompanied by increases in humidity. A large portion of each total humidity trend is linked to changes in sea ice (Fig. 4b) and, furthermore, to significant increases in the surface latent-heat flux (that is, evaporation) in the Arctic basin (Fig. 4a). The humidity increases at latitudes 50–65 N show weaker links to sea ice and are probably influenced by other processes. However, within the Arctic these lines of evidence support the notion that part of the humidity increase is driven by enhanced surface moisture fluxes associated with sea ice reductions".
  40. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Soundoff #30 Let me illustrate by example. Dr Trenberth's 0.9W/sq.m positive forcing imbalance equates to 145E20 Joules/year added to the Earth system. The 0.9 is made up of the sums of all the forcings in Fig 4 including the climate responses at the bottom of that table. If the 0.9W/sq.m is sustained we will add 145E20 Joules every year to the system and this energy will melt ice, warm land & oceans at a roughly steady rate of 'X' degC per year/decade etc. Under this constant positive forcing the system will not appproach an equilibrium. The positive forcing has to reduce to reduce energy takeup in order to slow down warming and approach a new equilibrium at a higher general temperature. The +0.9W/sq.m could be reduced by higher cooling forcings (cloud albedo, S-B), or lower positive forcings (CO2GHG, WV + Ice albedo feedback). We could discuss cloud albedo as having wide error bars, and WV + Ice albedo feedback (currently listed in Fig 4 at about +2.1W/sq.m), but the prime cooling feedback is S-B cooling (currently at -2.8W/sq.m) which will increase at T^4 as the Earth's radiating temperature rises. Whichever way you cut it, the +0.9W/sq.m has to approach zero in order for the Earth system to slow down warming and approach a new higher equilibrium temperature.
  41. The increased greenhouse effect - comparing models to observations
    Continuing from here. From #73: "... opening up the so called "Arctic window" for IR radiation with wavelengths above 16 μm ... in a dry atmosphere thermal IR radiation escapes to space almost unimpeded." From #86: "It is 240 W/m2 at -18°C and 315 W/m2 at 0°C. With so many dry-freezed patches of air above the region, most of this radiation escapes to space." Here's a map of outgoing LW radiation for the last week of 2010. -- similar maps available here. Most areas above 60N emit less than 180 W m-2. Looks like not-so-much escapes to space unimpeded.
  42. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Taking both #86 and #73 together, we may learn quite a lot about outgoing IR radiation from the Arctic. However, this is not the best thread for further discussion of OLR; continuing with comment here.
  43. Arctic Ice Part 2: A Review of Factors Contributing to the Recent Decline in Arctic Ice
    Re: eldorado2768 (22) Welcome to Skeptical Science! PIPS 2.0 is not a reliable measure of ice thickness trends (especially with just 2 data points), as it is a forecasting of predicted conditions, not a snapshot of actual conditions. What Goddard is showing is therefore essentially meaningless. For ice thickness trends, go to the source, PIOMAS: Note the overall downward trend (no "recovery") and the recent "death spiral". Also it would behoove you to read this post. And you may want to let Goddard know that PIPS 3.0 has some nicer animations available for next time. The Yooper
  44. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    Thanks, muoncounter, it's a very interesting paper. Glaciations tend to start gradually, but end abruptly. Various people, referenced in the your paper and the Wikipedia article on the clathrate gun hypothesis, suspect that lower sea levels during those glaciations can cause pressure induced release of methane from hydrates, rapidly increasing atmospheric methane levels leading to an increase in temperatures and higher sea levels. If true, this does demonstrate one thing: large scale methane releases from oceanic hydrates can reach the atmosphere. This is supported by the carbon isotope data from events like the PETM and the End Permian- although direct intrusion of magma from the Siberian Traps volcanism into methane hydrate deposits may have been necessary to trigger the End Permian mass extinction. These carbon isotope data suggest that two to five or more trillion tons of isotopically light methane from the hydrates entered the active carbon cycle during those events. Can our greenhouse driven pulse of heat, which is working its way inexorably downward into the oceans, stimulate a similar rapid release of methane?
  45. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @BP: "Currently it is colder than average everywhere, except in some regions where no one lives and where "warmer than average" is still damn cold." Actually, right now it is warmer than average everywhere, except in some heavily-populated areas. Of course, an area's population has *nothing* to do with whether or not the planet is warming. To insinuate otherwise is to indulge in a logical fallacy, which seems to have become your specialty as of late. There are 3 million people living in the Montreal area, and it is warmer than average. It is not 'cold', again an entirely subjective appreciation.
  46. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @Argus: never mind, I didn't noticed you talk about daily highs, I though you meant averages. The link you provided clearly shows that average temperatures are around -6 to -7 (I was a bit too high, but my source wasn't as precise as yours, thanks!) "Are you serious? I was inundated by weather reports and weather maps from frantic so-called warmists" Oh, come on. 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.
  47. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @BP: If temperatures are above average, there they are warmer. The use of the relative term for warmth is pretty useless in this context. You might feel that 0C is "cold", but for me 0C on Jan 1 is unusually warm (I live in Canada). Anyway, this is all useless, as we should talk about global averages rather than individual locations. Furthermore, I though contrarians no longer tried to claim the warming wasn't happening? In fact, I've had deniers swear to me no one seriously challenged the notion that the Earth was warming...and after that you wonder why we don't take you seriously? Give me a break...
  48. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    I wanted to thank everyone who posted on my first post for making this a long and interesting thread. Happy New Year's.
  49. It's cooling
    @Chris: I agree with others here, your friend doesn't want to tackle this in a rational way, hence the belief in conspiracy theories involving scientists, NASA, NOAA, etc. The fact is, the Earth is *not* cooling, and we are not currently in a cold phase. It's above zero here in Quebec city, on January 1st. That is very warm indeed. I would suggest to your friend that he come here and post himself, so we can show him the errors of his ways. He better bring along evidence, however...
  50. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Albatross - 10 Thanks for the link. I listened to the complete testimony and I felt that Lindzen came across as somewhat of a fool; however, Representative Rhorbabacker came across as a fool's fool! This was especially evident when he challenged the scientists on the low level of CO2 compared to other gases such as nitrogen and oxygen. Bob

Prev  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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