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  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  Next

Comments 99901 to 99950:

  1. Temp record is unreliable
    Re: Rovinpiper (137) Sorry, I no longer work in the Earth Sciences fields. In pharmaceuticals now, living where I want to live instead of doing the work I wanted to do & hating where I was living (Washington, DC). If you want to chat via email, send it to John Cook here at Skeptical Science & he'll forward it to me. The Yooper
  2. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the AGU Fall Meeting
    Re: Greg While I wasn't there to hear it directly and indeed have only heard about it anecdotally, I applaud you for the courage of your convictions. That is a rare thing in this world we live in. If only more had the stones to do so... I'm minded of the words of Martin Niemöller:
    "They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."
    Let us go and do likewise. Else the end result be the same. The Yooper
  3. CO2 lags temperature
    Unfortunately, this article is in need of some serious revision -Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles -CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone <---weak reasoning! -CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet These points are about as logical as "collect underpants > ? > profit!", where the '?' here is analogous to the middle point above. Obviously change in orbital cycles alone does not account for all temperature fluctuation, and neither does orbital fluctuations + CO2. There are many feedbacks. As horrible as it may sound, you can't win them all. CO2 may or may not be causing modern day warming, but if you think you can spin the fact that causation is reversed historically into proof that CO2 is causing warming you're delusional. At the least you should provide some further links to back up the middle point, but really what needs to be done is to change the article to concede that yes, historical causation does support the skeptical side, but may or may not be relevant now that CO2 concentration is being altered by humans as well as the carbon cycle. To claim anything more is extremely disingenuous.
  4. Temp record is unreliable
    Thanks Yooper, Hey I was at the University of Michigan Biological Station this June and July, and I toured the Upper Peninsula a bit. Do you do research in Michigan?
  5. We're heading into an ice age
    #192: Perhaps this is a reference to the Chile earthquake? If so, the numbers are way out of any realm of possibility. Of course, there have been lots of large earthquakes in recent history; no ice age yet. Here's one that explains why such an axis shift did not, nay, cannot happen.
  6. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Ok folks, you do realize all this hyperbole is over less than one degree C of possible temperature variation don't you? Wouldn't that small a rise fall into the "plus or minus" catagory? Records have only been kept for 114 years, so "warmest in recorded history" is rather meaningless! All this is based on one sentence added to the initial IPCC report by UN policymakers (not by the scientists). Even the UN admits the reports are in response to computer simulations, not real world data. Weather satellites and weather balloon data never supported those simulations, yet we now have cottage industries popping up because of all this unsubstantiated "what if" blathering! Al Gore's film was shot down by his main piece of evidence (Vostock ice core samples show 800 year lag from temp rise to CO2 level rise) and by the British courts who ruled there were 9 major flaws in the film (not to mention the large number of prominent scientists counted among the skeptics). As a lay-person, I've been looking at everything presented by both side of the argument. The evidence is supportive of natural climate change (and now would seem to support the possibility of global cooling again). Have none of you AGW proponents been the least suspicious as to why governments are pushing for rules that require massive new taxes so they can "deal" with the so-called "problem?" Do any of you remember the global cooling scare of the 1970's? Many of the same scientists are involved in the current warming debate... Ah well, keep those government grants comming. They would dry up without some life threatening problem that needs decades of research!
    Moderator Response: Your claims have already been addressed elsewhere on this site. Please review this site's list of skeptic arguments or use the search function and place your individual comments in the appropriate thread. Future off-topic posts will be deleted per the comment policy.
  7. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Thanks to all for the kind words. This index is for all of you. If there are any favorites, please save them for off-line perusal, as relying upon the Archives to always find them is a bit like storing your computer files in the "to be deleted" bin. As to the actual reasons for the limbo status of the posts, others have commented already. Not my place to offer up further on that. If anyone finds any of the posts between August 2008 and March 2010 let me know so I can append them to this index. I delved as deeply into the Archives as is possible, I believe (I found about a dozen more posts than the Archive search function did).
  8. We're heading into an ice age
    There are lots of scientists who study and monitor the shape of the earth. Here is an example: http://geodesy.unr.edu/ There is no mention by them of any sudden changes in 2010.
  9. It's cooling
    BP @93, "about 25% of its supposed increase in 55 years (since 1955)" And the 0-2000 m OHC decreased by that about amount in two months in early 2006. Yet, the long-term trend is up my friend. Funny how you ignore that fact. And worse still, I know that you know better BP. Also, please make up your mind. Earlier on this thread you correctly stated that the planet is warming and that TCR is about 2 C, now you seem to be trying to suggest that the warming is an artifact of an alleged faulty data record.
  10. We're heading into an ice age
    Don't worry. You are one hundred percent wrong. Please read up on Milankovitch cycles and solar variability, and how the increased heat retention from enhancing the greenhouse effect overwhelms it. Do you have a reference for the orbital tilt claim?
  11. wonderingmind42 at 10:36 AM on 30 December 2010
    The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the AGU Fall Meeting
    Andy, Volume too loud--agreed wholeheartedly. Attacks on AGU: That's what prompted me to post a hasty and again-too-high-volume "open letter" the Friday night after, trying to get in front of the story trying to prevent the echo chamber (seeded by Steven Mosher, reposted several other blogs) from painting the AGU as activist, using the brush of my personal actions. Having listened to my speech again since then (don't know if you heard, but I had exactly 11 hours to prepare it due to a HD crash at 1 am), I think it doesn't justify the mega-ness of my mia culpa. I was desperate to avoid being used against AGU, hadn't listened to the speech since I gave it, and couldn't remember the text beyond the first wild-eyed paragraph. Having since transcribed it (available at www.gregcraven.org), I stand by the message. My only regret is that it was so strongly given that I'm sure it turned off many of the people who most needed to hear the message. I was indeed intending to shock--and even risk pissing off--but ended up pretty much slapping people in the face. Like a face slap to a roomful of absorbed, focused people in a burning building, it pisses off most of them, but a few of them say "thank you for waking me up to the larger threat" and get moving. That's my hope, anyway. Staring at the text finished just minutes before I went on stage, I was faced with the choice of giving it, or just winging it, which I could have ably done (I do it regularly when my lessons plans are rendered moot by some occurrence at the tardy bell). I made a conscious decision about which regret I'd rather risk: regretting that I'd gone too far, or regretting that I had my one chance to speak to the people that are our last realistic hope, wishing I had said more. I chose the former, and don't regret it. Especially since it seems the contrarian attempt to damage the AGU using me seems to have not gotten any traction. Hope this helps. And I'd humbly suggest that before making such a strong yet simplified assessment--especially when agreeing with an attack article that deliberately distorts and manipulates ("the face of the new AGU," "the first step to violent action," leaving his own misstatements about what I said--even when notified--rather than actually quoting the speaker)--that you closely read the posting you are agreeing with. If you've already done that and still think that telling your readers you agree with Steven Mosher (comprising 30% of your assessment of the session) is what you really intend to convey, then perhaps you might want to consider whether skepticalscience.com is the place that is the best match for your opinions. It's one thing to say I was a shameful spectacle, and quite another to agree with the contents and tone of Mosher's article, which you link to. I'd suggest that your readers perhaps deserve better. Respectfully, Greg Craven
  12. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Dana1981 #2 Ahh. Most popular descriptions of the greenhouse effect give the strong impression that the H20 molecule has a stronger greenhouse effect than the CO2 molecule - like CH4 (methane). I don't remember seeing it clarified elsewhere that H20 has, although a weaker greenhouse gas, a bigger effect due to its much greater abundance. The various Wiki articles make this less than clear too.
  13. It's not bad

    " Here's some hyperbole to match yours"

    Moderator Response:

    [PW] Muoncounter, this link is now dead. You may wish to update it

  14. We're heading into an ice age
    For the future of human kind I hope I am 100% wrong to what follows : 1.The earth , as shape , is not one PERFECT sphere , therefor every minor change of axis would result in a change of the solar radiation absorbed . 2.One such change of 1,5 degrees took place in 2010 . 3.The result was indeed a more vertical positioning of the equator towards the sun which leads to a temperature raise for the sea water in the equators . 4.By that the amounts of vapors has raised together with warm air streams that makes vapor clouds to lift higher so when they are above europe or north america they freeze spontaneusly due to the contact of lower atmospheric temperatures (in the atmosphere higher= colder )giving them heavy snowings we observe lately. As a result of all the above we may consider the ice age has started this winter ,the sky will keep on showering snow untill everything will be covered by it and when I am talking covering I mean 300 metres of ice throughout the northen hemisphere above longitude 40 . This was the short resume of my thoughts on the actuall climate problem.What frightens me the most is the fact that glacial periods apear with a strict periodicity , so the argument of one astronomical event taking place as a regulator of their appearance and disappearance is not to be discussed !!!! And apparently this took place this year .....
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please be so kind as to provide linked references for those (ahem) "unusual" claims. Or be taken for a troll-bot. Thanks!
  15. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 09:59 AM on 30 December 2010
    Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Thank you Daniel - brilliant stuff.
  16. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    @George White: where did you get these graphs? They do not seem to agree with any temperature graphs out there (including NOAA's). Perhaps you made them yourself, and have failed to spot an error in your calculations? Why not have your theories published and peer-reviewed, if you are so adamant about being right?
  17. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    That is one of the reasons why anomaly plots are used instead of absolute temperature plots, precision vs accuracy.
  18. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Bibliovermis, Do you know the difference between an anomaly plot and a temperature plot? This is a temperature plot. Notice the scales on the left. The actual data spans more than a 5C range and has no averaging applied. An anomaly plot shows the difference in the monthly average to the expected monthly average for that month. The limits of this are only about 1C over the same interval. In my plots, the dotted black line is the running 12-month average. The actual data from Nasa looks like this, Notice the discontinuity around 2001? This is when NOAA-14 was replaced by NOAA-16 and baseline shifted by about 2C and which I have corrected in my data. The calibration error would be misinterpreted in an anomaly plot as an anomalous warming trend, but is actually representative of a data anomaly. This is my issue with anomaly analysis. You can't distinguish between a data anomaly and an anomalous trend.
  19. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Thank you very much, I have long searched for Taminos old post! I would also like to know why they were deleted from his blog, I have never read something about this in his blog.
  20. It's cooling
    @Chris: Bibliovermis pretty much said it all. Your friend believes things that are false, and bases all of his argument these falsehoods. His response is therefore insufficient. This is how you can respond, if you want to (it seems as if he is politically opposed to AGW theory, and as such is unlikely to be open to a rational scientific argument): 1. The greenhouse effect was discovered in th 19th century and has been validated numerous time since. The burden of scientific proof is therefore on those claiming it doesn't exist. 2. That position is wrong on two counts, i.e. that 7 or even 10 years is a sufficient period to establish statistical relevance, AND that temperature have been stable since 2000 or decreasing since 2003. Here is a graph showing the 15, 10 and 7 year trend (again, the last two being statistically not significant to the 95% degree): 3. The IPCC models never predicted steady warming. He has to prove that assertion, or it is irrecievable. 4. As him where that (presumably) peer-reviewed evidence is. Insist on this very simple truth: there is virtually no evidence supporting his position, and a mountain of evidence supporting yours. It's a safe claim to make, as it is completely true (you can find such evidence here). 5. Again, that is an unproved assertion. Ask him for serious peer-reviewed evidence supporting this idea. Remember, the burden of proof is on him, not you. 6. That is an unfounded conspiracy theory. Offer to sell him a tinfoil hat. 7. The IPCC still has the confidence of the scientific community. Most people not trusting the IPCC were already against it, and their opposition is for the most part political. In any case, the IPCC is a reflection of the scientific consensus. Attacking the IPCC is rather meaningless in this regard, as it relies on actual climate science for its position and publications. 8. If anyone is acting in a fanatical manner, it is those who continue to decry AGW theory even after being presented with the strong evidence supporting it. They often repeat the same debunked talking points. In fact, by clearly failing to understand the science while entertaining all kinds of conspiracy theories, they are akin to a modern version of the European medieval flat Earthers. 9. The ICCC was a sham, and very few serious climate scientists attended (if any). It was organized by the Heritage Institute, which is not a scientific body but a highly-politicized conservative think tank. In other words, it is an institution that does not seek to discover the truth, but rather to spread a conservative agenda that unfortunately considers scientific evidence to be less important than political ideology. 10. The media ignored the results of the conference because it was a sham, and an obvious one at that. For a so-called "skeptic," your friend seems to trust what conservatives say about climate change a little too much. Hopefully this is on-topic enough; in any case, I won't add anything to this unless it specifically deals with points 1 to 5.
  21. Berényi Péter at 09:18 AM on 30 December 2010
    It's cooling
    Re: Response to #54TomJones at 01:56 AM on 6 August, 2010 : The source is von Schuckmann 2009:


    Figure 2: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Joules per square metre.
    Hey, you keep digging up this Schuckmann graph, although I have told you it was unbelievable.
          Now I'll give you something to believe. I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day.'       'I can't believe that!' said Alice.       'Can't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. 'Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'       Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said 'one can't believe impossible things.'       'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
     Some more practice is needed perhaps. That way one could eventually believe between december 2006 & february 2007 OHC went up by 8.15×107 J/m2. That's about 3×1022 Joules in just two months, about 25% of its supposed increase in 55 years (since 1955).
  22. It's not bad
    #91: You asked for examples of hyperbole and I gave you one. If you look back at my original post you'll see I never said anything about hyperbole in peer reviewed papers, so I'm not exactly sure why you insist that I look only in the "actual research" for examples. I'm talking about people in the field making statements that in my opinion are hyperbole, regardless of venue. For example, when James Hansen says that CEOs of energy companies "should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature" I would call that an example of hyperbole. The fact that he did not make the statement in a peer reviewed paper is irrelevant. He is a scientist in the field making statements that are non-scientific and arguably designed solely to garner press. Link to Hansen Statement: High Crimes Now, if you want to talk about why I believe that our understanding of climate sensitivity is insufficient to justify drastic action on climate change right now, I'll be happy to limit my links to actual research (or at the very least, links to sites like Real Climate that discuss actual research).
  23. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Nederland: Phila: Thank you for pointing out the etymology of the word hysteria, I was unaware of it. In the future I think I'll use the word hyperbole. Would you find that acceptable? Sure, provided it's accompanied by clear evidence that justifies its use. As others have pointed out, such evidence should also be presented on the appropriate thread. Thanks for asking!
  24. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Supposing that Lindzen is correct and the low level cloud cover eventually is sufficient to limit the increase in global warming, what are the consequences? If that occurs what will be the additional changes in the global weather. Doesn't the additional cloud cover reduce the sunlight reaching the earth, and will more flooding occur due to increased rainfall. According to NOAA, the temperature anomaly in the Arctic is already +5 degrees Centigrade. This warming in the Arctic has been linked to changes in the Jet Stream and the resulting (selective) cooling of the US and Europe. According to NOAA so far this year, January through November, the combined land and sea temperatures are the highest on record. When the temperature stops increasing how bad will it be?
  25. It's cooling
    #1: Wholly incorrect. It was intially discovered in the 19th century; Tyndall, Arrhenius, et al. That initial was repeatedly validated in the early-mid 20th century. #2 & 3: Wholly incorrect. Refer to argument #4 & 7, and the recent blog article. #4: Wholly incorrect. Consult the argument list. #5: Wholly incorrect. Strength of belief does not overturn published & independently validated empirical research. #6 & 7: Wholly incorrect. Neither do vast conspiracy notions. #8: Wholly incorrect. Dismissing a empirical field of scientific endeavour as a religion only serves to show pridefully ignorant the respondent is. #9 & 10: The ICCC (1st & 2nd) was a dog & pony show staged by a well-known professional disinformation outfit. Their previous work includes "tobacco is harmless" back in the 90s.
  26. It's cooling
    Chris, You can investigate each of these claims on this site's own List of Skeptic Arguments. There is also a good index of common claims here. Be warned that your discussion with this person is likely to devolve into an endless Gish Gallop. It is the argument style of choice for those who have no interest in understanding what they are discussing, but have formed a conclusion anyways. If so, you are likely just wasting your time, as he is not really interested in hearing what you have to say. FYI, the Second International Conference on Climate Change is sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that is explicitly political in its goals. As such, it is an extremely poor source for objective science. Likewise, the claim that the conference includes "the world's best climatologists" is self-described, and thus should be taken with a very large grain of salt. As for the general credibility of these "130 scientists," the fact that they signed their names to a set of demonstrably false (and quite old) talking points is enough to toss their credibility out the window.
  27. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    BP @56, "Therefore the actual climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide should be considerably less than 2°C. Simple as a wood wedge." I see that you are failing to differentiate between Charney feedbacks (transient climate response, Gregory and Forster 2005) and equilibrium climate sensitivity. Annan and Hargreaves, and others, show the PDF for EQS dropping off sharply below about 2.5 C. There are other issues with your argument, but I have very little patience to deal with misinformers. Perhaps someone else more patient than I will do so. Regardless, this thread is not about climate sensitivity, so we should move that discussion to the appropriate thread.
    Moderator Response: Yes, please do move to a more suitable thread.
  28. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the AGU Fall Meeting
    Andy S @ 8 Thanks very much for your clarifying post. I completely agree with your points 3 and 4.
  29. It's cooling
    @archiesteel: I passed on your response to the person I'm talking to and this was his response: "Recently, 130 German scientists wrote an open letter to their government. They made the following points: 1.Information known before the IPCC was founded shows that human CO2 emissions have no measurable effect on global warming. 2.The atmosphere has not warmed in the last 10 years and has cooled significantly since 2003. 3. The expensive IPCC climate models predicted steady warming but the opposite has occurred. 4. Growing evidence continues to show human CO2 plays no measurable role in climate change. 5. If all fossil fuels were burned, the additional long-term warming would not exceed a few tenths of a degree. 6.The IPCC has been aware of this fact but has completely ignored it. 7. As a result, the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. 8. The belief in manmade climate change has become a pseudo-religion. 9. The Second International Conference on Climate Change in NY March 2009 was attended by approximately 800 leading scientists, some of whom are among the world’s best climatologists. 10. The media has virtually ignored the results of this Conference. " You can read the entire open letter here: http://climatephysics.com/2010/09/19/open-letter-to-the-chancellor-of-germany-by-130-scientists/
  30. Berényi Péter at 07:40 AM on 30 December 2010
    Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    "The overall trend from 1979 through November 2010 (Brown line) shows an unmistakable rise." Yes, the trend line from december 1978 to november 2010 (inclusive), that is, for the last 32 full years is 1.4°C/century. You can access the UAH TLT (lower tropospheric temperature) data here: ftp://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/pub/data/msu/t2lt/tltday_5.3 and check this claim. You can also access carbon dioxide mixing ratios measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory here: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt From november 1978 to november 2010 it has increased from 333.76 ppmv to 388.59 ppmv. That's 22% of a doubling. Therefore on face value the data would indicate a climate sensitivity of 2°C (per doubling of CO2). This is at the low end of IPCC projections. However, in 1978/79 the world was just coming out of the mid-century cooling. On top of that, in the first half of this 32 years long period (the satellite era) there were two major volcanic eruptions (El Chichón, 1982 & Pinatubo, 1991), while in the second half of it there was none. Also, with all the clean air acts in Europe & the US (and with the 1989-92 collapse of the Eastern block with its unregulated smokestacks, of course) industrial aerosol emissions are mitigated somewhat during the last three decades. Therefore the actual climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide should be considerably less than 2°C. Simple as a wood wedge.
  31. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Steve @9, It (indirectly) had something to do with the actions of a certain vindictive contrarian/"skeptic".
  32. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    A simple way of explaining the illusion that this winter proves Global Warming wrong is; 85%+ of the world, last year during this season, was warmer than last century while only 15% was cooler than usual. The reason we are colder than normal, in this region of the world, is because the Arctic is giving us all of its coldness while sucking in warm air. It is simply an exchange of energy between the Arctic and those regions directly south of it. I actually carry, in my back pocket, a printout of Roy Spencer's UAH temperature graph and images like the one above just in case I run into someone who makes this argument. One thing to note about these images is the baseline. If it is recent, then the averages will be biased against the actual warming trend. The reason is that the past 35 years have seen marked jumps in GW compared to 1950-1975 which was mostly flatline or slightly cooler. Thus we are comparing a warmer baseline with an even warmer present.
  33. Steven Sullivan at 07:28 AM on 30 December 2010
    Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    why were these posts lost in the first place?
  34. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    @Nederland, follow this link: It's not bad. Check out the Intermediate tab for more info.
  35. It's not bad
    Reply to comment here. Sorry, you'll have to do better than the UK Telegraph. You snagged, out of context, a journalist's interview of a 'campaigner'. If you read the full sentence, he refers to 'resource wars' with large loss of life, not 'global warming killing billions.' Let's set some ground rules, or this will get stupid very quickly: Try looking at the actual research. Avoid misquotes, headlines and sound-bytes. If you want to be taken seriously, that is. Then we'll talk.
  36. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    #52: "use the word hyperbole." Use that word if you like, but provide examples and put them on the 'Its not bad' thread.
  37. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Phila: Thank you for pointing out the etymology of the word hysteria, I was unaware of it. In the future I think I'll use the word hyperbole. Would you find that acceptable?
  38. Temp record is unreliable
    Hi all, I've been hearing a lot about degraded NOAA satellites. Most of what I find on it is from viciously slanted blogs This MSU webpage was pointed out to me. It confirms some degree of difficulties with one or more NOAA satellites that resulted in some distorted thermal images. I'm having trouble finding information on the temporal duration of the issues. I also don't know what data has been affected. Does anyone have an answer to this challenge? Thanks.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] This was addressed by Ned at Great-Lakes-satellite-temperature.
  39. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus @ 43 The Met Office posted a global map of temperature anomalies for Dec 1-20: Notice the warmer than average Western U.S., Greenland and Northeast Canada and colder than average Europe, Eastern U.S. and Alaska.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed link.
  40. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the AGU Fall Meeting
    Dick Veldkamp @ 7 First, I should make it clear that all the comments in the post were mine alone and are not necessarily shared by John Cook. Second, there was a wide range of reactions to Greg's speech and the ensuing panel session. I felt so uncomfortable during the panel session that I had to leave the room (as did James Annan) but other people present at the session did not feel the same way, for example, Steve Easterbrook, felt that Greg's talk was an "effective and challenging counterpoint". Third, this whole affair is not such a big deal, it was just one guy trying to make his pitch on an issue that he obviously cares about but, I think, choosing to set the volume control too high. Last, to use this incident, as some have done, to attack the AGU and its policy of education and public outreach is ridiculous. Let's hope the AGU continues to engage the public, which means that concerned non-scientists should both listen and be listened to.
  41. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    'The Greenland temperature dhogaza cited isn't proof of anything but the blinkered approach of "skeptics" who routinely present cold weather — in winter, in the Northern Hemisphere — as some sort of rebuttal to AGW, while ignoring any measurements they don't like.' Exactly ...
  42. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus: You (unwittingly?) supply the perfect example of "warmist" cherry-picking! One place in Greenland where the forecast is supposed to be proof of global warming... I think you misunderstand (intentionally?) the reference. The Greenland temperature dhogaza cited isn't proof of anything but the blinkered approach of "skeptics" who routinely present cold weather — in winter, in the Northern Hemisphere — as some sort of rebuttal to AGW, while ignoring any measurements they don't like. In reality, of course, AGW theory predicts and explains cold weather and warming climate, so there'd be no need to downplay the former to insist upon the latter, even if we were in an unusually cold winter, which we're not. The situation with "skeptics" is very different, as your comments and HR's demonstrate, IMO.
  43. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    Meaner, with much sharper skills!
  44. Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
    'The "Uncivil War" post from 2007 is most intriguing. In it, a mellower Tamino calls for civility between the sides of the climate debate. Contrast that with the hard edged, Watts-baiting Tamino of today, who abruptly cuts off "skeptics" who comment in his blog, usually with a remark about their meager mental abilities.' You know ... over the last several months I've come close to teasing him about that, because I was one of the obnoxious, impatient people he was telling to cool it and be nice. Now, he's meaner than me...
  45. A Positive Outlook For Clouds
    Eric (skeptic) the paper considers only the summer energy budget. In winter, clouds of any type can just trap heat, no sunlight to reflect back to space.
  46. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    thepoodlebites - You might also find some interesting info on It's Urban Heat Island effect and Temp record is unreliable, or the blog posting Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
  47. It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    thepoodlebites - The quality of the surface temperature records (and for that matter, UAH versus other records) is well discussed on the Are surface temperature records reliable thread.
  48. Klaus Flemløse at 03:00 AM on 30 December 2010
    Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    Urban Heat Island discussion In the following discussion about UHI, I will assume that the world is divided into two parts i.e. Urban Heat Island and non-Urban Heath Islands. This discussion is bases on “a back of an envelope calculation” without use of IT resources. Only simple differential calculus, few assumptions and judgments’ are used in order to calculate the maximum impact of UHI on the global warming. Estimation the share of the UHI out of Earth’s surface The total surface area of the Earth is 510,072,000 km2, land areal 148,940,000 km2 and the ocean area is 361,132,000 km2. From Schneider et al [1] the urban area is estimated from 308,000 km2 to 3,524,000 km2 with the best estimate of 658,760 km2 based on data from the years 2001 - 2002. This means that the share of UHI is in the range from 0.06% to 0.69% with the best estimate 0.12% of the total area. Below I have used 0.12%. The uncertainty about the UHI area originates from the definition of UHI and poor sampling. However Schneider et al [1] has reduced the uncertainty significantly. Discussion In the discussions about UHI, I will point out that an effect may come from two sources. Firstly, it may come from differences in the rate of increase of the temperatures in UHI’s and in non-UHI areas. And secondly, it may come from the increase of the total areal of the Urban Heat Island. If we define alpha(t)= Share of the Urban Heat Islands of total area at time t T1(t)=Temperature of the Urban Heat Islands at time t T2(t)=Temperature of the non-Urban Heat Islands at time t T(t)= Temperature of total surface of the planet at time t, At time t we have T(t)=alpha(t)*T1(t)+(1-alph(t))*T2(t). If alpha(t)=0.0012 and T1(t)=T2(t)+2.0 then T(t)=0.0012*2+T2(t) =0.0024+T2(t) This means, that if the temperature in UHI’s are 2 °C higher that on non-UHI, then the total temperature will be affected only with 0.0024 °C. If alpha(t)=0.05 and T1(t)=T2(t)+2 then T(t)=0.05*2+T2(t) =0.25+T2(t) This means, that if the temperature in UHI’s are 2 °C higher that on non-UHI and the UHI area is 5% of the total area, then the total temperature will be affected only with 0.10 °C. If we want to study the development over time, we have by differentiation that T’(t)=alpa’(t)*(T1(t)- T2(t))+ alpha(t)*T’1(t)+(1-alpha(t))*T’2(t) If alpha’(t)>0, then the rate of increase of the total temperature will be affected by the difference in temperatures between UHI and non-UHI in any case. If alpha’(t)=0, then the rate of increase and the total temperature will be affected only from then differences in the rate of increases in Urban Heat Island and non-Urban Heat Islands. If T1’(t)=T2‘(t) and alpha’(t)=0 then there will be no impact from Urban Heat Islands. What can be said about alpha(t) ? A good guess is that alpha(t) is proportional to an exponential function i.e. alpha(t) = k*exp(β*(t-t0)), where β=0.033 , k=0.0012 and t0 =2001. and alpha’(t)=β*k*exp(β*(t-t0))=β*alpha(t) The constant β is estimated from USA. From 1950 to 2000 the growth of UHI in USA is 400%. This corresponds to an annual rate of increase of 0.033=51/50. This will produce the following expression for T’(t) T’(t)= β*alpha(t) )*(T1(t) - T2(t))+ alpha(t)*T’1(t)+(1-alpha(t))*T’2(t) Assuming that alpha(t)≈0.0012 and β ≈0.033 then alpha’(t) *β≈0.0012*0.033=0.0000396. If T1(t) - T2(t)=2 we then have approximately T’(t)≈0.0000396*2+ alpha(t)*T’1(t)+(1-alpha(t))*T’2(t) =0.0000792+ alpha(t)*T’1(t)+(1-alpha(t))*T’2(t) A good proxy for T’(t)≈ 0.015 °C pr. year and alpha(t)*β/T’(t)=0.0000792/0.15 = 0.52%. If the UHI areas is 5% of the total area, then alpha(t)*β/T’(t)=0.00165000/0.15 = 1.1%. This means that the contribution from the rate of increase of the UHI share is only 0.52% and therefore marginal and if a dramatic increase of the UHI area takes place, then the impact will be 1.1%. This means, that the influence on the total temperature from the increased share of the UHI is insignificant. If we assume that T1’(t)=γ*T2’(t) we have T1(t)=γ*T2(t)+δ, where δ is a constant. This means that the rate of increase of the temperature of UHI’s is proportional to the rate of increase of the temperature outside UHI plus a constant. If γ>1 then the rate of increase of the temperature of UHI’s are larger than the non-UHI’s. This assumption means that we can express T(t) only trough fixed constants and T2(t): T’(t)=β*alpha(t)*((γ-1)*T2(t)+δ)+(1+alpha(t)*(γ-1))*T2’(t) Assuming that alpha(t)≈0.0012, β ≈0.033 , γ≈1.1 and δ=2, then we have approximately that T’(t)≈0.033*0.0012*0.1*T2(t)+(1+0.0012*0.1)*T2(t)=0.00000396*T2(t)+1.00012*T2’(t) So that T’(t) is dominate by the rate of increase of the temperature for the non-UHI area. In the future, where the UHI area could increase significantly as well as the UHI temperatures, the UHI effect on the global temperature will increase. This is however not a proof of that the UHI ‘s have no or a marginal influence on the global temperature. It is only an indication. To improve these remarks, I need a better estimated of the UHI area for the last 50 years as well as the UHI temperatures. Summary: 1. It is unlikely, that higher temperature in UHI ‘s up to now has any influence on the global temperature 2. It is unlikely, that the difference in the rate of increase in the temperature up to now has any significant influence on the global temperature. 3. The definition of urban areas and estimation of the urban area has improved thanks to Schneider et al [1]. 4. In the future it can’t be excluded that the UHI area could have a influence on global warming. Reference: [1] http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/044003/pdf/erl9_4_044003.pdf
  49. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Argus: last 30 day anomaly. If you are interested in learning about the data daily anomaly plots (and 7 day, 30 day, 180 day and 365 day plots are available at NOAA weather site, look for temperature anamolies. Your suggestion that the past month has been cold is wrong. Even a simple eyeball of the data shows much more red than purple. The temperature of the past month is much over average. moderator: my link to the graph is broken. Can you find the problem? thanks.
  50. It's freaking cold!
    Prediction comes true: Pielke Sr comments on Judah Cohen's forecast Aside from picking at semantics within Cohen's NYT piece, Pielke seems to be hemispherically challenged: "the statement ”other frozen areas are shrinking” is correct for Arctic sea ice, it is incorrect for Antarctic sea ice". Err, Cohen's forecast deals specifically with the northern hemisphere. And Pielke informs us: "the oceans have not been warming in recent years" 'Nuff said.

Prev  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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