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. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Hugo, "GWPPT6" is the clearest description of GHG forcing that this scientifically literate non-expert has ever read. Thank you.
  2. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 07:20 AM on 1 January 2011
    It's freaking cold!
    Article from JGR that people might find interesting JGR article I think the reduction of Arctic sea ice may be having an impact on atmospheric circulation.
  3. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    #150: "Temperature causes things, not delta T." Sorry, I just noticed that. Delta T (temperature anomaly) is just the difference between a given measurement and the average for a standardized period; ie, a measure of temperature. A +0.8C deltaT means a higher temperature - which leads to unusual weather events. However, we are looking for the cause of the continuing trend of increasingly positive deltaT; for that, we cannot use cyclical variations. We must have causes that include a largely increasing component. Until the 'natural causes' you want to rely upon can be shown to have that characteristic, they are not part of the story.
  4. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Norman, The Northern Hemisphere snow cover in summer has declined so far that there is little room left for decline. The snow is essentially all gone. I conceed that you are correct that in 1988 there was almost no snow and that the current years are not significantly lower (since it is impossible to go lower than zero). I will also conceed that there is no longer retreat in those glaciers that have completely melted. I do not think that the disappearance of the snow cover in summer means it is not getting warmer. Argue however you want. The data is clear.
  5. Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    Archie and Argus, Argus, I cannot understand why you would blindly follow BP's bizarre reasoning and unsubstantiated claims. OK, own up-- who abducted the good old BP and where is he? Please bring him back, we miss him. UAH (ch 5) data show that December 2010 is going to come in slightly above normal. Anyways, since when did 'skeptics' become obsessed with regional, monthly temperature departures when they fit their ideology? Oh right...never mind ;) Anything to detract from the fact that 2010 is likely going to be the warmest, and almost certainly the second warmest on record. 2009 was the previous second warmest year on record in GISTEMP. It is also lost on Argus that BP is contradicting himself, agreeing that there is a warming trend on another thread, while here claiming that the earth is 'cooling itself' and that global temperatures in December are below average. The contradictory, incoherent and inconsistent arguments made by so-called "skeptics" continues unabated, but thanks to SS, not uncontested.
  6. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Expalain this. Is there a pattern? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Do you see a pattern? Please elaborate more on what your question is, as I don't have enough specifics to go by. Thanks!
  7. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    #150: The reconstruction of UV you cite (Haberreiter 2005) is for the period 1975-2002. It shows peaks in the wavelengths 115-400nm that follow a roughly 11 year cycle ('80, '90 and '01). But the amplitude of these spectral irradiance peaks is a mere 0.004 W m-2 nm-1. To put that in perspective, the TOA peak around 500 nm is 2 W m-2 nm-1. I'm astounded that anyone -- especially the same folks who deride CO2 forcing 3 orders of magnitude higher -- put any credibility in that. The word 'blocking' does not appear in this paper. Then there is the NAO link in #147: The '80 UV peak is NAO negative, the '90 UV peak is NAO positive and the '00-01 peak is in between. To go two steps further, summer '03 NAO is near zero, summer '10 NAO is big negative. What is the correlation between UV, NAO and blocking? Isn't it a stretch to even consider this relationship 'crude'?
  8. NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Eric, Anything but GHGs eh? The UV hypothesis may well be a valid one, but correlations is not causation, especially in the absence of a credible and physical mechanism. Anyhow, what you say does not change the fact that record highs, at least in the USA, are being broken twice as often as record lows. The planet is warming, and heat waves are on the increase. The actual point of me including Trenberth's quote is that every weather event now has both a natural and anthropogenic component. You just agreed to that--and there is no way that what he says applies only to WV. These extreme events do not happen in isolation form the rest of the climate system, it is a continuum. So if one does have a major blocking event in the summer, especially over a large land mass, there will be an anthropogenic signal/component superimposed on that because of the underlying long-term warming trend, which is going to exacerbate the situation. Worse still, the higher night time minima (an AGW fingerprint) reduce the time people have a respite from the heat stress, and that too makes matters worse. There is also something called the "Humidex", and as Trenberth noted (and you agree), there is more moisture out there, which can also potentially increase the apparent temperatures. Now as to exactly what causes blocking events to happen where and when they do, well now that is an interesting area of research.
  9. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Here is Monckton's explanation of his membership, from the footnotes in Wikipedia: The House of Lords has firmly rejected Monckton's explanation, and I suspect they're a bit more knowledgeable about their rules of membership than he is. It suddenly strikes me that Monckton is basically the person many "skeptics" accuse Al Gore of being. The tireless self-promotion, the baseless claims to have invented this or that, the overheated alarmist rhetoric, the padded resume, the unconcealed elitism and snobbery...Monckton is the hard-right caricature version of Gore in the flesh, and far too many "skeptics" seem to love him for it. Or they did, anyway. He doesn't seem to get the respect he used to, thank heavens.
  10. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Given that the 'skeptics' are too lazy to actually back up their assertions with some numbers and to crunch some numbers, I have done it for you. Mean N.Hemi snow cover extent (SCE; data from Rutgers) for March-May (Boreal Spring) is not explained by a simple linear model (the fit is not statistically significant, with R^2 =0.01). The cherry-picked data are, as predicted, explained pretty well (R^2 = 0.345) by a quadratic function, with an inflection point in 1998. So, "skeptics", please allow us then to pick 1998 as the start point for a rapid decline in N. Hemi. SCE? ;)
  11. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Billj, The graph is a schematic. With that said, the baseline typically used for global SATs is 1951-1980--of course the window used does not affect the long-term trend. My take of these data is that they obviously are intended to reflect the warming that has been observed during the instrumented record, say circa 1850 (HadCRUT) or 1880 GISTEMP.
  12. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Baseline for changes is readily accepted in other scientific disciplines.I would have thought that a simple annotation to the graphic would make the point of this post really clear.I'm surprised by the lack of this data here and the rather childish response of 'go look for it somewhere else'.
  13. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Billj, That information is readily available. Newcomers, start here What is the basis for presuming there was an optimum decade?
  14. Eric (skeptic) at 05:27 AM on 1 January 2011
    NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
    Albatross, yes, and that canyon just got wider. I presented real world data which shows a correlation (albeit imperfect) between the external UV and one internal measurement of blocking. Your response is that a probability distribution from a model can be used as a likelihood estimator. That is a huge difference in how we are deriving attribution and a big difference in understanding of statistical attribution (from measurements versus assumptions). The Stott powerpoint says "Human influence has very likely at least doubled the risk of European summer temperatures as hot as 2003". The "very likely" seems to come from the statement that "most of the observed increase in GAT is very likely due to the observed increase in AGG". Next, we need to find a connection from the observed increase in GAT to the blocking pattern in 2003. There is obviously no such connection as GAT is not an input to any process in any model (it is derived from model results only). The model output probability distributions are entirely dependent on input variable distributions and model dynamics and I have seen no indication that model results of blocking events are validated. In fact they tend to underestimate blocking which indicates missing factors such as solar UV that I pointed out. http://www.springerlink.com/index/RDQ5DJ9LQAGPE7LB.pdf (an old study). I agree with Trenberth, the extra water vapor is going to have a big effect, but it doesn't relate to the blocking patterns we are talking about.
  15. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Norman why cherry-pick 1988? What is so special about that particular year, are we missing something? Why not look at all the data? Well, a quick inspection of the data betrays your intent. Anyhow, N. Hemi. snow cover in the warm season is decreasing, stop trying to claim otherwise by eye-balling and cherry-picking. It didn't work with SATs and 1998, and it is not going to work now. PS: Actually, I bet that if you cherry pick 1988, a quadratic will give you the best fit (vs linear), with an inflection point around 1996.
  16. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    in science when you report an increase or a decrease, you would normally be required to state 'from when', at least in my experience ?
  17. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    Here is Monckton's explanation of his membership, from the footnotes in Wikipedia: Monckton, Christopher (2020-07-15). "Questions from the Select Committee Concerning My Recent Testimony". Science & Public Policy Institute. Monckton said: "The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise."
  18. The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
    memoryvault: 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. It's very easy to wallow in sarcasm, and to treat people who are going out of their way to make demonstrably false claims as somehow "daring" (or better yet, "oppressed," no matter how big their megaphone is). It's very easy to say "I doubt it," and when presented with facts, say it again and again, louder and louder. What's more difficult is making a coherent scientific argument for "cooling," and backing it up with plenty of solid, non-manipulated evidence. My guess is that if you were capable of doing this, you wouldn't be wasting your time and ours with childish sarcasm of this sort. Feel free to prove me wrong (on the correct thread, please).
  19. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Bibliovermis (51): the Optimal Decade gambit is clearly a straw-man, logic-fail argument.
  20. 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?
  21. 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?
  22. The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single graphic
    Why should there have been an optimum decade?
  23. 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!
  24. 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.
  25. 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?
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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).
  29. 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.”
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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..
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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 ?
  40. 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.
  41. 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
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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!
  46. 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?
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.

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