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  2142  2143  2144  2145  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  Next

Comments 107451 to 107500:

  1. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    BP - Albatross has provided a better explanation than you could hope for in the explanation of your stomatal paper link. cynicus' last comment is distinctly relevant. You have to be very creful when you base your whole argument on cherry-picked sections of a single dataset, especially if you do not consider the uncertainties or come to the same conclusions as the authors. But what it ultimately comes down to is the fact that every climate change requires a forcing, and to date there is no coherent evidence for large internal variations in climate, let alone large internal variation that just so happen to occur when we are forcing the climate which a factor that even at the low end ought to produce substantial warming.
  2. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    You have yet to explain why anthropogenic heat flux does not radiate from the planet. Your analogies, the train & the orange grove, are flawed in that they assume a unchanging emission rate. This assumption is not valid when discussing a radiating body, e.g. the planet. Outer space is not saturated with energy.
  3. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Bibliovermis #257 As an analogy, situate yourself at an orange grove that takes in oranges for packing and export from other groves in the vicinity. (This represents heat input and output from the Sun.) Every year, 100,000 oranges are brought in from surrounding groves, and 100,000 oranges are shipped to other locales. Not a single orange is left over. BUT! Since the grove began, 100 trees have begun to produce fruit. They are leaving 5000 oranges which either have to ship or rot. The market is saturated, so the oranges are not shipping, however, since the quality of what is coming in from other groves never was really perfect, some of what grows in the local grove does go out. However the 5000 surplus that cant sell remains in the grove. These are not necessarily oranges that grow in the grove, but at any rate 5000 oranges are now added to a rotting pile every year. This represents global warming.
  4. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Albatross, you write "Anyhow, here is a paper on polar amplification using the ERA-interim data." Look, There is no doubt that polar amplification happens. But this polar amplification happened around 1925-45 too - before humans CO2 emissions exploded - and there fore I think it is relevant to compare todays Arctic conditions with the almosr "human-CO2-free" period 1925-45 with todays conditions. For instance, the 20 year period 1990-2010 has NOT yet reached an average temperature on Greenland that matches the average temperature on Greenland 1925-45. 1925-45 was warmer than 1990-2010 on greenland. And yet some scientists screeeeeems about the warm Greenland. And the present ice melt as though heat in 1925-45 did not melt ice. But Albatross, perhaps you think that because of the polar amplification, then there physically cannot be an area 80N-90N that is cooling one degree Celsius while far larger areas of the Arctic warms several degrees in the summer. As I wrote: I dont know. But I think its obvious that the areas of Ice retreat that has suddenly open waters releasing heat directly op in the air must have a far warmer trend than the ice coveres areas, for example 80N-90N. And all over the world, there has been more precipitation in later years (perhaps due to Solar minimum + warmer temperatures) and more precipitation in the Arctic ONLY has an albedo/cooling effect in areas with no open waters like 80N-90N. But buttom line: I just presented the data, and then you can considder them or not, its a free world :-) K.R. Frank
  5. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    e at 05:16 AM on 22 October, 2010 No, energy distribution plays a massive role in climate, that is all the malankovitch cycles do... the younger dryas episode is believed to be the direct result of the slow down of oceanic energy transport. These things matter, and would need to be quantified to calculate sensitivity. I would hate to think what the inferred sensitivity would be using this method on the holocene climate optimum... Or the massive negative feedback inferred from the younger dryas... Ok so we can calculate malancovitch cycles effect through changes in solar distribution, how about the oceans? So currents are going to be driven by variable salinity and energetic state, and atmospheric interaction, driven by variable convection, with pressure systems being affected by stratospheric interactions with variable UV... Its not a case o co2 is this, there fore the average T is thus.. you need to know how the energy is being distributed around the globe, and whether this is affecting the inferred climate of the reconstructions. You need to know all the variables.
  6. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    # 76 FLansner "Very significant dive" should be presented as a trend estimate with uncertainty, and maybe also t-value. So what is the trend (and uncertainty) in the DMI summer data since 1991? If the time series is online I could easily do this. And actually, if I understand you correct, the trend was positive until 1991, and negative since 1991. I.e. there is a changepoint. Is that changepoint statistically significant?
  7. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, Please explain how anthropogenic heat flux is different than solar heat flux. Why will AHF build up rather than radiating away from the planet?
  8. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, We are not "adding energy" by burning fossil fuels, we are temporarily slowing the rate at which energy is released into space, causing a build up of heat.
  9. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    KR you write: "Your narrow focus on summer implies some incorrect conclusions - that Arctic temps are declining, that the icecap isn't shrinking." No i certainly dont. The icecap HAS been shrinking, obviosuly, and the shrinking icecap has opened waters that has to be accompanied by heat released to the atmosphere and thus warmer temperatures in large areas. I wrote exactly about the ice covered area 80N-90N in the melt season, no more no less. NO ONE can say that the Arctic ice cap hasnt been shrinking. (honestly, its only some of you alarmist that for some reason reads my words that way, as far as I have seen). K.R. Frank
  10. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, Please try and understand what is being explained to you. Waste heat is released at a constant rate, it is included as part of the equilibrium input and output. When we are at equilibrium, then that means every unit of energy added by waste heat each year is being output into space. This is the definition of equilibrium, energy in equals energy out. There is no "excess" energy anywhere in the equation. If we increase the annual rate of waste heat release, then in the short term yes energy accumulates. The reason for this is it takes time for equilibrium to be restored. But restore it shall, and once it does energy once again stops accumulating. The reason waste heat doesn't add much to the equation is because the rate isn't growing; it's relatively constant so the earth has had plenty of time to reach equilibrium with respect to waste heat. The analogy to the train is off-base. Imagine instead a train that automatically grows or shrinks itself depending on how many get on or off. This is how thermal equilibrium works. Just keep these two critical concepts in your mind when you think about this: 1. In the long term, energy in MUST equal energy out (waste heat counts as energy in BTW). 2. The rate of thermal radiation is directly proportional to temperature. The faster you heat you add to an object, the faster it radiates that heat.
  11. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Energy FROM THE SUN comes in. Energy FROM THE SUN goes out. Add some "CARBONATED" energy from dead dinosaurs for 200 years and you get global warming my friend.
  12. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    "archiesteel at 03:56 AM on 22 October, 2010 @FLansner: define "very significant dive," please, then compare that to the annual temperature increase rate." Archiesteel: The summer temperatures 80-90N in 1991 was at all time highest since 1958. there after ther summer temperatures trended down to all time minimum 2010. So the trend dive is the largest possible for this data type. What more do you want? Then some of you guys compare the oscillations in summer melt temperatures with the HUGE oscillations that occur when we have much colder temperatures. Obviously temperatures are kept within a small margin when we have melting consitions in summer time, so to compare just like that with the big oscillations for - 20, 30, 40 Ceisius nonsense. The years back to 1958 shows what oscillations we normally see under melt conditions, and the dive 1991-2010 is as big as anyone could possiblly demand (!!!!!!) Its so funny, all the time we hear you warmies say we have to focus on SUMMER conditions in the Arctic, but then a data set comes by that tells a colder story for the 80N-90N area in summer time. And bingo, you demand FULL YEAR FULL YEAR. You may not see the humor, but I do :-) K.R, Frank
  13. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Energy comes in. Energy goes out. When the energy coming in equals the energy going out, equilibrium is reached. Equilibrium does not mean no outgoing radiation.
  14. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Bibliovermis "The energy does not remain present in the planetary climate. It radiates out from the planet into space" When the train leaves, and all the seats are taken, you cant get on the train. The hockey stick handle was flat. This implies equilibrium. Any excess energy is excess energy and WILL accumulate. End of story.
  15. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, A value can only be integrated if it remains in the system. Your steadfast refusal to acknowledge that anthropogenic heat flux radiates out from the planet does not change the reality of the situation.
  16. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Hopefully someday, a paper will be passed around with my idea so you can come into the constructive "fold". Usually found on a roll, sometimes folded, sometimes crumpled, never "passed around."
  17. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLansner at 20:27 PM on 21 October, 2010 If the moderators will forgive a small diversion on UHI: See chart below on Central England Temperature trend compared with "rural" Armagh temperature trend. Since 1900 the measured 100yr temperature trends are indistinguishable, which casts doubt on claims on some skeptical websites that UHI may have affected the Central England record. These same websites suggest Armagh is unaffected by UHI.
  18. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    @RSVP: yes, it *is* consistent. I'm not saying you should stop posting, I'm simply wondering why you said you'd stop posting, and then continued. Since you are so obviously continuing, then I would like a link to that map. @Bibliovermis: yes, he is being obtuse. That's his schtick.
  19. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    KR #242 "You do understand that the AWH is 1% of the forcings from greenhouse gases" I dare not say, "et tu Brut?" but here we are again. As I asked CBDunkerson. How do you rationale the destruction of this .01 value integrated over 200 years? Multiply 200 by .01, and you get 2.
  20. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse? The energy does not remain present in the planetary climate. It radiates out from the planet into space.
  21. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    CBDunkerson 241 "If I light a match the energy released by that action does NOT remain present in the climate system for the next 50 years. Indeed, it won't even last the day." I was taught that you cant destroy energy, neither with words or wishful thinking. There are two kinds of people. Those that think and those that point to a committee signing off agreement on papers they never read. Hopefully someday, a paper will be passed around with my idea so you can come into the constructive "fold".
  22. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLansner at 03:30 AM on 22 October, 2010 In the DMI data, the ERA-40 data series stops in late 2002. It is replaced by an operational model with slightly higher resolution, T511. There are two more subsequent changes to newer models, the most recent in Jan 2010. These changes are discussed briefly in the advanced article. Here is a zoomed plot of the actual ERA-40 and T511 model data from DMI in the overlap period of Summer 2002. There is a small bias difference. This will cause a small downwards step in the "Summer values above zero degrees C" (zero is dotted line) in 2002. I do not have overlap data for the other transitions. This is one possible cause of small changes in Summer values at around this time.
  23. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    In response to BP and Albatross I'm reading a follow up paper from the same authors: Van Hoof et al 2008. I still notice a +/- 10 to 20ppm difference at times between the ice core and stomata data which the paper partly blames on smoothing of the ice core data. The authors also argue for a larger role and acceptance of stomata proxies as a decadal to millenial resolution proxy by the IPCC. They appoint the 13th century increase to massive forest clearing in Europe and the 14th century decrease to reduced human activity after the black death outbreak. Antropogenic changes as such. They then note (which will please BP so he can claim 'bad data'): The presence of high-amplitude CO2 fluctuations as documented by stomatal frequency studies may falsify the IPCC concept that preindustrial temperature variability is constrained by relatively stable atmospheric CO2 levels. But, hold on, don't get exited yet... They also note: A higher degree of CO2 variability during the last millennium must have resulted in a more prominent role for CO2 as a forcing factor of air-temperature changes. So BP's victory over the flatness of the ice core CO2 records is of the Pyrrhic kind which fits perfectly to this threads subject: "Do critics of the of ice core CO2 records realise what they're arguing for?"
  24. Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
    JohnD is confusing radiation, radiation forcing and feedback. Solar radiation is not a forcing. Change in solar radiation is a forcing. In other words, if the average solar radiation was the same year after year (it is easy to understand it is location and season dependent) the climate would not change. Forcings by definition are changes not derived from the climate system. Feedbacks by definition are changes derived from the climate system. CO2 increase today is not due to climate, but burning carbon, hence is a forcing. The average increase in water comes about from the changed climate.
  25. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP - Sorry, my link to TOA radiative decreases should be Harries 2001; I had snagged the wrong reference. This is further confirmed as on Is the CO2 effect saturated; namely Griggs 2004 and Chen 2007. It's not waste heat.
  26. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    pm, Personally I don't find hand-waving over "natural internal oscillations" particularly convincing. Whether it technically counts as a "forcing" or not is somewhat beside the point. If the temperature is changing then there must be some underlying physical process responsible for the change. If the MWP was warmer than it is today, then there are two ways this can be squared with current knowledge: a) Sensitivity to known forcings is higher than predicted. b) Some as yet unknown or misunderstood physical process is responsible for the MWP and LIA Most skeptics obsessed with the MWP seem convinced that option b is automatically implied by a warmer than expected MWP. In reality, the only convincing evidence of option b would be a explanation of what this mysterious process is exactly combined with robust empirical evidence that it functions as hypothesized. I have yet to see a single skeptic scientist provide anything close to this. Given the fact that known forcings already recreate the general shape of the temperature trend (the MWP and LIA), option a would fit better with the current evidence.
  27. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Come to think of it, this issue reminds me of the choice of whether to buy a large or small pizza. Purveyors of pizza have good reasons to flog small pies while purchasers should give serious consideration to larger sizes. Use method acting to play both roles while imagining you're also Euclid. In this case, leaving aside the "value proposition" of an 8" versus 16" pie, we're not even sure how much cheese or sauce we're getting. Caveat emptor.
  28. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Sorry about the broken link. I'll try again. Judith Curry makes an interesting statement in the comments over at her place “This argument about strong MWP and LI implying strong sensitivity drives me nuts. It implies that the MWP and LI are forced. If they are natural internal oscillations, then this would imply lower sensitivity to CO2.” She promises a series on climate sensitivity next year. Paul
  29. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Frank @68, Whoosh, look at those goal posts move. You mention the ERA-reanalysis data. Actually the ERA-interim is superior to the ERA-40. Anyhow, here is a paper on polar amplification using the ERA-interim data. Their Fig. 1c shows a warming trend North of the Arctic circle for summers between 1989 and 2008 (trends significant at the 99% confidence level), with a peak warming trend near 80 N. You can also find a discussion here on SS. A previous study by Graversen et al. (2008) looked at ERA-40 data over the Arctic between 1979 and 2001. They too found a warming trend over the high Arctic in the summer months (see their Fig. 1c) over that time. Bekryaev et al. (2010) looked at temperature data poleward of 60 N and calculated trends by season and annually. Here is what they found: Trends from 1959-2008 (C/decade)north of 59 N: Annual: +0.364 Winter: +0.381 Spring: +0.467 Summer: +0.234 N. Hemisphere annual: +0.232 Also look at their Fig. 6 for trends in temperatures in the latitude band 65-75 N since circa 1958. Is the rate of warming during the JJA period over the Arctic slower than observed for the other seasons? Yes, no argument there. But the data from multiple sources agree that there has most definitely not been a cooling trend during the summer as you keeping trying to mislead people into thinking. Why do you choose to ignore the data for the rest of the year Frank, and ignore the rate of change in annual temperatures over the Arctic? I think I know why-- but John or the moderator would probably not let my post through.
  30. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    @RSVP: I too am waiting for that map showing how UHI effects "trail away" from cities. Also, I'd like to know why you've come back on your word: "I have tried here to help, but cannot afford to spend time writing things that get deleted. So this is my very last post." Why are you still posting?
  31. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hmmm. I've not really had a dog in this fight, but on the one hand I see what might be an increase of temperature in some slice of the atmosphere in the upper 10 degrees of latitude of the Arctic, on the other a massive, extended plunge in volume and extent of Arctic sea ice. From a scientific perspective, the DMI data for summer seems quite interesting but from another it seems quite irrelevant. This tension is evident in WUWT's treatment of the summer DMI data, where a failed attempt is made to change everything we know about successive melt seasons so as to be coherent with the DMI data. The struggle to do this leads to depressingly familiar dark mutterings about "adjustments," etc Also, somebody's probably already pointed this out but purely as a matter of geometry it's worth thinking about how the area of the upper 10 degrees of latitude compares with the roughly 24 degrees remaining before hitting the Arctic Circle.
  32. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLasner - The problem is that you are focusing on only the summer temperatures, which are clipped to just above 0 degrees C by the presence of ice, while ignoring the rise in average yearly temperatures. The summer temps in the DMI model and data have indeed varied a little, and do show a slight decline. In my opinion this may be partly to natural variability, partly due to the model change DMI underwent. But with the average temps going up at 0.376 degrees/decade (see Fig. 2 at the top of the page), and minimum temps rising at about the same rate, the summer melt season is increasing in duration, and total melt is increasing as well. Your narrow focus on summer implies some incorrect conclusions - that Arctic temps are declining, that the icecap isn't shrinking. This turns into the Hasty Generalization, or Argument By Generalization logical error. Not surprisingly, this implication is popular on WUWT. Neither is true - the icecap is shrinking, Arctic temps are rising twice as fast as global temps. And the ~0.06 deg. C/decade decline in summer peak temperatures you spend so much attention upon makes very little difference overall. If you are surprised by the incorrect conclusions people might draw from your article, well, they've now been pointed out to you by a number of people. If you intentionally focused on a small part of the data to convey those impressions, your article was intentionally misleading - I sincerely hope that wasn't the case.
  33. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    @FLansner: define "very significant dive," please, then compare that to the annual temperature increase rate. Or, you know, you could check out Figure 2 in the article above. Simply put: the summertime cooling is *dwarfed* by the annual warming. Please acknowledge this before continuing the discussion any further. Let me put this in another way: why are you so focused on summer temperatures?
  34. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Thanks but no thanks, RSVP. I can't join you in your little sphere, there's not enough room to squeeze in beside the wrongness. Presuming that the database used for maintaining this site is using the generic MySQL integer for the comment count, you've got most of 2147483648 spaces available for continued reverberation of your intransigence. Do carry on here, but without me.
  35. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Albatros, the ERA-40 is as far as I can see one of the absolutely largest collections of data, quite impressing. And i showed that DMI data including ERA-40 for the melting season showed a very significant dive 1991-2010. Then you just continue saying that the annual trends shows something else. I know, i never said anything about the anual trend. many of you guys are very interested in Arctic SUMMER conditions, but in this case we suddenly cant talk about summer cponditions in the Arctic. Not a veru interesting dialog, honestly. K.R. Frank
  36. Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
    Stephen Baines at 14:14 PM, this chart gives an indication of the absorption of solar radiation in water, about 13% of the total having been absorbed in the first 1mm.
  37. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Flanser, ""I dint know exactly the answers, I just know, that the only data actually taken in the area shows decline in temperature." Now you seem to be talking about observations ("data actually taken in the area"). Bekryaev et al. (2010), would also vehemently disagree with you. See the main post above for the link. Oh, and yet again, what archiesteel said @ 66.
  38. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    @FLansner: "I dint know exactly the answers, I just know, that the only data actually taken in the area shows decline in temperature." It doesn't. In fact, it shows temperatures have risen at about twice the global rate. This is according to the DMI data and the DMI's own evaluation of their data.
  39. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
    Dear me, transjasmine : so many misunderstandings in such a short post. Please look at these links to skeptical 'arguments' before you go any further : Climate's Changed Before It's Not Bad It's a 1500 Year Cycle We're Coming Out Of The Little Ice Age Medieval Warm Period Was Warmer It's Not Us It's The Sun It's Cosmic Rays Mars Is Warming Other Planets Are Warming There's No Empirical Evidence Neptune Is Warming Jupiter Is Warming Pluto Is Warming Solar Length Cycle Proves It's The Sun The Sun Is Getting Hotter Solar Cycles Cause Global Warming It's Global Brightening CO2 Lags Temperature It's The Ocean CO2 Is Coming From The Ocean Warming Causes CO2 Rise Hope that helps.
  40. It's the sun
    @KL: It's not about being knowledgeable, it's about making a cogent argument. Even after all these messages I still don't get what you're driving at. Talk about a colossal waste of time...
  41. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
    Re: transjasmine (65) Welcome to Skeptical Science! In all honesty, the majority of your comment shows a lack of understanding of the physical processes of our planet and its temperature control system. That's not intended as a slam, just an observation. We all start at one point lacking an understanding of things. It is the hallmark of sentience to acknowledge that lack and seek to redress it. As I'm sure you will. For a greater understanding, I would suggest investigating the following: 1. Start here, find your level of interest and understanding and increase it. 2. Read Spencer Weart's History of the Discovery of Global Warming. 3. Watch Richard Alley's talk on how CO2 functions as the global temperature control knob. When you have questions, and you will, come back here & look in the upper left corner of the page to find the Search function. Search for an appropriate thread post for your answers to your questions. If you don't find an answer or an appropriate thread, pick the closest or most appropriate thread and post your question there. Someone will help you at that point. The Yooper
  42. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLanser, Could you please stay on topic (i.e., please go to the appropriate thread to discuss your UHI hypotheses)and tell us whether or not you disagree with this statement made by Peter Hogarth derived using the same DMI data: "Thus the reality is that the annual average Arctic surface temperature as indicated by DMI has risen at rates [0.376 C/decade] around twice the global average over the past 50 years, which is entirely consistent with other Arctic data sets, including the data from GISS." I agree with Hogarth when he says "The Lansner article is thus misleading." I would add, "grossly misleading". Might I politely also suggest to you the following: "The Arctic is warming, accept it and move on"
  43. It's the sun
    @Ken >- I have said that the two main positive forcings add together - F.Solar a linear function - and F.CO2 a squared function. It all depends on the magnitude of the forcings and the elapsed time - ie the area under the curves. Taking the area under the curves ignores the tendency of the system towards thermal equilibrium. A flat forcing does not produce a linear increase in the net energy of the system, since the energy emitted by the system also rises proportionally to the energy absorbed. What it will produce is an increase with its slope tapering towards zero. Now the operative question is: how long does the system take to reach equilibrium given a flat forcing? This question (and the general claim you are making) was addressed in one of John's posts a while back. In short, there is no evidence that the flat solar trends are having a significant influence on recent temperature increases. >in fact all charts show increasing temperatures since 1850. No they don't. Temperatures were stable if not cooling slightly from 1850-1915. I believe what you are thinking of are charts showing overall temperature increase from 1850 to today, not the actual trends during those particular decades.
  44. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Albatros, you write “There is no reason to believe that there would be some rapid change or discontinuity in the temperature anomalies north of 82.5 N” I wont judge that, maybe you are correct, maybe not, I am humble to other natures surprises. I just present data, and when data - like you indicate – does not meet expectations, it is as though some people think it is wrong of me to even present data. Lets get one thing straight: in large areas of the Arctic a bit longer south has been still more ice free and thus the open waters obviously has a huge impact on the temperatures in these areas. The open water effect is not directly happening still in the 80N-90N area, and so, some kind of difference is not that surprising. IF or example solar low activity leads to more cloud formation and thus perhaps more fresh snow on the remaining ice 80N-90N or some other effect should lead to more snow, well then we would have a situation where the 80N-90N locally would get a little colder. But this is PURE speculation, fictive examples of how nature sometimes can surprise us. I dint know exactly the answers, I just know, that the only data actually taken in the area shows decline in temperature. I would wish for a little more humility and scientific curiosity towards these data :-) Got to go, ill be back .. K.R. Frank Lansner
  45. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    BP @61, "Stop propagating this miserable myth, please. It's the onboard sensors that are not calibrated against external sources. However, they do not measure atmospheric temperatures, but radiances in several narrow em radiation bands." Thanks, but I do not need to be lectured by you BP. I know very well that the AMSUs on board the satellites measure radiances from layers in the atmosphere. And from Roy Spencer's web-site: "Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer record of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch." Also, isn't it odd that Lansner here is trying to argue that the recent "divergence" over land between lower tropospheric temperatures derived from AMSU data is evidence of UHI effect contaminating the SAT records-- that is that the MSU data are not affected by the UHI/SATs. The incoherence and contradictory nature of the arguments used by "skeptics" continues. Regardless, despite all your objections BP, there is excellent correspondence between the satellite-derived temperatures (RSS) and those from radiosondes, see Fig. 12 here. If you think that you know more than Dr. Roy Spencer and the RSS team on this. Please go ahead and argue with them rather than lecturing us. Also, according to you BP the surface data are not to be trusted, nor are the temperatures derived using the MSU and AMSU data. Do you trust temperature trends from the GUAN BP? The Arctic is warming, accept it and move on. PS: If the radiance data from satellites is so unreliable, why then has their assimilation been shown to improve NWP forecasts? See here for examples, and more here. More information on TOVS here. So when you are done arguing with Spencer, please argue with the leading meteorological agencies around the world that they are wasting their time using the AMSU-derived temperatures.
  46. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
    you seem to forget that there have been periods in history much warmer than today with no adverse effects, there have also been periods much much cooler than today, two examples: medieval warm period, the little ice age. warming and cooling are a trend, as for co2 it tends to rise with increased solar activity which you can see not just on our planet, the sun burns hotter, we receive more heat, our ice begins to melt, same thing happens on Mars which is further from the sun, i find it hard to believe our SUV's are causing the ice on Mars and moons of Jupiter to melt. most of the earth's Co2 is in the sea, with increased temperature comes more evaporation allowing more co2 in to the atmosphere.
  47. There is no consensus
    Roger #247: Solar and wind prices are declining while fossil fuel prices are increasing. If we assume these trends will continue then the cost of solar or wind power with an assumed 30 year lifespan is actually ALREADY lower than the cost of a fossil fuel plant (yes, even coal) with an assumed 30 year lifespan and the average projected cost of coal over those 30 years. The point at which the CURRENT price of solar and wind is lower than the CURRENT price of coal for most of the world (it already is in some places, e.g. Hawaii) is still a decade or so off, but since we know the price of coal will rise (as you yourself argue) waiting until that point is short-sighted. "CO2 is at 390 ppmv now and could easily be at 500 ppmv before coal even peaks. Experts say CO2 must be pushed back to 350 ppmv to be safe. Green thinking won't get us there; only downsizing will." Another complete falsity. You could end all human industry and indeed kill off the entire human race and that wouldn't cause the atmospheric CO2 level to drop from the current 390 ppm down to 350 ppm any faster than switching over to 100% nuclear and renewable power. As to BP's 'renewable uses up too much land' argument... in addition to already mentioned offshore wind and space based solar there are; high altitude wind, geothermal, hydropower, tidal, ocean heat flux, and simply citing wind and solar on 'dual use' land... e.g. wind in cornfields and solar over parking lots - more than enough available land.
  48. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi Skeptical science! Response to your response above: I then followed your link and see that you still use London and the suburbs from the big UHI region in Southern England. So still, when I start reading your UHI examples, I get the feeling that the writers either has no idea about ehat UHI is or that something else is wrong. Then I sea your graphic from the China. Heres the Jones China Article: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009916.shtml Quote: "Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004" So UHI just from 1951 to 200 is around + 0,53 K . Please explain why this strong UHI does not appear from you China graphic? And why this "UHI-exmaple" from London is still there ;-) K.R. Frank Lansner
  49. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP - You do understand that the AWH is 1% of the forcings from greenhouse gases; at least, that has been pointed out repeatedly both in the topic post and in many replies made to your theories. It's way too small to be the driver of global warming. But you seem unconvinced. I'd like you to consider the following theorized causes and their effects: (1) Your theory; global warming is due to accumulated anthropogenic heat flux. Energy over and above the equilibrium solar input is being added at the bottom of the atmosphere. Results: temperatures rise, and top of atmosphere (TOA) radiation increases since we're now warmer than solar equilibrium. (2) Greenhouse gases accumulate, decreasing the emissive spectra of the Earth. This produces an imbalance at TOA; more solar energy enters than thermal energy leaves. Results: temperatures rise, and TOA radiation decreases until a new equilibrium is reached. Now what does the evidence show? Take a look at 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change, point 6, in particular Evans 2006. TOA radiation from the Earth has decreased, clearly fingerprinting a greenhouse gas change, and contradicting the waste heat theory.
  50. It's the sun
    KL #708 I should have prefixed this with 'the energy from" "I have not ignored the theoretical contribution of F.CO2 - I have said that the two main positive forcings add together - F.Solar a linear function - and F.CO2 a squared function. It all depends on the magnitude of the forcings and the elapsed time - ie the area under the curves."

Prev  2142  2143  2144  2145  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2025 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us