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  2144  2145  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  Next

Comments 107551 to 107600:

  1. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP, The US Supreme court, with a strong majority of conservative justices, ruled that the science is overwhelming and CO2 is a pollutant. If you want to be taken seriously you need to document your objections to the supreme court ruling. Your argument of "I don't think so" is a waste of space. If you cannot document your objections with facts you need to take your anger over to WUWT where they will agree with you. You have spent too much time on this web site to blithely deny the hazards of uncontrolled temperature increase.
  2. An underwater hockey stick
    Not to butt in, but the article above is talking about a comparatively tiny area of water in a restricted basin, not hemispheric-scale warming. Just so everybody's on the same page, figure 1 from the article, showing the area of interest:
  3. The value of coherence in science
    John... Ah. I missed your post at the very top regarding Taylor Dome. But again, here, I would suggest that you're not exploring the situation any further than where it confirms your expected result (confirmation bias). If you add current CO2 rise and Greenland temperature records since 1970 I think you're going to see a very very different picture. CO2 level, obviously have gone from 285 to 390. That's going to put a sharp dogleg in that line. Then the temperature since 1970 (according to the data I've seen) has risen maybe another 1.5C. The chart you've created on your Taylor dome page relies heavy on the scaling of each X axis to get the effect you want. Once you add the current CO2 levels and temps into that chart you're going to have to rework the axes. I think that will give a more rational perspective between the two lines.
    Moderator Response: This discussion is getting specific enough that I think it belongs in another thread. How about There's No Correlation Between CO2 and Temperature?
  4. An underwater hockey stick
    CBDunkerson at 04:39 AM No, i was talking about hemispherical records, and in light of the amount o energy it would take to raise water at 400m 1.7K from radiative heating at the surface above its location, is utterly ridiculous.(thus the reason i assumed you were mixing up temperature with energy) And i was kinda hoping you would follow the link backs, to realize that the ocean temp profiles are logarithmic... There is nothing ive seen on SoD i disagree with, its an excellent site. I have no problem with back radiation, with decreasing entropy however... As to the paper, read it.
  5. The value of coherence in science
    John... When I look at your header graphic "isn't perfect" is not the description that comes to my mind. You've drawn a pointer to the start of the 20th century and labeled it as if it were NOW. "Highly misleading" would be a much more apt phrase. I would suggest that if you actually did add the instrumental data (not global averages because that's not what GISP-2 is measuring) for Greenland you'd see something on the line of 2C warming since the end of that chart. Is that confusing, as you say, or is it inconvenient to the message you're trying to deliver? It would also be decidedly UNscientific to dump that data because it doesn't fit your selected conclusion and try to find other data that does. I'm looking at the Taylor Dome data right now and I'm not finding temperature data. I'd be interested where the conclusion comes from that Taylor dome shows comparable results. None of this is personal. I'm very confident that you are an intelligent person and a very good chemical engineer. In your photo you look like a someone with whom I'd enjoy downing a few pints at the local pub. But I find this to be a case where you are crossing into a field of expertise outside of your own.
  6. The value of coherence in science
    TIS, What is so confusing about this graphic? It can and has been done. In contrast, the inset in the linked graphic is misleading because it does not tell the whole picture. Neither does the header on your page. In fact, when complete the data tell a very different story. As far as I can determine, the header for this site is not intended to be taken seriously. Either way, it is not presenting data as yours is. Altogether a different story.
  7. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 08:22 AM on 7 October 2010
    The value of coherence in science
    @Rob, Good eye on the header. The GISP-2 ends about 100 years ago. The person who did the website put it all together after sorting through bunches of graphs and pictures. I like the look, but I agree it isn't... precise. To be fair, this site shows a plant growing through an ice sheet. I did make sure to post the link to the data. I did consider adding instrument data in a different color, but it was confusing.. The Taylor Dome data is more recent and basically shows comparable results, even with my smoothing it gets into the 70's. Any heavily smoothed data loses recency. The GISP-2 is heavily smoothed. I accept that it isn't perfect.
  8. It's the sun
    Well my model was derived empirically from IPCC data. It was pretty naïve statistically speaking, and the model wasn't without its violations of assumptions. On the other hand as the magnitude of CO2 versus solar forcing was roughly consistent with my regression model, I don't see how Ken reaches his conclusion that "is no way that the above chart could allow Solar forcing to be dominant in the first half of the 20th century" (it would be nice if Ken referred to which chart). I think he's got to get over the confirmation bias.
  9. The value of coherence in science
    Doug, thanks for the link to "How facts backfire" - a worthwhile article. (By the way, are you of Danish or Swedish background? I've never come across a Brostrom outside my family before.) A question that I have for any of the skeptics here is - What evidence would you find sufficient to change your mind about ACC? I ask because I think that our current understanding of climate is a broad, consistant, theory. What do you think is missing?
  10. Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    GC - that is good to here and we will be very interested in your report back. Please tell us who you talked to. If you get to talk to Richard Alley, then I suggest you swat up on ice-core temperature determination (eg Grootes and Stuiver and here). Just so you dont waste time. I will especially look forward you putting up a revised analysis of Alley 2000.
  11. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    #110: "You generally need to have lengthy public debates, and huge amounts of sound science on your side, to get anywhere at all." Apparently that process actually works in some places. Canada: In draft regulations introduced several months ago, Environment Canada estimated that the targets would result in new vehicles in 2016 producing 25 per cent less greenhouse gas emissions than those sold in 2008. Europe: the legislation on CO2 from passenger cars is now officially published in the form of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles. And even locally in the US: New Jersey helped mark a milestone in climate-change policy in 2008 with the launch of a 10-state program to control carbon dioxide emissions from power producers. And then there's the other side: The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing climate-change regulations under the Clean Air Act ... But it’s not even clear why such controls are needed, given questions about the validity of the scientific case for blaming global warming on fossil-fuel emissions.
  12. The value of coherence in science
    I wondered about that header graphic too Rob, thanks for confirming my suspicion. And why did he specifically choose that particular ice core? This post by Chris on another thread is helpful.
  13. The value of coherence in science
    I think TIS's example of CO2 saturation at 50 ppm is a good example of exactly what this Stephan's blog post is all about. Okay, TIS puts forth this analysis that CO2 absorption is saturated at 50 ppm. How does that square with the MUCH larger puzzle of climate? How do we get glaciation cycles? Why do we see a warming trend in the pat 30 years? What about tropospheric warming with stratospheric cooling? The onus then is upon you to provide a theory that explains all the observed phenomena better than current theory. Also, I have to state, Kler's header graphic really bothers me. On his site he states that the data comes from GISP-2. When you go to the actual GISP-2 data you find that the data ends at 0.951 thousand years before the present (95 years ago). But Kler has chosen to mark that point on his header graphic as "global warming part." John Kler. Did you make any attempt to add to that chart the current temperature trends from central Greenland since 1913? The statements you make here sound as if you are attempting to be genuine and honest in your attempts to present coherent science. But I would put to you that that the very face of your website is doing exactly the opposite. Again, providing coherence in science means presenting ALL the facts. I'll give you a little clue. I've seen the data for modern Greenland temps and I believe they are about in line with the peaks in your header graphic for 3500 years ago.
  14. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Why talk Coke, RSVP, when we can talk coal? The human world doesn't seem to be spinning in the direction you think it is. It seems more likely that, at least for the U.S., a Repub/Tea Party-oriented Congress will relax or remove law designed to regulate CO2.
  15. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    @RSVP: "On the otherhand, the categorization of CO2 as a pollutant is also hard to take serious" Not really, as excess CO2 represents a serious threat to our civilization. It is therefore quite legitimate to classify it as a pollutant.
  16. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP: What makes you so sure about where the law will end up drawing the line? Let's hope my comment is just a joke. Michael Sweet explained why your comment was silly. Saying "Hey, it could happen!" simply compounds the silliness. First, no one's talking about "banning" CO2; this is a typical denialist strawman. Second, if anyone were going to ban Coca-Cola, it would probably be the FDA, not the EPA. Third, as our modern experience with cigarettes and tetraethyl lead and CO2 shows, it's actually pretty difficult to impose regulations like these. You generally need to have lengthy public debates, and huge amounts of sound science on your side, to get anywhere at all. Comparing the regulation of CO2 to Prohibition is an interesting new rhetorical angle, but it's equally asinine. The classification of CO2 as a pollutant is based on decades of scientific data. By contrast, Prohibition was based largely on Protestant religious dogma and opportunistic jingoism, and passed largely thanks to the efforts of politically connected (and generally conservative/rural) pressure groups with a talent for public relations. I don't actually think we can draw any lesson from Prohibition in regards to the AGW debate, but if we could, I think it'd be pretty much the opposite of the one you're offering.
  17. An underwater hockey stick
    JB #85: So... contrary to your statement in #75 you DON'T have the surface temperature anomalies and CAN'T back up the claim that the Gulf of St. Lawrence has warmed more at ~400 m below sea level than at the ocean surface? You believe that warming is originating in the oceans rather than from 'back radiation' (and cite a Science of Doom thread which is in the process of debunking that view), but contrary to prior claims you do NOT have data showing ocean warming greater than surface warming. Which, as per my prior comments about the Labrador current, wouldn't prove your point in any case. "I will point out again we are talking pre mid last century(we werent really having that big of an effect, but numbers speak better than words)" That'd be the time period when increased solar irradiance was causing most of the global increases in temperature. Arctic amplification would still have come into play and thus all the objections I've raised still apply.
  18. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP, why not cut to the chase now and let truth prevail straight away? Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (PDF) (52 pp, 308K) Technical Support Document for the Findings (PDF) (210 pp, 2.5MB) It's extremely, vanishingly unlikely that you know better, but if you don't bother reading this stuff you'll never find out, will you? Certainly you won't persuade anybody with silly allusions to prohibition and soft drinks, but failing having any specific facts at your fingertips, that's all you've got.
  19. The value of coherence in science
    TIS Scientists and engineers are similar in their science background, but very different in approaching problems. As a blanket statement, this seems pretty dubious. But what concerns me more is the implication that engineers are somehow "better" at science (e.g., more practical, more realistic, or what have you). In fact, science is a group endeavor and one of its greatest strengths is the fact that when you make mistakes, or get basic facts wrong, a lot of people will let you know about it, at length and in excruciating detail. Whether you're an engineer or not, if almost all of the experts in a given field are telling you you're wrong, the solution is not to assume a conspiracy, or play the victim, but to look at your argument critically, from their standpoint, and consider in all humility whether they have some valid points. Then, you can attempt to form a coherent, informed argument that will actually satisfy their objections and win them over. In my experience, this is something that far too few "skeptics" are willing to do. As a teacher of mine once said, if you're getting results that are drastically at odds with the accepted science, there are two possibilities: 1) you're a genius who has a good shot at winning the Nobel Prize; or 2) you made a mistake somewhere. Sincere skeptics should have at least as much skepticism toward their own arguments as they do toward the consensus view, for the simple reason that the consensus view is far less likely to contain undiscovered mistakes.
  20. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    michael sweet #105 "Please limit your comments to real concerns if you want to be taken seriously. " What makes you so sure about where the law will end up drawing the line? Let's hope my comment is just a joke. On the otherhand, the categorization of CO2 as a pollutant is also hard to take serious, and yet it has gained this status. Prohibition in the US lasted 13 years until they realized they had made a mistake. Fortunately, the truth ultimately prevails.
  21. The value of coherence in science
    Speaking of Science of Doom, there was a post over there last winter that is highly relevant to this topic: New Theory Proves AGW Wrong! If, for example, you celebrate Richard Lindzen’s concept as put forward in Lindzen & Choi (2009) then you probably shouldn’t be celebrating Miskolczi’s paper. And if you celebrated either of those, you shouldn’t be celebrating Gerlich & Tscheuschner because they will be at odds with the previous ones (as far as I can tell). And if you like Roy Spencer’s work, he is at odds this all of these. [...] So, if New Theory Proves AGW Wrong is an exciting subject, you will continue to enjoy the subject for many years, because I’m sure there will be many more papers from physicists “proving” the theory wrong. However, it’s likely that if they are papers “falsifying” the foundational “greenhouse” gas effect – or radiative-convective model of the atmosphere – then probably each paper will also contradict the ones that came before and the ones that follow after.
  22. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    Yeah, that's a good analogy, katecell. Likewise, fluoride in toothpaste (protects your enamel in small quantities, toxic enough to harm a child who ate a whole tube...) I still like my phosphorus in fertilizer vs water pollution analogy, though, because (as with CO2) it focuses on the environmental impact rather than the health effects (of course too much CO2 can kill you, but that's not the issue here). Like CO2, phosphorus is necessary for plant health and growth. Like CO2, introducing too much phosphorus into the environment will lead to negative environmental impacts. The proper response is not to ban the offending substance (carbon or phosphorus) nor to keep mindlessly dumping it into the environment in unlimited quantities. The proper response is to use it sparingly where appropriate and valuable, in a sustainable and judicious manner.
  23. An underwater hockey stick
    CBDunkerson at 20:02 "Joe Blog #75: You say that you have the data showing that the surface temp anomaly is less than the ~400 m ocean temp anomaly for the Gulf of St. Lawrence" No, its a question of the physics involved. Rather conveniently Science o doom has a thread up on this very subject at the moment. Here The paper itself has been linked by doug bostrom at 17:49 PM on 2 October, 2010 This in itself isnt really a response, im a little short on time, but i will get back to you with radiative figures and aerosol figures from industry from that time when i get the time... It wasn't exactly clean burning coal plants in those days. I will point out again we are talking pre mid last century(we werent really having that big of an effect, but numbers speak better than words)
  24. The value of coherence in science
    Thanks so much for the reminder link to the "How facts backfire" article, DSL. For folks who've not read it, it's a review of scientific approaches to understanding why we're all victims of our own obduracy to a greater or lesser extent, well worth 5 minutes' time.
  25. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    As an analogy for C02, what about dietary iron? Without it we get anemia; but iron toxicity is the leading cause of poisoning deaths in children under 5. So I put the iron drops in my baby's juice every morning, and make sure they're out of his reach at all times. Just like C02, a little is essential but a lot is deadly.
  26. The value of coherence in science
    Related somewhat to Ned's remarks, climate science and the whole weird sideshow of outsider scientific "debate" around the matter of climate change seems akin to the relationship between automobiles and dogs. Here's a novelty with an eager and enthusiastic crowd of participants seemingly waiting for its arrival and bred to enjoy participating in the new activity in a way entirely secondary to its utility. Both populations do a lot of incoherent yapping but one noise source is merely irritating, while the other is of more concern. Besides number of legs and amount of fur, another difference between the two analogues is that-- other than sometimes being squashed-- canine affection for cars is benign, while the ranks of amateur, skeptic "climate scientists" happen to be messing up our ability to create public policy dealing with C02.
  27. The value of coherence in science
    Skywatcher said "I particularly like your point about questioning the intellectual honesty of skeptics who hold to a position after they have been shown time and again that their position is in blatant contradiction of the evidence." This has been posted before, I believe, but it's worth another post.
  28. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    GC @124, Lindzen was not being careful when he said that, if he indeed said that. Of course temperatures go up and down. Daily cycle, seasonal cycle, internal climate modes etc. Was the question about long-term global temperature trends? And just when is his iris effect going to kick in and manifest itself? If it has it is clearly not strong enough to be detectable in the global temperatures records (surface, radiosonde, satellite) MSU data. Sorry I am unimpressed by the lack of rigor here by Lindzen. IMHO, that statement is potentially grossly misleading (or at least has the potential to be misused) and unscientific. Very disappointing. Doug and Ned @125/126, I agree completely. It is going to be interesting to see how poorly parts of their "updated" document compares with AR5. It is sad that they were forced to kowtow to a small, vociferous element group within in the RS. But maybe not all is lost, someone I know (who is not a climate scientist) has had a look at the RS document and they still found the evidence for action compelling.... That said, it does not mean that the RS should change their document to reflect the current science and data.
  29. The value of coherence in science
    TIS, I see you have not provided a coherent alternate theory to that of AGW which explains how the warming is manifesting itself in the biosphere and upper stratosphere. This coherent response of the biosphere is an incredibly important aspect which demonstrates the robustness of the theory of AGW. Right now you have a hypothesis as to why you believe higher GHG concentrations (CO2 in particular)is an issue...as it happens it is not a unique one. Have you read Spencer Weart's Book "The Discovery of Global Warming" He provides a more thorough discussion here. TIS, not only engineers (like you) deal with complex systems and/or problems. Surely I do not need to provide a list of scientific disciplines which deal (very successfully) with complex systems and problems..... And I would caution some humility, many very qualified and intelligent people think that they have refuted the theory (not hypothesis) of AGW/ACC and failed. Unfortunately, it is robust, but if someone can make the problem of AGW and ocean "acidification" go away, that would make me very happy. Good luck.
  30. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 02:21 AM on 7 October 2010
    The value of coherence in science
    Complexity is a common engineering problem. The common approach of an engineer to a very complicated problem is to determine the parts that are important by examining each parts contribution to the whole and ignoring the parts that don't matter very much. The Earth's climate is such a problem. Feedbacks are a problem, but engineers get used to the occasional black box issues. My approach towards the climate is an engineers approach. Scientists and engineers are similar in their science background, but very different in approaching problems. I have come up with a variety of new ideas that are not yet in discussion, but they will be. In a way we have already had some success because this is turning into a discussion instead of a flame war. Little steps. :-)
    Moderator Response: As you inform us of your ideas, please carefully choose the appropriate pages on which to post those comments, by clicking the "Arguments" link in the blue horizontal bar at the top of every Skeptical Science page. But I suggest you first get an overview by clicking on the two big boxes at the top of the Home page: "Newcomers Start Here" and "The Big Picture." For example, for the topic of correlation between CO2 and temperature, please comment at There's No Correlation Between CO2 and Temperature.
  31. It's the sun
    Ken #629: "By setting the Solar forcing to zero in AD1880, when all other forcings except the volcanic aerosol (mainly from Krakatoa) are in fact zero or negligible in order to measure 'differences' ignores the fact that the actual value of the Solar forcing is in the range of 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m and ongoing since about AD1700." As has been explained to you before, a 'forcing' is a CHANGE from the baseline value. If 1880 is the baseline then BY DEFINITION the forcing in 1880 is zero. Has to be. That's what the words MEAN.
  32. The value of coherence in science
    nice ranting there Ned! I particularly like your point about questioning the intellectual honesty of skeptics who hold to a position after they have been shown time and again that their position is in blatant contradiction of the evidence. I've had arguments with a number of skeptics on a different site where I point them to papers very clearly showing their position to be in error, say, lack of empirical evidence for CO2-driven warming, or 'it's the Sun', or 'it's natural cycles/ clouds' kinds of arguments. Often I point them to articles on this excellent site where nearly all the information you could need is in one handly location! But what I have often found is that the more stubborn of these skeptics will steadfastly continue to hold their incoherent views, and will repeat the same fallacies over and over again. At that stage I wonder if they have lost the capacity to learn... @TIS: you do seem to hold incoherent views. On CO2, you could do worse than read Chris Colose's post from February "Greenhouse Effect Revisited". He specifically plots the spectrum of CO2 absorbtion effect for 50ppm, and very neatly demonstrates that the effect does not stop even though the central band becomes saturated (absorbtion line broadens after that point), and plots the spectrum for 390ppm, and even 10,000ppm. If there's further discussion of this, maybe it should move to an appropriate thread. But on topic here, TIS, now you have been shown rather strong evidence (and more at scienceofdoom) that your 50ppm claim is wrong, will you now cease holding on to that claim?
    Moderator Response: Yes, further discussion of CO2 absorption must be done on a more appropriate thread. There are several, but the most appropriate probably is "The CO2 Effect Is Saturated."
  33. The value of coherence in science
    The Inconvenient Skeptic writes: This is not the forum for a detailed view of why 50 ppm is important, but I will be putting together a simple article on it. It is based on the opacity of CO2 in its absorption bands. It could be wrong. I accept that. If I find sufficient evidence that it is, I will change my views. So far I am not convinced otherwise. Fair enough. Obviously, I haven't seen your line of reasoning to support that idea. However, I'd just caution you that there are good a priori reasons to assume that it's probably wrong.[1] Thus, while working on the article, it would probably be worth your while to step back and take an extremely skeptical approach toward your own argument. Also, not to be repetitively redundant, but if you haven't done so already, spending some time perusing Science of Doom would probably help you hone your argument. ----------------------------------- [1] An examination of the historical record would probably show that for every case where a widely held scientific consensus is overturned by the work of an outsider to that field, there are several orders of magnitude more cases where the would-be Einstein turns out to be mistaken. Thus, without knowing anything about your argument per se, from a Bayesian perspective the odds are against it.
  34. Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
    RSVP, It is distracting when you make comments like "is the EPA going to ban Coca-Cola?" Of course the EPA is not going to ban food. The EPA is concerned with large emissions of fossil carbon. Please limit your comments to real concerns if you want to be taken seriously.
  35. It's the sun
    One side note - the previous posting included a graph that only runs to 2000, not up through 2010.
  36. It's the sun
    Even more interesting in that NOAA/IPPC article you referred to, Ken, 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, Chapter 6 Paleoclimate, is this graph: What's illustrated here are the various forcings on climate, temperature reconstructions (gray bands covering uncertainty ranges on lower graph), and multiple climate model runs with and without anthropogenic forcings. Looking at the lower right of the bottom graph you can see matched color traces with/without GHG additions. It's clear that without the GHG forcings (but with the solar forcing) none of the models can match the current temperature trend. They all predict temperatures going back to levels of the early 1800's. Add the GHG forcings back in, and voila - all the models track measured temperatures fairly closely. It's not the sun.
  37. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 01:33 AM on 7 October 2010
    The value of coherence in science
    @Ned, I like your posts very much. I agree that skeptics should hold other skeptics accountable. There are coherent arguments to being a skeptic. This is not the forum for a detailed view of why 50 ppm is important, but I will be putting together a simple article on it. It is based on the opacity of CO2 in its absorption bands. It could be wrong. I accept that. If I find sufficient evidence that it is, I will change my views. So far I am not convinced otherwise. One thing I have found is that most people have very little grasp of the science behind AGW. I am very intentionally writing simpler articles first to build into more complex ones later. I do hope to have many fruitful discussions here. If I link an article I do it because that is a much easier. The level of the discussion needs to be elevated. I am hoping that we can accomplish that.
  38. It's the sun
    Ken - Thank you for that chart, it's very interesting: It also clearly shows my point. Given that the chart I linked from GISS shows deltas from 1880 (not 1750), and in agreement with your chart indicates a TSI delta over that time of ~+0.4W/m^2, while the "All other forcings" in both charts from GHG's sum to ~2W/m^w at the current time, I fail to see any disagreement in our data. The slight rise in TSI seems to be important ('tho not overwhelmingly so) in the early part of this century, warming was damped by high aerosols mid-century, and in the 70's (accompanied by the Clean Air acts and aerosol reduction) GHG forcing became the very dominant factor. Now, as regards to ...setting the Solar forcing to zero in AD1880"", Ken, you still appear to be suffering from some misapprehensions regarding what delta (anomaly) baselines are used for. The chart I linked from the CO2 is not the only driver of climate looks at deltas since 1880, while the one you linked from NOAA/IPCC (here's the article link backing that chart) looks at deltas since ~900AD. Was the climate at equilibrium in 900AD? No. Was it in equilibrium in 1880? In 1750? No and no. But we can certainly look at changes in forcings versus changes in climate, and determine from magnitude and correlation which forcing changes are the dominant drivers of the current temperatures. And, given that information, it's clear that it's not the sun driving late 20th century temperature rises. Nor, for that matter, is it a badly mis-measured TSI at the start of any of these time periods, integrated over the period, as that would show up as a monotonic temperature change over the period of mis-measure, a difference in slope between TSI and temperature. That simply isn't present; there is no unmeasured offset.
  39. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Doug, I agree completely. Somewhere along the line our educational systems are failing to help people learn how to handle scientific uncertainty. There are lots of consequences of this, but unfortunately those related to climate change are among the most pernicious.
  40. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    Yes, GC. I think I said it here earlier, the Royal Society notably fails to bother providing readers of their update with a useful education on the notion of scientific uncertainty itself. Considering that the entire reason they're revisiting the topic is what's been described as poor communications about uncertainty, that's a bit sad. It's also a shocking waste of an opportunity to use wide press notice to help the public.
  41. It's the sun
    Ken writes: the actual value of the Solar forcing is in the range of 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m and ongoing since about AD1700. "Since about 1700"? Ken, on the IPCC graph you link to, the black line is well below 0.3 until the 1930s. It never rises as high as 0.5. It also turns downward after 1975. Looking at the period since 1750 to the late 20th century, solar forcing goes from about 0.15 to 0.45. Over the same time period, GHGs go from 0 to over 2.5. So yes, solar irradiance does account for a large part of the warming from 1750 to 1900, and a smaller part of the warming from 1900 to 1940. It accounts for very little of the warming post 1940. Both KR's graph and the IPCC one you link to show this.
  42. gallopingcamel at 00:31 AM on 7 October 2010
    Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    doug_bostrom (#123), Thank you for your kind comment. You make an interesting point about Lindzen. He seems to be very careful in what he says. For example, when asked what the future holds he says the temperature "may go up or may go down". The Royal Society has adjusted its position to reflect more uncertainty too.
  43. It's the sun
    KR #623 kdkd #624 There is no way that the above chart could allow Solar forcing to be dominant in the first half of the 20th century as concluded mostly correctly by kdkd. By setting the Solar forcing to zero in AD1880, when all other forcings except the volcanic aerosol (mainly from Krakatoa) are in fact zero or negligible in order to measure 'differences' ignores the fact that the actual value of the Solar forcing is in the range of 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m and ongoing since about AD1700. See: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig613.png There is a major dip in Solar and huge Volcanic cooling around AD1815 coinciding with Tambora, but the Solar forcing curve is positive and increasing in the 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m range up to the present. If you agree that the areas under the curves represents the energy attributable to each forcing, then there is positive area under the Solar forcing curve since AD1700.
  44. gallopingcamel at 00:18 AM on 7 October 2010
    Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    Daniel Bailey (#83), Several staff members at NCDC have agreed to meet me and I expect to learn more than can be achieved through written communications. If my business takes me anywhere near Penn State I will certainly try to meet Richard Alley.
  45. Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    No need to apologize GC. We shouldn't really have to fact check everything we read. Doing a quick search for "richard lindzen nobel" and glancing at article teases etc., one could easily conclude he was a recipient. Unlike Monckton, if Lindzen's actual bio page is any guide the man himself is being very scrupulous not to convey the wrong impression, whatever his relationship w/the IPCC award may or may not be.
  46. It's the sun
    kdkd - I'll take a look at your recommended book; if it's as good as their one on genetics, which I've given or pointed out to a number of people, it should be excellent. I can certainly supply some naive if you'd like!
  47. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ken #153: "I have noticed that when an argument gets hot and running - and the counter punches are telling on the non-skeptics" So, that'd be... never? Oddly when I look at the "It's the Sun" page I don't see any comments from YOU... and comments directed TO you, such as this one, seem to have gone unanswered. Perhaps you put something up which was removed for violation of the comments policy? In any case, I think the non-existence of any posts from you on that page is a more likely explanation of a failure of people to reply than your theory that redirecting discussions to the appropriate page is an attempt to hide an inability to refute your claims.
  48. gallopingcamel at 00:01 AM on 7 October 2010
    Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
    doug_bostrom & scaddenp, You may be right about Lindzen's Nobel. I can't find specific information on the web. I got the idea from the BBC overseas service but on returning to the site today could find no reference to a Nobel prize. Next time I will do more checking. Please accept my apologies.
  49. Roger A. Wehage at 23:33 PM on 6 October 2010
    The value of coherence in science
    Ned, I like your rant. Maybe answers to some of your questions would be forthcoming if intelligent people could only answer the question of why so many intelligent people still insist that the earth is 6,000 years old, when evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming.
  50. The value of coherence in science
    Well said, Ned. You've lent coherence to a number of related thoughts sloshing around in my wetware.

Prev  2144  2145  2146  2147  2148  2149  2150  2151  2152  2153  2154  2155  2156  2157  2158  2159  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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