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  2168  2169  2170  2171  2172  2173  2174  2175  2176  2177  2178  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  Next

Comments 108751 to 108800:

  1. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    With regards to my previous post (#55), I'd like to specify I know 5 years is way too short to establish a trend. However, since it seems good enough for NETDR, then the least I could do was show him that trends are in fact positive (even if by a very small amount).
  2. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Doug I'll ask you a simple question to prove my point. What does the data (see figure 2) for the following stations show for the period 2005 through 2010? A01, A02, A10, A12, A20, A22, I03, I04, I09S, P02, P10, P17, SR03 and SR4
  3. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    @TTTM: as I stated before, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
  4. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    @doug_bostrom: damn, I just noticed that bit at the end myself. If I'd read it first, I wouldn't have taken the time to respond to him. Hey, NETDR, this isn't a political discussion site. Cut that crap.
  5. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    @NETDR: wow, so many erroneous statements in just a few sentences, I'm impressed! "So far the warming has been far below the 6 ° C rate the scientists want to use for a doubling of CO2." Climate sensitivity is estimated to be around 3C, not 6C. "Since we have had 1/3 of a doubling of CO2 we should have had more than 2 ° C warming we haven’t had this." As BP noted, it's much closer to 1/2 than 1/3. "0.7 ° C is the accepted value and less than ½ of that is from CO2 in the best case." Actually, it's closer to 0.9, and there's not indication that less than 50% of that is due to CO2. In fact, other factors (PDO, TSI, etc.) indicate we should be cooling, and yet temps have kept increasing. In any case, there is a lag before the full effect of CO2 warming is felt, so there's no reason the current warming is lower than what scientists estimate. "To get around this scientists have speculated that the ”missing heat” is stored in the oceans !" It probably is. "The problem is that since 2005 both atmosphere and the ocean have been cooling." Actually that is incorrect. Temperature trends since 2005 are positive. Furthermore, the point of this article is precisely that we're finding areas where some heat has gone that weren't being measured, and thus it's likely there are more of these. You should learn a bit more on the subject before posting such comments.
  6. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Despite all of this “the debate is over” and we should throw ten’s of trillions of dollars at the nearest politician to make it go away. Oh, brother, didn't notice that until just now. So we're not talking science, we're talking politics? Searching for "politics" the only semi-appropriate thread I find here is Why I care about climate change. If you're here because you care about politics and climate change, try that.
  7. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    For shits and giggles, here's what NOAA (who uses the same graph from Kerwin 1999) has to say: "In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."
  8. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    @CW: I didn't ask for references that summers were hotter and winters colder, but that the climate was more "extreme". You haven't provided this. You also seem to think the warming was global, but the reality is that the tropics and the southern hemisphere actually cooled. At around 30 degrees North, the effect wouldn't have merely been "smaller," it would have been negligible. As far as overall temperatures goes, these were lower, not higher. Not that this really matters, anyway; we have a pretty good idea what caused the HCO, and we know that's not what's happening today. Even if the HCO had been warmer (and it wasn't, as far as we can tell), it still wouldn't change the fact the current warming is very likely caused by a rise in atmospheric CO2. "But imagine winters were a million degrees colder" Absolute zero is −273.15°C. You can't get any colder than that (actually, you can't even get there).
  9. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Care to retract your remarks about "extrapolations," TTTM? If you can't tell the difference between "extrapolation" and what P&J did in their paper, it's not only more obviously pointless arguing with you, you also rob yourself of credibility. Meanwhile, you've also created for yourself the problem of your assertion, "The research doesn't ACTUALLY show warming at all. It assumes it." You've not shown that. Typing the words is a miniscule fraction of the effort you need to invest in lending those words worth. NETDR, interesting points, but you're slipping behind. If you can show how P&J are incorrect, you may then assert that they've not located where approximately 20% of the famous "missing heat" may reside. The point of the article is that progress appears to have been made in solving this mystery. Repeating old information does not address new results. Really, people need to roll up their sleeves and do some work here, talk less.
  10. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    Okay, if we're going to talk about sea level rise and all this stuff, Check out Bamber and Riva (2010) http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/4/1593/2010/tcd-4-1593-2010.pdf
  11. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    Look at the data Doug. Suggestions of OHC increasing from 2005 through 2010 is largely manufactured because supporting data simply doesn't exist.
  12. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    I have this analogy that I would like some help with. If a patient with a heart condition sought an opinion from a heart doctor, this would be considered normal. If this patient sought an opinion from a foot doctor, about his heart condition, the patient would seem to be, at the very least, silly if not downright stupid. But what if that foot doctor actually gave an opinion about the patient's heart condition, what is that called? Unethical? Immoral? Perhaps even illegal? Would not that foot doctor receive some kind of condemnation from the medical community? So why then, are non-experts in climate science allowed to continue to stand beside true experts as equals?
  13. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    Further to muoncounter's remarks, it's odd that some skeptics are recently touting increased convection as an easy and hopefully transparent means of somehow avoiding energy gain on the planet. Strange events such as the 9.6" of rain in 36 hours (normally 4.5" for the month) causing a historically novel flood in Bella Coola, BC last weekend may offer hints that we should not expect intensified convection to be benign, let alone a magic pathway to the stars for energy. On a grander scale than charming but tiny Bella Coola, try HowBigReally to see Pakistan's flooding this year, compared to California, USA. Tip of the hat to Skeptical Science's host country, here's Australia compared to Pakistan's rising damp.
  14. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    CW - I agree that HCO was probably warmer - that is what the IPCC report says too. However, you claimed it was more "extreme" which implies ... what? I would say the evidence was warm and more important, settled.
  15. Hockey stick is broken
    GC - I asked for specific instance of Tamino criticism for a very good reason - I wanted evidence that Tamino was defending the indefensible as your accusation implied. Which paper do you think is the definitive account of the historical record that you think so reliable? (and the answer had better not be Lamb). I'll stand by my statement that individual proxies reflect local historical record while acknowledging that combining them into a multiproxy record is difficult. Loehle is hardly criticised for excluding tree proxies - other papers have done the same - but for numerous other errors. If he had published in something other than E&E then he might got some quality feedback for improvement instead of having to publish corrections later. The problem with leaving tree proxies out is that is all you have for too periods of too many regions. Undoubted more data will help improve this situation. I would also note very small difference between Mann 2009 and latest from Ljungqvist. Is Mann still "denying" history, but Ljungqvist isnt? McIntyre would have some credibility if he actually published instead of just misleading statements and innuendo from the sidelines.
  16. Hockey stick is broken
    GC, it sounds as though you're in tacit agreement that recent observations of Arctic ice extent, loss of terrestrial ice mass in both hemispheres, globally shrinking diurnal temperature variations, lopsided extreme heat statistics, an upward trend in ocean heat content, increasing signs of intensified convection plus a lengthy list of other consistent indicators with which you are probably painfully familiar all point to a modern change in climate? These are after all recorded in superior cultural records to the instrumentally void and comparatively sparse narratives you consider to obviate proxy temperature data. Looking at your opinion from a different perspective, I'd say your endorsement of historical records bolsters the case for new and startling history being made today. Meanwhile, a differently advanced cultural heritage provides us with a plausible explanation for our present observations. The past is not necessarily prologue; we'll need to look farther back in time to seek an offset of sufficient span and power to be capable of nullifying the secular trend we appear to have started. Once we dip farther back in chronology than historical time, your faith will have to be fully invested in proxies, if you're to seek solace in anachronism.
  17. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Alden... Your graphs are way better than mine. :-)
  18. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Wow, Alden....I'm impressed. Thanks for doing all this! Very interesting (and telling).
  19. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    #15:"lack of data to support the premise that warming will drive more extreme weather events." For context, here is an interesting summary of the changing pattern of observed climate extremes during the 2nd half of the 20th century (from 2002): Observed coherent changes in climatic extremes during the second half of the twentieth century Frich et al. 2002 Coherent spatial patterns of statistically significant changes emerge, particularly an increase in warm summer nights, a decrease in the number of frost days and a decrease in intra-annual extreme temperature range. All but one of the temperature based indicators show a significant change. Indicators based on daily precipitation data show more mixed patterns of change but significant increases have been seen in the extreme amount derived from wet spells and number of heavy rainfall events. We can conclude that a significant proportion of the global land area was increasingly affected by a significant change in climatic extremes during the second half of the 20th century. ... ... for the global land areas examined, on average during the second half of the 20th century, the world has become both warmer and wetter. ... These observed changes in climatic extremes are in keeping with expected changes under enhanced greenhouse conditions.
  20. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Albatross... Thanks. Just a little reprisal from months ago when I wrote Kung-fu Climate... Even using numbers that Loehle provided for me, with his own acknowledgement that they were an apple-to-apple comparison, we see that current warming IS unprecedented. And this doesn't even account for the fact that: 1) Loehle's figures are mostly NH 2) The Hadley figures still stop over a decade ago 3) Loehle's figures are the most exaggerated of any of the reconstructions So, even with all those handicaps current warming is still more rapid and higher than any time in the past 2000 years. And, as you say Albatross, if Loehle is anything close to right that suggests a climate sensitivity that... well, we don't wanna go there, that's for sure.
  21. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    As I mentioned in my earlier comment, Loehle doesn’t provide a standardized base period for his temperature series - “All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series.” And at the end of the paper he comments, “While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in 29 year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978 to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise to the 1935 reconstructed value, the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of the 20th Century values, though the difference is not significant.” Another way to compare the two is to essentially recalibrate the reconstructed temperatures against the instrumental values. I adjusted Loehle, Ljungqvist, and HadCRU instrumental values to the base period 1850-1899. I then plotted the reconstructions with the land / land&sea instrumental values (using the same level of smoothing as the reconstructions), using global or hemispheric datasets where appropriate. Again, I’m not sure how Loehle feels vindicated:
    Moreover I wish the folks at WUWT would stop confusing the conclusion that there was a Medieval Warm Period (which there very likely was) with the separate conclusion that the recent temperature trend is rather unusual. That comes out in Loehle’s reconstruction as well. And more importantly, these graphs say nothing about whether it’s all a “natural cycle”. We have a pretty good understanding of why temperatures were warmer in the Middle Ages and why they were cooler in the Little Ice Age. We also have a really good understanding of why recent temperatures are increasing and that they will continue to do so. Let’s see what Loehle has to say in another 20 years... -Alden
  22. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Rob @20, "Am I missing something?" As far as I can tell, they (Loehle et al.) want to try and show that the current warming is not unprecedented. Their argument goes something like this "it has been as warm before and it is mostly natural cycles driving changes in global SATs". So, it seems, that they wish to try and detract people from the big elephant in the room, the blade. Their argument also ignores the fact that the blade is only going to get longer as the radiative forcing from increasing GHG concentrations increases. Also, the MWP and LIA are both indications that climate sensitivity is not as low as the "skeptics" would like think, b/c fairly large temperature departures in the past were invoked with very little forcing. Never mind that the inconvenient fact that temperatures are already much warmer than (reliable reconstructions indicate) for the MWP.
  23. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    GC, [edit] Moreover, as can be seem for all to see here, Figure 2 above shows the Mann08 reconstruction, which has a very distinct MWP and LIA. Yet you insist on harping on about a 12-year old paper. Why? In case you have not noticed it is 2010 GC, the science has advanced and moved on, might I suggest that you do too...
    Moderator Response: Response to edited content was cut
  24. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    People will have to pardon me if this is a silly question. Is there supposed to be something inherently profound about exactly what shape the hockey stick is? I keep getting this sense that Loehle is just pissed that Mann's original hockey stick graph was straight and he thinks it should have bends in it. He seems to go out of his way to try to make his own hockey stick (with hidden blade) as exaggeratedly bent as possible. But still, I keep coming back to the fact that what makes the hockey stick a hockey stick is the blade. Current warming. (We sure ain't playing Lacrosse here.) Loehle can tie the handle up in knots for all I care, it just seems to me that what is important is that current warming is unprecedented no matter how many crooks the handle has. Am I missing something?
  25. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    fydijkstra @22, You are making deductions using data over too short a period of time to be of statistical significance, and have not supported why you chose 2005. I could take those SL data (you should actually be using the data with both the inverse barometer correction, and with seasonal signal removed), and could argue that the rate of increase from 2007 until present is 3.3 mm/yr, which is above the long-term trend of +3.2 mm/yr. See the CSIRO site . So focusing on short-term trends does not make sense-- b/c the data are so noisy one can select short windows of time to support whatever point of view you wish to make. The CSIRO also state that: "This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century."
  26. The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
    archiesteel, the orbital forcing of the HCO ( fairly well understood and calculable ) gave some 50 W/m^2 more sunshine at the TOA for the Arctic during summer, and some 15 W/m^2 less sunshine TOA for the Arctic winter. Similar, though smaller changes also occurred at lower latitudes, including around 30 degrees North where the Mesopotamian settlements were founded. Knowledge of temperatures is all from proxy, and less certain than the solar orbital forcing which is pretty solid. Still, the Arctic is analyzed to have been significantly warmer during the HCO than it is today: Now, this pertains only to the Northern Hemisphere. But that's where the Mesopotamian civilization was. Interestingly, there was quite a bit of Arctic ice melt with this period, but not Greenland. (not the high interior anyway). Also, it is interesting that winters were colder and summers were hotter. Overall temperatures were somewhat higher (summers were disproportionately hotter). But imagine winters were a million degrees colder, and also summers were a million degrees hotter. The average annual anomaly would be zero. But it would be a deadly zero. Sometimes, the average doesn't much.
  27. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ned, Good post! Way better than my comment on "Is the Hockey Stick Broken" but I do have some quibbles. You say: "It's worth noting that all the reconstructions show the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and 20th-century warming (though Loehle 2008 only runs through 1935)." This is clearly not the case as Mann's original Hockey Stick denied both the MWP and the LIA. [edit]
    Moderator Response: Insinuations of ill intentions are not welcome. Next time the entire post will be deleted.
  28. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    CBDunkerson: "One issue with the Wu analysis is that if significantly less ice has melted than previously thought then we have a bigger problem explaining the observed sea level rise. Any decrease in ice loss must be made up by increased expansion due to heating." The sea level rise can be explained very well from the gradual rise in temperature and the moderate ice loss from Greenland. Wu's suggestion that the Greenland ice loss is far less than was assumed so far is in perfect agreement with the fact, that there is no significant change in sea level rise. Contrary to popular claims the sea level rise is not accelerating. From 1993 to 2010 the sea level rose 2.7 mm/year. From 2005 to 2010 it was only 2 mm/year. These data can be checked here.
  29. Hockey stick is broken
    scaddenp & Co., With regard to Tamino, I have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than to say that I find "Climate Audit" more plausible than "Open Mind". The Tamino/McIntyre spat has turned into a cottage industry and good luck to both of them. Statisticians are like economists; if you put them all "End-to-End" they still won't reach agreement. The point I am trying to make is that if studies defy the historical record it is the studies that must be thrown out. Mann and his myriad supporters still insist that history be ignored but it is a battle they must ultimately lose. They should be ashamed for defending the indefensible. The post above and recent events support me. Take a look at Figure 1 that started it all. About 850 years with tiny variations and a very gentle decline followed by a rapid temperature rise. No sign of the MWP or LIA. Move on to Figure 2 that is almost identical to Figure 1. Shame on Wahl-Ammann! Still no sign of the MWP or LIA. The tiny variations are totally implausible when you consider the extreme weather events that occurred during the last 1,000 years such as the hot, dry summers around 1540 that caused major rivers in Europe to dry up. On the other extreme, the river Thames in London froze over on 24 occasions from 1408 to 1814. If you have not seen the following link before, enjoy! http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1000_1099.htm Recently, the "Climate Science" community has begun to realize that their credibility has been ruined by historians so growing number of paleo-climate reconstructions show historical events as in Figure 6 (Mann 2008). Here, the MWP and LIA can be seen as minor excursions. What would happen if one left out the tree ring data? Here is a paper by Loehle with the answer: http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 This 2000 year reconstruction shows temperature excursions greater than 1 degree Kelvin and Medieval temperatures higher than 2010. Loehle has been demonized by establishment scientists such as Schmidt and Mann; nevertheless there are still folks like Ljungqvist who can produce similar results even with tree ring proxies included: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/ljungqvist2010/ljungqvist2010.txt Climate science needs to stop muddying the waters by creating multi-proxy analyses that include even one proxy that fails the acid test of being consistent with history/archeology. Few if any tree ring proxies would survive and some other proxies might fail the cut too. The Ljungqvist paper covers 2000 years with decadal resolution using proxies located from 30N to 81N. It therefore covers the non-tropical northern hemisphere over recent historical times. The amplitude of temperature variations is 0.9 degrees compared to 3.3 degrees in Richard Alley's ice cores. However, global warming (or global cooling) should be much more pronounced at high latitudes (the central Greenland site was at 73N). When one overlays the temperature variations in Loehle 2007, Ljungqvist 2010 and Alley 2000 the historical features such as "Dark ages", MWP and LIA all show up in the right places so these analyses have some credibility, unlike MBH 98 et seq. apeescape, I read all those links (@43). Methinks they protest too much. Gavin in particular is beginning to sound a little desperate. He is paid to do what he does but he is not winning hearts or minds.
  30. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Robert Way writes: Isn't Moberg 2005 only NH? Argh, you're right of course. And while I could edit the text of the post, the "global" label is burned into the graphic of Figure 2. Well, I'll have to fix that... Anyway, thanks for pointing it out.
  31. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Zeke, looks like we had basically the same idea at the same time, right down to showing both land-only and land/ocean instrumental temperatures ... Although it looks like we used different approaches for centering the series. Zeke's lineup is more similar to Tamino's. This doesn't affect the amplitude of the reconstructions (e.g., the difference between the MPW peak and LIA trough) but it does make a difference in terms of comparison to current (instrumental) temperatures.
  32. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Rob, By Loehle making this rather bizarre statement he is placing the CA team in a rather awkward position. If CA audit Ljungqvist 2010 and find substantial errors which call into question the validity of Ljungqvist's analysis, then Loehle, by his own words, has not been vindicated. If the CA team audit Ljungqvist and find that the results stand, then others here and elsewhere have shown that Ljungqvist 2010 vindicates Mann and Moberg, not Loehle. In fact they show Loehle to be an outlier. What a pickle people sometimes get themselves into when they try and spin things. I can only imagine what a mess the thread is over at WUWT. One can only hope that some saner voices are trying to politely point out the huge problems with Loehle's assertion.
  33. The Asymmetric War on Climate Change: No Cause for Alarmism?
    doug_bostrom... That is pretty close, in which case, what was the public reaction to this report? Could this have anything to do with the real estate crisis? (Imagine a scam based on something this.) On the other hand, I remember hearing about the old man that lived on Mt. St. Helens, who just stayed there till it blew, and others that did not abandon the area until the very last minute, exhibiting how truely optimistic people can be, even with all kinds of warnings from scientists. Speaking of down the alley... you wouldnt be from the South Bay? Only asking per description of tragic accident you describe above...sounds very familiar.
  34. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    #50 NETDR at 04:10 AM on 29 September, 2010 we have had 1/3 of a doubling of CO2 No. Pre-industrial CO2 level is assumed to be 280 ppmv, while currently we are around 390 ppmv. log2(390/280) ~ 0.478 That is 47.8%, bit more than 1/3.
  35. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Very nice analysis, Ned!
  36. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    It seems to me that Dr Loehle has committed a "high-sticking" foul in this hockey game. Albatross... (If I can allowed to mix my metaphors a bit.) Yes, I think they've got egg on their face but if you go over to the comments section there you find it's more than that. They're having a massive egg party! Egg is all over the place!
  37. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Zeke, excellent work as always. Kudos to Alden too. Rather than vindicating Loehle, it shows his reconstruction to be an outlier. This incident is (or should be) leaving Loehle and Watts with egg over their faces, again. Could someone in the know here please confirm whether or not M&M have actually put together or published a temperature reconstruction that could be compared with the above reconstructions? Thanks.
  38. Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
    The Rignot & Kanagaratnum paper cited in the OP is 2006, not 2007.
  39. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Beat me to it Ned! http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-proxy-reconstructions/
  40. A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
    Argus, it's *always* fortunate when there is empirical data against which we can test *any* theory. If his theory were correct, Svensmark would be fortunate that the data exists to confirm it.
  41. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Isn't Moberg 2005 only NH?
  42. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Good post, Ned. Wow - I'm amazed (or not) that Loehle has jumped on this as vindication. However, I believe that Loehle's temperature anomalies are relative to the mean of each entire series. This means that they are conveniently impossible to compare to recent instrumental temperature observations. So, I'm not sure that the Loehle dataset can be properly included included in Figure 2 here (maybe I’m missing something?). Basically, Loehle's reconstruction tells us what we already know - that temperatures were warmer 1000 years ago than 400 years ago. But he provides no real possibility to compare past temperatures to current values, although he seems happy to make speculative conclusions about the matter. Also RealClimate has a good discussion about many of the problems in Loehle's 2007 analysis. Ljungqvist's reconstructed temperatures are relative to the same base period as the HadCRU instrumental temps. For what it's worth, Figure 1 by Ned is easy to recreate and clearly shows that Ljungqvist's reconstruction is in agreement with the conclusion that recent temperatures are anomalously high compared the last thousand years (I was actually working on this before I read this post – Tamino got me interested): -Alden
  43. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
    So far the warming has been far below the 6 ° C rate the scientists want to use for a doubling of CO2. Since we have had 1/3 of a doubling of CO2 we should have had more than 2 ° C warming we haven’t had this. [.7 ° C is the accepted value and less than ½ of that is from CO2 in the best case.] . To get around this scientists have speculated that the ”missing heat” is stored in the oceans ! The problem is that since 2005 both atmosphere and the ocean have been cooling. . http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ . Some have SPECULATED that the missing heat may be in the deep parts of the ocean but since they haven’t measured to test this speculation they don’t know. This article claims to have found 20 % of it. . The most important and ignored part of the missing heat controversy is when the heat will return. ? The surface area of the ocean is several orders of magnitude greater than the slight polar warming the article seems to find. When will the missing heat return to the surface where it can cause substantial warming ? . Since we are only speculating where the heat has gone and have only speculation about how it got there how can we predict how long it will be until it returns ? Answer: We can’t ! We have a theory of CAGW which DEPENDS upon the “missing heat ” returning in the next 100 years and we don’t know where the heat is and don’t know if or when it will return. Since we cannot find it we cannot measure it so we don’t know much of it exists. . Despite all of this “the debate is over” and we should throw ten’s of trillions of dollars at the nearest politician to make it go away.
  44. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    The most extended while reasonably calm and polite (by general blog standards) discussion of M&W I've seen is at DeepClimate M&W seems a variation of "post in haste, repent at leisure." There is some discussion here at Skeptical Science, on the Is the hockey stick broken thread.
  45. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    I haven't had the time to really delve into M&W. I see a lot of discussion of it elsewhere. We should probably have a post about it here.
  46. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ned, Have you thought about including M&M2005 and/or M&W2010 for comparison? Much to my surprise, I have not been able to find a figure for M&M's temperature reconstruction. Did they even produce one which could be compared with the above?
  47. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Doug writes: That's an useful analysis pulled together in a very short time, Ned. Thank you, Doug. I hope this will not turn out to be a case of "post in haste, repent at leisure" ...
  48. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Albatross, here's what Ljunqvist says about recent temperatures in the paper: The temperature since AD 1990 is, however, possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia if we look at the CRUTEM3+HadSST2 90–30°N instrumental temperature data (Brohan et al. 2006; Rayner et al. 2006) spliced to the proxy reconstruction. The proxy reconstruction itself does not show such an unprecedented warming but we must consider that only a few records used in the reconstruction extend into the 1990s. Nevertheless, a very cautious interpretation of the level of warmth since AD 1990 compared to that of the peak warming during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period is strongly suggested.
  49. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Between this and the Tamino item, looks as though vindication is forestalled indefinitely. That's an useful analysis pulled together in a very short time, Ned.
  50. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    Ljungqvist's reconstruction vindicates Mann and Moberg of course, but that has not stopped Loehle from spinning this paper. So currently NH land-surface temperatures (as per CRU) are about 1 C warmer than they were during the much touted MWP. That is impressive Fantastic post Ned! Thanks.

Prev  2168  2169  2170  2171  2172  2173  2174  2175  2176  2177  2178  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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